united-states civil-law libel
When can you avoid libel by preceding a false statement with &quot;Sources say&quot; or &quot;I heard&quot;?
<p>Suppose the New York Times writes "Sources say the celebrity John Doe raped his daughter"
and they truly found two anonymous people (i.e., two sources) beforehand with that claim.</p>

<p>How responsible is the company in civil court if the claim is false?</p>

<p>Of course, the company will lose readers as its reputation for finding good
sources falls, but I'm wondering how egregious of a statement would be permitted
before New York civil law would punish it further.</p>

<p>I assume the company would have civil liability if they knew the claim was false and simply had knowingly found two liars, right?</p>

<p>But, if the company had the tiniest suspicion of truth, are they instead protected from libel?  It seems the news is quite free to propagate rumors, so
I'd like to know the limit.  Are there precedents of libel like this where the
publisher never actually lied?</p>

<p>For a public figure in <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a>, the standard is <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice" rel="nofollow noreferrer">actual malice</a>: “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” <em>New York Times Co. v. Sullivan</em>, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)</p>

<p>A newspaper can be negligent in checking its information, but it can’t be reckless. It would be reckless for a newspaper to publish a claim that I made about person X without them verifying that I actually know person X, could have actual knowledge of the claim and could provide reasonable support for my claim  <em>if</em> they are going to attribute me as a “source” because the word implies that I know what I’m talking about. If they are going to use my name, then they are not providing any truth weight of their own.</p>
