This is the article in question: https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rolli...

"Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed."

So, according to Siegel, Rolling Stone had information that the raid was not related to Meek's journalism. That first sentence is a lie.

"Appears," "no one can say for certain," "a riddle," "documents [...] remain sealed."

So they're not technically lying but are using weasel words to try to heavily imply a narrative?

And yet, the editor was willing to run that classified material had been found on his computer from those same sources and lead the reader to the conclusion he was targeted for national security reasons. Leaving out what has been reported to you as part of an effort to twist the narrative doesn't deserve slack.

Fair point.

I would argue that the general public does not give a single shit about the latest individual being accused of vague national security drama on any given day. A reporter possessed classified material on his personal laptop? Someone wake the President!

...oh, wait. The President's kid possessed classified material on his personal laptop too.

There's nothing really defamatory about it; if anything it might help his career. Nobody gives a shit about victimless white-collar crimes.

But child porn? You're radioactive once painted. That accusation causes actual damages.

Was Rolling Stone sued for defamation for accurately reporting what an FBI affidavit said?