Tom Pappert, lead reporter at The Tennessee Star, argued that The Atlantic’s heavy reliance on more than two dozen anonymous sources in its reporting on FBI Director Kash Patel represents a serious breach of journalistic standards and could expose the publication to significant legal risk in an ongoing defamation lawsuit.
Speaking Friday on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show, Pappert argued that The Atlantic’s significant reliance on anonymous sources in its piece that led to Patel filing a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the publication undermines established reporting standards.
“Every single style guide that you’ll ever come across from a professional, serious media outlet that isn’t essentially like a gossip magazine…says that you should keep anonymous sourcing rare, and save it for individuals who may be facing retribution who may have their life put in danger if they go on the record,” Pappert explained.
Beyond journalistic concerns, Pappert outlined the legal framework surrounding Patel’s $250 million defamation lawsuit against the magazine.
He pointed to the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove that false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.
“And whether the newspaper, the journalists were operating with the actual disregard to hurt Kash Patel’s reputational character… another court case tells us through reckless disregard through the truth,” Pappert explained.
He noted that if the case proceeds past early dismissal stages, Patel’s legal team could gain access to internal communications at The Atlantic.
“Patel has the potential to be able to go through all sorts of private communications… their group chats, their internal memos, et cetera, because he says his lawyer sent a four page document breaking down and rejecting 19 claims to the Atlantic article that they had just totally ignored before publication,” Pappert said, adding that such discovery could reveal how the story was developed and whether contradictory evidence was ignored.
Pappert also criticized comments made by Atlantic reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick during a podcast appearance, where she reiterated and expanded on the claims.
“This seems to be like every one of these liberal publications wants to be NPR… this is the Atlantic live action role playing as an NPR show,” he quipped.
He further argued that Fitzpatrick may have complicated the outlet’s legal position by introducing new allegations publicly.
“She actually added new details. She said specifically that Patel has been a lousy, stinking drunk since before he was ever nominated,” Pappert stated. “I think that Patel is going to wind up being able to bring in new resources… to his lawsuit as a result.”
Pappert contrasted those claims with prior on-the-record statements from Clint Brown, who worked closely with Patel during his confirmation process and denied witnessing any such behavior.
Discussing the broader legal outlook, Pappert suggested the case could pressure the publication into a settlement.
“I think…you could very easily see a settlement and an apology come out of this,” he said. “I don’t think this is going to make it to court. If it does, Patel is going to have a field day.”
He added that even if the case faces setbacks in lower courts, appeals are common in defamation cases involving public figures.
“The fact that a public figure has to appeal their defamation lawsuit is certainly not unheard of… and it certainly would not be unheard of if it makes it to the Supreme Court,” Pappert said.
Tune in now to The Michael Patrick Leahy Show – your AMERICA FIRST news talk!
– Watch LIVE here on X
– Watch LIVE on YouTube / Rumble / Roku / AppleTV
– Listen on Spotify
– Listen on WENO AM760 in Nashville
– Read more at @TheTNStarhttps://t.co/RCucIk8lCT— Michael Patrick Leahy (@michaelpleahy) April 24, 2026
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.
