Absolutely.I'm absolutely behind protection of the press, it's the cornerstone of democracy. But at what point do they lose that protection? Some news services have become little more than rumor mongers. When key information is left out of a story so that it fits a political agenda, that's no longer a free press, and shouldn't enjoy any protection under the law. I don't care which networks that brings down.
Yes. They were too eager to get a story posted before everyone and their grandmothers find out about it through social media.The press has rightfully received criticism for its handling of this story. They jumped the gun based off an incomplete, viral false narrative that is an affirmation of certain biases. The only explanations are malicious intent, negligence or incompetence.
Sounds like Fox's daily MO. They would be way more vulnerable. See post #1318.I'm fairly certain Sandmann will win it. If a newspaper can post your picture and write all kinds of nasty implications without using your name, is that OK? Can they do that to anyone and everyone with impunity?
Regardless, rushing is not an illegal motive.Yes. They were too eager to get a story posted before everyone and their grandmothers find out about it through social media.
Competing with viral / misrepresented stories on social media without due diligence is ruining journalism.
This is beyond hyperbole. It's a pretty clear-cut case of irresponsible journalism bordering on malice.
So there should be no consequence for posting your picture along with a string of ruinous easily-disproven allegations?Do you have evidence for malice? If you do I'm sure the kid's attorney would love to get into contact with you. As I have told others though you should be pretty careful with ascribing malice to the Post unless you have evidence as under the standard you're trying to apply to them you're getting yourself close to an actionable case of defamation and if one kid's reputation is worth $250 million the Post will be able to ring you up for a couple billion.
As for 'irresponsible journalism' if you think that's the case that's fine but that is not at all the same thing as defamation and it is absolutely not something someone should win a lawsuit over. It's not hyperbole, it's a pretty obvious result from this sort of standard being applied. If any time a newspaper gets something wrong in this way it can be sued out of business then wealthy actors and bad actors will have an easy avenue to destroy any news outlet that crosses them. I for one would fight tooth and nail to avoid living in that sort of world.
Defamation is the outcome, I offered three scenarios to explain what enabled it.Criticizing their handling of a story and saying they engaged in defamation are two EXTREMELY different things. You accused them of defamation, are you retracting that?
Why it garnered national attention is the entire issue.The other obvious explanation is that news stories which garner significant national attention demand reporting even if information is incomplete. This is common sense.
So there should be no consequence for posting your picture along with a string of ruinous easily-disproven allegations?
Defamation is the outcome, I offered three scenarios to explain what enabled it.
Why it garnered national attention is the entire issue.
So there should be no consequence for posting your picture along with a string of ruinous easily-disproven allegations?
The media enabled a narrative in the absence of fact and should be held liable for their rush to judgmentDefamation is not the outcome as defamation requires a statement of fact.
The press does not have the freedom to advance the confirmation biases of echo chambers.Nope, it sure isn't.
Eagerly awaiting a response.
The media enabled a narrative in the absence of fact and should be held liable for their rush to judgment
The press does not have the freedom to advance the confirmation biases of echo chambers.
If you were truly being honest on this subject, you would withdraw any criticism of Fox News.
The media enabled a narrative in the absence of fact and should be held liable for their rush to judgment
The press does not have the freedom to advance the confirmation biases of echo chambers.
If you were truly being honest on this subject, you would withdraw any criticism of Fox News.
You realize defamation requires a statement of fact, right?
...except he wasn't. The poster was sharing legal commentary from a Quebec lawyer who has been following the case and summed up the biggest development ("lawsuit against WaPo is happening after all"). The lawyer is not a "third rate, right wing YouTube blowhard going on and on about the piteous plight of some teen-age twerp in a Trump hat."
No matter how you "rate" him, he's not "right wing" and he doesn't go on and on about some "teen-age twerp." It's literally been months since he last talked about Sandmann. He only made another video about it when there was something significant/new to discuss from a legal perspective... and this development was certainly significant news that could benefit from a lawyer's explanation (exactly what his channel exists for).
He's a vlogger who "vLAWgs" about law. Like LegalEagle, he's just a lawyer who publicly provides legal perspective on current events, Twitter trolls, the legality of what we see in movies/TV, and many others. It's literally been months since he talked about Sandmann. Other current events he's talked about since then: Everything from Jussie Smollett to the college admissions scandal to PewDiePie's retracted donation promise to Brexit to Canadian elections to... -well, I have to end this somewhere but the list goes on and on. Point is, more than half his content is legal stuff about YouTube, Facebook, Brexit, and cases in Canada as opposed to US politics. It simply isn't political commentary. It's legal commentary.
Even when he is discussing US politics, it's as legal commentary and not political commentary (Tulsi Gabbard suing Google as the latest example). How anyone could call him a political blow hard is beyond me. One only needs to pick a video at random to know that's not who he is.
It's shameful, really.
Sorry, Perk. It really is. I feel empathetic shame (cringe) for your obliviousness.
This is beyond hyperbole. It's a pretty clear-cut case of irresponsible journalism bordering on malice.
ROFLMFAO
Regardless of their intentions, their direct actions resulting in defamation that was false. You should be responsible for those actions.
I'm sure you can find plenty of their news anchors talking smack about the kids directly, so we aren't just talking about a media article that they can retract/apologize for.
What the MAGA teen seems to be complaining about are conclusions the reporter drew from the contents of the video but those conclusions are clearly first amendment protected opinions and not defamatory statements of fact.
You realize defamation requires a statement of fact, right?
If anyone wants a sane forum to post/debate on, can we please get rid of garbage posts like this? We get it, you can't debate but you disagree with a post so you just make a statement as if their post is funny to you. It's pretty sad.
In a word, fascinating.
Also, nope. Did not know that. The idea that a paper / media may lawfully smear someone... without recourse? Did not know they could do that to private individuals.
problem is he's not a US lawyer and US law (and kentucky law, for that matter, because it's substantively a kentucky case, though with strong first amendment flair and federal procedure being used) isn't the same as quebec law. he's offering his non-expert opinion and people are treating it like he knows what he's talking about. he doesn't.Someone that tends to lean conservative posted a YouTube video and/or article - therefore, the ithas zero credibili--- I DONT CARE IF HES A LAWYER HE IS STILL Hitler/Stalin/Third Reich/Xenophobic/Homophobic/<insert other cliche ironic terms>