Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by abradley, Jan 8, 2020.
Nowadays? Remember the Maine.
No. I think so. Why do you think they are?
Also please speak English. The term is forbidden. I'd hate to have to forward your post to I.C.E. for talking like a terrorist border jumper.
How intolerant of you
Eh, we still use verboten to crack wise about being five generations deep off the boat. At this point it has basically nothing to do with anything resembling German Germans and everything to do with the prairie German temperament, which probably had about everything to do with pre-electricity farming.
I love my great-grandfather's accounting ledger mom found the other year. Page after page after page of very tidy rows. The back cover had one note out of place. Date: Electricity run to barns. It was a good day.
This is cute. You would have to cite specific examples of journalists violating these ethics. Something tells me this would be harder to do in the way you desire.
No one could possibly be trusted to adjudicate this, neither side trusts anyone anyways.
If anything journalists have been way too courteous to this administration.
I wouldn't accept $1.
However much they paid him is probably more than they made off sensationalist stories about him.
They didn't fight off anything, they paid the kid off so he'd stop bothering them & because they figured they could only lose worse if the case went to trial (both monetarily & in the public eye).
Well, the very topic of this thread would be one such example. CNN as an organization pretty much violated every single one of those ethics just on this one action.
Okay, but no one is talking about the administration right now. We are talking about how several major media companies attempted to destroy a child simply because they didn't like the hat he was wearing. The fact that it happened once is enough to justify an increasingly regulated press to keep it from happening again.
It's not that hard either. All you have to do is have a law that says media companies must either declare themselves to be journalistic in nature or not. And if they declare themselves to be a journalistic organization, then they can only report verified facts about any given story. No more opinion shows or pundits to "interpret" things on the air. If they don't want those restrictions, then they can choose to declare themselves as non-journalistic organizations. However, doing so means they wouldn't be considered part of "the press" and wouldn't be entitled to the same rights and privileges journalistic organizations get. Large media companies also would not be able to own both types of organizations. All of their subsidiaries would either have to be completely journalistic or completely non-journalistic.
The idea of course being to separate opinion from news. To make sure people are only getting the facts so they can form their own opinion and get people like Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon off the air.
Did journalists do that? Or pundits? I get that this line gets blurry on some of them, but is Anderson Cooper doing journalism on his show or is he a pundit? Is talking about the story that the viral video generated slandering him?
Looking back at it now they shouldn't have gone on about the story. As I recall though those kids where there for a pro life trip? Why were there videos of Sandman's group running around taunting Trump protesters? What does that have to do with abortion? There were not any good actors here. He became a hero for the right so I would not rule in his favor as a jurist.
Anyways your standard would basically ban fox news as journalism at all and you still have the problem of who decides the facts. Trump administration is a post fact administration.
A very important reason for settling ... Discovery:
The thing is there's no evidence they taunted anyone. They were the ones being taunted, with some very extreme language, by a bizarre and ultra-racist sect called Black Hebrew Israelites. They reacted to this by chanting school chants. By all accounts they did not reply to the homophobic and racist insults being throw at them in similar fashion.
The old Indian guy however immediately assumed that it was the white kids taunting the Black Hebrew whatevers, as this is how the narrative is in the US nowadays. So he went towards them and begun beating his drum righ in their faces quite provocatively. The kids stood their ground but again there's no evidence that they insulted him and much less used any racist terms. The old Indian dude then proceeded to lie through his teeth about the incident (and indeed he has a long record of lying and making stuff up, such as his made up status as a Vietnam Viet, and plenty of made up accusations of racism). Among other things he said the mob of teenagers surrounded him and blocked him, when it's clear from footage that he walked towards them and wouldn't move away. But of course the media and the SJW virtual lynch mobs took the words of this known liar as gospel, without bothering to fact-check anything he said.
But the American media of course jumped on this as if the kids were Klansmen, using highly edited and selected footage and not bothering to check what really happened, resulting in gigantic amounts of abuse and death threats, even from celebrities, journalists and elected representatives (!!).
I certainly don't view the kids as heroes as they didnt do anything heroic. But they're victims of the current idiocy running amok in the USA. They're are the victims of blood thirsty, puritan SJWs and of a lazy, equally puritanical media infested with idiotic journalists. So I would award them huge compensation, because unlike so many people that sue in the US, they were actually unjustly harmed to a very high degree.
Be careful what you wish for. In jurisdictions with much stronger defamation laws (such as Australia, or much more perniciously, Singapore), there can be a substantial chilling effect. There's a balance to be struck.
Overall I agree though that America's defamation laws sometimes seem ludicrously lax, and I often see people engage in actionable defamation, only really protected by the location of their assets.
Nathan Phillips walked up to a strange kid and spent a few minutes banging his drum right next to his face and he thinks the kid owes him an apology
Well he also claimed on multiple occasions to be a Vietnam Vet and that he was insulted and spat on by white racists when he came back from Nam. Except of course he never went to Vietnam to begin with. But the media still took his made up story about the kids harassing him as the absolute truth, despite it being quite easy to fact check.
The guy is clearly a pathological lier but the media never bothered to check anything before treating him as modern day Gandhi.
Bit late to this, but the kid was hired PR by his parents and willingly subsequently engaged with the media for the sake of spectacle, so.
What? He engaged with the media after he was vilified by the national press and elected representatives and received loads of death threats and racist abuse. All because of something he didn't do. So.
I'm actually referencing a separate event altogether that happened before the infamous event. The point being that this pro life group was behaving badly generally.
If you watch the video in this story you will see a bunch of kids who are supposed to be there for a pro life march acting terribly. I'm ashamed of these kids generally. This is not how Catholic's on a pro life march should be behaving.
If you watch this footage, focusing especially on the way Sandmann interacted with Phillips, you can see why it instantly captured national attention. A bunch of white kids joining in Native chants is problematic to begin with; doing it in a heated moment, with one of the boys up in a Native elder’s face, creates an even more disturbing impression on first viewing.
But the thing that took this to the next level, that elevated it to the level of all-consuming national controversy, was the MAGA hats.
I'm not sure why CNN settled. I would not have, after re watching the video I'm reminded why I was annoyed in the first place.
I mean he was part of a group that acted like complete dicks while supposedly marching for a political stance. I would not have settled this case. Fox news doesn't care when they ramp up the death threat numbers on Ilhan Omar like they are doing this week.
you sure it was not all the people saying they should be fed to a wood chipper or that they should be in their school when it was burnt down...
thats what I call all consuming next level... not teenagers wearing a hat
A hat synonymous with bigotry.
They settled because they outright lied about what happened. They didn't provoke the old Indian, they didn't surround him, they didn't walk towards him. And, you know, everything he told them was a lie and they took it at face value without any fact checking whatsoever, which is the minimum required of a news organization. As a result of their lies and bad reporting, at least one of the kids had his named dragged through the mud, was the victim of abuse and death threats including from celebrities and politicians.
Separate names with a comma.