Covington high school student files 250 million lawsuit against Washington Post

[TLK Valentine]

You remember that Fox news lawsuit that was dismissed because they argued they had no requirement to be honest?

No expectation, either.

 

[USincognito]

I look at what people say before making a call. Your postings are definitely more liberal than moderate. The evidence is there when the vast majority of of the things you say lean left.

If that is your perception, so be it. That said, I am not the topic of the thread so let's drop this sidebar.

 

[Pommer]

I look at what people say before making a call. Your postings are definitely more liberal than moderate. The evidence is there when the vast majority of of the things you say lean left.

Tsk, the whole “left—right paradigm” is moot.
We are at the beginning stages of an Authoritarian—libertarian shift...your “usual allies” will shift and deal making can benefit all; but “small government conservatism” is dead.

 

[rjs330]

You remember that Fox news lawsuit that was dismissed because they argued they had no requirement to be honest?

No I don't and that may work as precedence in the Covington case.

 

[rjs330]

Great -- now, show malice on the part of the press before you hand out 9-figure reparation.



Didn't the government have enough evidence of malice to get a conviction? No? Doesn't sound all that special to me.



Judged by whom? The court of public opinion?

I guess they are trying to show malice. We'll see what happens.

The government had enough evidence to put forth charges and chose not to.

Tried in the press. Here is one headline and article. Viral Video Shows Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Surrounding Native Elder

I could find more.

 

[Belk]

No I don't and that may work as precedence in the Covington case.

After some looking it appears I was the victim of a Facebook meme. Never mind my comment, I'm afraid it is not relevant.

 

[rjs330]

Great -- now, show malice on the part of the press before you hand out 9-figure reparation.



Didn't the government have enough evidence of malice to get a conviction? No? Doesn't sound all that special to me.



Judged by whom? The court of public opinion?

I guess that's the point of the lawsuits. We'll see what happens.

Judged by the press.
Covington high school students are the latest victims of fake news - The Chimes

The CNN link shows it well. The words used by the reporter are pretty condemning. There was no investigation done into the incident by the press. I could provide more if necessary.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No I don't and that may work as precedence in the Covington case.

The fact that the media is not required to be honest works against Covington... thank you FoxNews.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I guess they are trying to show malice. We'll see what happens.

Most likely the WaPo will toss a little money at Covington's lawyer to make him go away.

The government had enough evidence to put forth charges and chose not to.

But did they have enough to get a conviction?

Tried in the press. Here is one headline and article. Viral Video Shows Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Surrounding Native Elder

I could find more.

I wasn't aware of any "trial." But I rarely see "persecution" or "crucifixion" by the big, bad media, either. Guess I'm not sufficiently paranoid.

Feel like getting lunch at Comet Ping Pong?

 

[SimplyMe]

I guess they are trying to show malice. We'll see what happens.

The government had enough evidence to put forth charges and chose not to.

At least you believe the "government had enough evidence," though I'm guessing you don't have a law degree and haven't actually seen the evidence. Beyond that, there is no "chose not to," per se, as the government could still chose to file charges (at least until the statute of limitations is up). I think it says a lot, about whether Clinton actually broke the law, that two years into Trump's administration -- with a Justice Department headed by Trump and an Attorney General he appointed, and despite promises he'd "lock her up," that no charges have been filed.

Tried in the press. Here is one headline and article. Viral Video Shows Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Surrounding Native Elder

I could find more.

Sorry, I'm not seeing any claims by the New York Times in that article they printed. In fact, their narrative seems pretty neutral. There are claims made by other that they quoted but nothing I see that they reported inaccurately, particularly based on what was known at the time (realizing it took a few days before someone posted the full video). While you could claim it was one sided, realize also that the students were unavailable for comment (since they were traveling back to Kentucky) and even their school, at that point (and who likely had teachers and staff traveling with the boys that could get the full story) still believed that the boys would need to be punished for their actions (see the quote from the school in the article).

 

[SimplyMe]

I guess that's the point of the lawsuits. We'll see what happens.

Judged by the press.
Covington high school students are the latest victims of fake news - The Chimes

The CNN link shows it well. The words used by the reporter are pretty condemning. There was no investigation done into the incident by the press. I could provide more if necessary.

I'm sorry, what "words used by the reporter" do you feel are so condemning -- and from which source? I'm guessing you are talking about the quoted sentence, that your linked article quotes, from CNN -- “Nathan Phillips, an elder with the Omaha tribe, said the confrontation felt like ‘hate unbridled.’” But, if you notice the quotes -- the "hate unbridled" was not from the author; it is in quotes because that comment was a direct quote from Nathan Phillips.

What I see, from what has been linked, is neutral reporting with some of the witnesses and participants making the "condemning" comments. As I noted before, the full video had yet to come out and the students were unavailable for comment, so they were reporting and getting quotes from those people that were available.

Now, sure, if you want to get upset because of what people Tweeted, then that is a different issue. You can argue they were tried in the "court of public opinion," which was largely social media. From what I've seen, though, the press tried to do what was right -- they tried to tell the story neutrally based on the facts and witnesses that were available at the time.

 

[rjs330]

I'm sorry, what "words used by the reporter" do you feel are so condemning -- and from which source? I'm guessing you are talking about the quoted sentence, that your linked article quotes, from CNN -- “Nathan Phillips, an elder with the Omaha tribe, said the confrontation felt like ‘hate unbridled.’” But, if you notice the quotes -- the "hate unbridled" was not from the author; it is in quotes because that comment was a direct quote from Nathan Phillips.

What I see, from what has been linked, is neutral reporting with some of the witnesses and participants making the "condemning" comments. As I noted before, the full video had yet to come out and the students were unavailable for comment, so they were reporting and getting quotes from those people that were available.

Now, sure, if you want to get upset because of what people Tweeted, then that is a different issue. You can argue they were tried in the "court of public opinion," which was largely social media. From what I've seen, though, the press tried to do what was right -- they tried to tell the story neutrally based on the facts and witnesses that were available at the time.

Watch the video. It's pretty clear by the words she used that they we're really slamming the kid. They didn't do their due diligence to confirm the story. Sadly the news doesn't do much of that any more. They take just a snippet of a video and an interview with someone as gospel. Don't forget many of the news outlets backed off on their comments after the whole story came out.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Watch the video. It's pretty clear by the words she used that they we're really slamming the kid. They didn't do their due diligence to confirm the story. Sadly the news doesn't do much of that any more. They take just a snippet of a video and an interview with someone as gospel. Don't forget many of the news outlets backed off on their comments after the whole story came out.

Make you a deal: Sandmann gets as much from the Washington Post as David Hogg gets from FoxNews -- even swap.

 

[rjs330]

Make you a deal: Sandmann gets as much from the Washington Post as David Hogg gets from FoxNews -- even swap.

Two different things. Hogg is sending out a message about gun control. There really isn't any need for due diligence to confirm any story. Hogg is giving an opinion of a political point. It would be like someone going around saying we don't believe in the fourth amendment and think it needs to be changed and the press saying they think the person is full of baloney. Completely different scenario.

No the case with Sandmann is about making someone look like a racist and condemning his behavior for something that turns out to be completely false. How would you feel if you were watching a gay pride parade with your friends and a gay person walked up to you and stood a few inches from your face and played a trumpet then yelled a bunch of stuff in Chinese that you didn't understand. You just stood there looking at him and smile. The next thing you know he's on television accusing you of surrounding him and blocking his path and everyone in the press is accusing you and making it sound like you hate gay people. Now you are receiving hate mail and death threats even though you did nothing.

If you can't see the difference between the two then I'm afraid our conversation is going nowhere.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Two different things. Hogg is sending out a message about gun control.

And has been deliberately targeted, vilified, and slandered by FoxNews as a result. No misunderstanding, no screwups, nothing but clear, unadulterated, deliberate malice on the part of FoxNews to counter his message by smearing the messenger.

You're right -- they are different. Hogg has a stronger case than Sandmann ever will.

I withdraw my offer -- whatever Sandmann gets, Hogg deserves triple.

 

[SimplyMe]

Two different things. Hogg is sending out a message about gun control. There really isn't any need for due diligence to confirm any story. Hogg is giving an opinion of a political point. It would be like someone going around saying we don't believe in the fourth amendment and think it needs to be changed and the press saying they think the person is full of baloney. Completely different scenario.

No the case with Sandmann is about making someone look like a racist and condemning his behavior for something that turns out to be completely false. How would you feel if you were watching a gay pride parade with your friends and a gay person walked up to you and stood a few inches from your face and played a trumpet then yelled a bunch of stuff in Chinese that you didn't understand. You just stood there looking at him and smile. The next thing you know he's on television accusing you of surrounding him and blocking his path and everyone in the press is accusing you and making it sound like you hate gay people. Now you are receiving hate mail and death threats even though you did nothing.

If you can't see the difference between the two then I'm afraid our conversation is going nowhere.

From what your saying, Sandmann should be suing Nathan Phillips, not the Washington Post, and possibly his school (for saying the students were wrong and not allowing the students to respond). The Post, CNN, and others were merely reporting on the facts available at the time -- and what Nathan Phillips told them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

From what your saying, Sandmann should be suing Nathan Phillips, not the Washington Post, and possibly his school (for saying the students were wrong and not allowing the students to respond). The Post, CNN, and others were merely reporting on the facts available at the time -- and what Nathan Phillips told them.

Nathan's Phillips doesn't have $250 million. What's the point of claiming pain and suffering if you can't cash in on it?

 

[USincognito]

Watch the video. It's pretty clear by the words she used that they we're really slamming the kid. They didn't do their due diligence to confirm the story. Sadly the news doesn't do much of that any more. They take just a snippet of a video and an interview with someone as gospel. Don't forget many of the news outlets backed off on their comments after the whole story came out.

Considering the out of context garbage that have become perpetual Conservative talking points this complaint is ringing ever more hollow.

 

[Go Braves]

I'm glad the suit was dismissed.