Nick Sandmann case against NBC goes to Discovery Phase

[EvMetro]

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

Pogo, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I see the merit in what you say about the need to wait for clarification. Not enough people vet their news and propaganda before believing what is said, and the media are used to exploiting this problem.

Would you agree that it would do a lot of harm to an innocent child if the media were to wrongly present him to the world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation?

Sure.

Would we also agree that it would to a lot of harm to legitimate news media to characterize them as "fake news" and "slanderous" when they did no such thing?

This is probably where lefties and righties go separate ways. To righties, it appears that the lefty media failed to make it clear that the kid was an innocent child who did not initiate a racial confrontation, but DID present him as an evil race baiter who initiated a racial attack. We can see that the media exploited their viewers in order to advance lefty agenda. To us, it appears that the media knew good and well that they were exploiting this child for political gain

 

[daveman]

As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nickolas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery...

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...

Let6 hope Nick's lawyers can SCALP THE FUCKING LYING PEACOCK!!!

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

Your long period of pouting is over.

NBC Doubles Down on ‘Racist’ Smear for Teens, Ignores Death Threats

Predictably, you will claim NBC's actions are harmless.

This is why I keep saying, Reading is fun-DUH-mental.

You may not know this but I get Brent Bozo's MRC droppings in my email, have for years. They're hilarious.

Let's have a look under the hood. Want to?

In the link behind the link their evidence quotes NBC thusly:

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday.... <<​

In the interest of reading comprehension let's run that back with the crucial words highlighted. Ready?

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday... <<
​

Did you catch it? Was it too subtle?

Now class, WHO is doing the calling here? Is it ---- NBC?




Shall we continue?

>> Kentucky high school students accused of mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips... <<​

"Accused" by ------------ who?

If this is having trouble seeping in, here's what it would have looked like if the TV network had asserted it. Ready?

"Kentucky high school students were mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips..."​

WOW. Words mean stuff huh??

And then immediately after this part the Brent Bozo writer LITERALLY writes:

>> Allen singled out junior Nick Sandmann by seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything.... <<​

Get that? The subjective "It seems to me he's suggesting" wants to grow up to be "NBC SAID".

FUCK outta here.

Oooh, you sure do get pissy when people don't think what you tell them to think. You'd think you'd be used to it by now.

We'll see what happens at trial. Have you got an excuse teed up if Sandmann wins?

 

[daveman]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

I'll assume this comment if directed at the OP.

The First Amendment doesn't protect libel and defamation.

If you named him in your comment and called him an inbred...he could sue you for libel. And you would lose. Just like the Washington Post is going to lose. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

News media knows how to make suggestions that the willingly-led are all too eager to follow.

Or I guess you're just going to pretend the death threats didn't happen...?

 

[Ame®icano]

Read more at twitter.com ...

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

 

[Pogo]

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

Pogo, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I see the merit in what you say about the need to wait for clarification. Not enough people vet their news and propaganda before believing what is said, and the media are used to exploiting this problem.

Would you agree that it would do a lot of harm to an innocent child if the media were to wrongly present him to the world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation?

Sure.

Would we also agree that it would to a lot of harm to legitimate news media to characterize them as "fake news" and "slanderous" when they did no such thing?

This is probably where lefties and righties go separate ways. To righties, it appears that the lefty media failed to make it clear that the kid was an innocent child who did not initiate a racial confrontation, but DID present him as an evil race baiter who initiated a racial attack. We can see that the media exploited their viewers in order to advance lefty agenda. To us, it appears that the media knew good and well that they were exploiting this child for political gain

This ^^ presumes that an event is presented "as" something. "As" an evil race baiter, "as" a victim, etc. Those are value judgment conclusions and as such not a part of what News is. In actual news --- as opposed to antisocial media buzz or talking head commentary --- there is no "as". There's just bland neutral reporting of facts: who, what, where when. Once we waft off to the "why" we've left the domain of journalism and entered that of commentary. But objective news simply reads the script; it doesn't put the actors in costumes.

Or to put it another way, you can predict that it's going to rain in the late afternoon but you can't start whining about how that's going to mess your hair up.

Bottom line I believe what these various hairs-on-fire have done is conflated the latter (commentary) with the former (News). And that's why they have yet to find any.

As for the last line of your post, media has nothing to gain from political points. Media (commercial media) makes its fortunes through advertising. As I keep pointing out in the Media forums, no media entity ever made a dime from ideology or agendas. They make many a dime from cultivating attention, which is in fact why they would have ever even given a silly story like this a glance at all --- it's emotional bait.

 

[Pogo]

Interestingly I laid out a challenge right here, last January, for anyone to show any evidence of this alleged defamation --- from NBC or from anywhere else in the so-called "mainstream media", including any and every entity in his McConnell-subsidized silly lawsuit.

Doubly interestingly I have yet to get even a single example of any such evidence in response.

Literally not one.

By the way how's that Sean Spicer "lawsuit" coming, speaking of frivolous legalistic posturing? Anything yet? Anything at all?

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

Your long period of pouting is over.

NBC Doubles Down on ‘Racist’ Smear for Teens, Ignores Death Threats

Predictably, you will claim NBC's actions are harmless.

This is why I keep saying, Reading is fun-DUH-mental.

You may not know this but I get Brent Bozo's MRC droppings in my email, have for years. They're hilarious.

Let's have a look under the hood. Want to?

In the link behind the link their evidence quotes NBC thusly:

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday.... <<​

In the interest of reading comprehension let's run that back with the crucial words highlighted. Ready?

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday... <<
​

Did you catch it? Was it too subtle?

Now class, WHO is doing the calling here? Is it ---- NBC?




Shall we continue?

>> Kentucky high school students accused of mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips... <<​

"Accused" by ------------ who?

If this is having trouble seeping in, here's what it would have looked like if the TV network had asserted it. Ready?

"Kentucky high school students were mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips..."​

WOW. Words mean stuff huh??

And then immediately after this part the Brent Bozo writer LITERALLY writes:

>> Allen singled out junior Nick Sandmann by seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything.... <<​

Get that? The subjective "It seems to me he's suggesting" wants to grow up to be "NBC SAID".

FUCK outta here.

Oooh, you sure do get pissy when people don't think what you tell them to think. You'd think you'd be used to it by now.

We'll see what happens at trial. Have you got an excuse teed up if Sandmann wins?

I deconstructed what you tried to claim was evidence of libelous declarative-sentence assertion.

It ain't, and I showed you why it ain't. Want some more pronouns?

 

[Pogo]

Okay, there were multiple threads at the time, last mid-January. It may take some searching by now but I'll see what I can find.

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

Commenting on a video is not libel or defamation. Or else people would be getting sued and losing left and right. Especially your hero dotard.

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

News media knows how to make suggestions that the willingly-led are all too eager to follow.

Or I guess you're just going to pretend the death threats didn't happen...?

Feel free to link us to "the networks" making death threats. Oughta be a hoot.

As far as what leaps the unwashed make without a basis to do so, that's on them, isn't it.

See, this is exactly why I keep busting all them "TruePundit" bullshit posts where some wanker reads a headline, salivates, and rushes to get it out to the innerwebs yea that everyone may hear ye hear ye, and they never took the time to read their own source to find out that it was absolute fiction. That's EXACTLY why I do that.

 

[Pogo]

Read more at twitter.com ...

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

 

[daveman]

You choose to defend these assholes because you're an asshole. The defamation was clear to see after the full video was made available to the various media outlets who then instead of saying we are sorry continued to push their lying agenda. Normal people know what these assholes did. And so do you, but you're an asshole too.

If it were so "clear" it should be a no-brainer to just post it, shouldn't it.

I've been waiting to see it since last January. And still waiting.

Your long period of pouting is over.

NBC Doubles Down on ‘Racist’ Smear for Teens, Ignores Death Threats

Predictably, you will claim NBC's actions are harmless.

This is why I keep saying, Reading is fun-DUH-mental.

You may not know this but I get Brent Bozo's MRC droppings in my email, have for years. They're hilarious.

Let's have a look under the hood. Want to?

In the link behind the link their evidence quotes NBC thusly:

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday.... <<​

In the interest of reading comprehension let's run that back with the crucial words highlighted. Ready?

>> “A troubling scene many are calling racist, played out in Washington yesterday... <<
​

Did you catch it? Was it too subtle?

Now class, WHO is doing the calling here? Is it ---- NBC?




Shall we continue?

>> Kentucky high school students accused of mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips... <<​

"Accused" by ------------ who?

If this is having trouble seeping in, here's what it would have looked like if the TV network had asserted it. Ready?

"Kentucky high school students were mocking Native American elder Nathan Phillips..."​

WOW. Words mean stuff huh??

And then immediately after this part the Brent Bozo writer LITERALLY writes:

>> Allen singled out junior Nick Sandmann by seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything.... <<​

Get that? The subjective "It seems to me he's suggesting" wants to grow up to be "NBC SAID".

FUCK outta here.

Oooh, you sure do get pissy when people don't think what you tell them to think. You'd think you'd be used to it by now.

We'll see what happens at trial. Have you got an excuse teed up if Sandmann wins?

I deconstructed what you tried to claim was evidence of libelous declarative-sentence assertion.

It ain't, and I showed you why it ain't. Want some more pronouns?

No, Pogo, I will not validate your ridiculous bigotries. It's pathetic that you insist I should.

 

[daveman]

No problem, I just want to respond in the most appropriate and relevant thread. I jumped the gun with one question in post 52.

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

And the WaPo didn't "comment" on it anyway. They simply reported what witnesses said about the event.

That's what the suit's exhibits all point to --- QUOTES from people who were there describing what they saw.

Last summer Sean Spicer's attorney tried to make grunting noises about the same thing, threatening to "sue" the Associated Press for passing on a story (not even their original story) about a heckler who came into a Spicer book signing and accused him of racism. Which is also a fact, it happened and it's fully on video. Spicer's attack dog started spewing about how he was going to "sue" AP for passing that on. Needles to say, he never did. Because he can't.

These fascist assholes can whine and stomp their feet all they like but you can't just "sue" people for accurately reporting what someone said. Period.

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

News media knows how to make suggestions that the willingly-led are all too eager to follow.

Or I guess you're just going to pretend the death threats didn't happen...?

Feel free to link us to "the networks" making death threats. Oughta be a hoot.

As far as what leaps the unwashed make without a basis to do so, that's on them, isn't it.

See, this is exactly why I keep busting all them "TruePundit" bullshit posts where some wanker reads a headline, salivates, and rushes to get it out to the innerwebs yea that everyone may hear ye hear ye, and they never took the time to read their own source to find out that it was absolute fiction. That's EXACTLY why I do that.

I never claimed the networks made death threats. Could you at least make an effort to be honest? I know it's out of character.

 

[pismoe]

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

Pogo, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I see the merit in what you say about the need to wait for clarification. Not enough people vet their news and propaganda before believing what is said, and the media are used to exploiting this problem.

Would you agree that it would do a lot of harm to an innocent child if the media were to wrongly present him to the world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation?

Sure.

Would we also agree that it would to a lot of harm to legitimate news media to characterize them as "fake news" and "slanderous" when they did no such thing?

This is probably where lefties and righties go separate ways. To righties, it appears that the lefty media failed to make it clear that the kid was an innocent child who did not initiate a racial confrontation, but DID present him as an evil race baiter who initiated a racial attack. We can see that the media exploited their viewers in order to advance lefty agenda. To us, it appears that the media knew good and well that they were exploiting this child for political gain

-------------------------------------------------------------- kid Sandman stood his ground and the lefties didm't like that , ------------- good for Sandman , just a comment .

 

[Pogo]

Found a thread where the libel suit had started and I believe at least part of it was linked so it could be read.

My post 20 here sums up where I was/am.

Post 30 of the same thread fleshes out the reference to a fake Sean Spicer suit:

And then post 40 from the same thread, from a poster on the other side of the issue, put it lucidly and I agree with this:

>> "Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation. Those essential components of a defamation claim are fairly straightforward. "


Defamation of Character Lawsuits: Proving Actual Harm

I'd say...if the articles are written with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to" and "appeared"...the Washington Post wouldn't be getting sued.

As soon as they claimed one time in a statement that something definitively happened that didn't...they are guilty of defamation.

Just like the Smollett Hoax...they thought this was a slam dunk. It fit the narrative they intentionally project. I think this time it is going to bite them in the ass...and their wallet.

Not sure what "Smollett Hoax" refers to but I think he nailed the criterion right on the head (emphasis added).

It is of course, common, everyday, basic Journalism 101 to couch events in "allegedly" and "claimed" and "according to..." for exactly that reason. It appears to be a fading practice to actually read those words intentionally placed there.

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

News media knows how to make suggestions that the willingly-led are all too eager to follow.

Or I guess you're just going to pretend the death threats didn't happen...?

Feel free to link us to "the networks" making death threats. Oughta be a hoot.

As far as what leaps the unwashed make without a basis to do so, that's on them, isn't it.

See, this is exactly why I keep busting all them "TruePundit" bullshit posts where some wanker reads a headline, salivates, and rushes to get it out to the innerwebs yea that everyone may hear ye hear ye, and they never took the time to read their own source to find out that it was absolute fiction. That's EXACTLY why I do that.

I never claimed the networks made death threats. Could you at least make an effort to be honest? I know it's out of character.

What's the topic here?

 

[The Purge]

Read more at twitter.com ...

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

 

[Pogo]

Read more at twitter.com ...

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

Actually we should ignore everything anybody puts out on Tweeter. What the fuck good is it?

It CLEARLY is not a "News" source since any jerkweed anywhere can Twit up anything he wants, no vetting, no editor, no fact check, no verification, no nuttin'.

 

[The Purge]

Read more at twitter.com ...

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

Actually we should ignore everything anybody puts out on Tweeter. What the fuck good is it?

It CLEARLY is not a "News" source since any jerkweed anywhere can Twit up anything he wants, no vetting, no editor, no fact check, no verification, no nuttin'.

But FAKE NEWS ABC, NBC, CNN, ALL PROVED TO BE BIASED AND LIE YOU BELIEVE....OMG!...ROTFLMFAO!!

 

[Pogo]

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

Actually we should ignore everything anybody puts out on Tweeter. What the fuck good is it?

It CLEARLY is not a "News" source since any jerkweed anywhere can Twit up anything he wants, no vetting, no editor, no fact check, no verification, no nuttin'.

But FAKE NEWS ABC, NBC, CNN, ALL PROVED TO BE BIASED AND LIE YOU BELIEVE....OMG!...ROTFLMFAO!!

That isn't even an English sentence but the entities listed ALL have editors, vetters, and journalism standards.

TWEETER DOES NOT.

 

[The Purge]

Thinks Tweeter is a source

By the way you DO know no lawsuit can even begin without Discovery, right? And you think that's a "prediction"?

Or do you think it's going to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel?

Here ya go, I "predict" the sun is about to set in the west. Watch, I'll do it in a few minutes.

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

Actually we should ignore everything anybody puts out on Tweeter. What the fuck good is it?

It CLEARLY is not a "News" source since any jerkweed anywhere can Twit up anything he wants, no vetting, no editor, no fact check, no verification, no nuttin'.

But FAKE NEWS ABC, NBC, CNN, ALL PROVED TO BE BIASED AND LIE YOU BELIEVE....OMG!...ROTFLMFAO!!

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

Actually we should ignore everything anybody puts out on Tweeter. What the fuck good is it?

It CLEARLY is not a "News" source since any jerkweed anywhere can Twit up anything he wants, no vetting, no editor, no fact check, no verification, no nuttin'.

But FAKE NEWS ABC, NBC, CNN, ALL PROVED TO BE BIASED AND LIE YOU BELIEVE....OMG!...ROTFLMFAO!!

That isn't even an English sentence but the entities listed ALL have editors, vetters, and journalism standards.

TWEETER DOES NOT.

Oh Wogo....twitter NOT A SOURCE...HILARIOUS!

Chuck Schumer Inadvertently outed Vindman as the Chief Whistleblower on Twitter.

OOPS! Looks Like Senator "Cryin' Chuck" Schumer Just Inadvertently OUTED One of Schiff's Whistleblowers!

Twitter

Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer

LTC Alexander Vindman and whistleblowers like him are patriots.

They are standing up for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend.

They don’t deserve these disgraceful attacks, and they must be protected from reprisals.
4:27 PM · Nov 22, 2019

SOUNDS LIKE THAT WILL COME UP AT FURTHER HEARINGS!

 

[pismoe]

If is not on CNN or MSNBC, it's not news, right?

But twitter is not the source, the lawyer who represent Sandmann is.

Bottom line, source doesn't matter, the news does.

READ the post. He cites TWEETER for a source. You can read it even if you don't click it.

SMH

You mean we should ignore anything the Obomanation puts out on twitter....because we all know how much "Obamacare will save you $2500 a year, AND you can keep your doctor" lies having said that HOW MANY TIMES?....Wog is so easy but amusing in a special needs way!

Actually we should ignore everything anybody puts out on Tweeter. What the fuck good is it?

It CLEARLY is not a "News" source since any jerkweed anywhere can Twit up anything he wants, no vetting, no editor, no fact check, no verification, no nuttin'.

But FAKE NEWS ABC, NBC, CNN, ALL PROVED TO BE BIASED AND LIE YOU BELIEVE....OMG!...ROTFLMFAO!!

That isn't even an English sentence but the entities listed ALL have editors, vetters, and journalism standards.

TWEETER DOES NOT.

------------------------------------------ although I don't use 'tewitter' or any of that stuff it is a good method of communication same as this here message board is good . Mostly HINTS about what is going on in the world is / are provided . After the HINTS its up to the good reader to do some follow up for info if he is interested . Vetters , editors and other 'jouralism' EMPLOYEES working for money to produce BS are of No use if a person can read Pogo .

 

[HenryBHough]

Pity that there is no capital punishment for slander.

 

[EvMetro]

I understand less about your challenge now than I did before. I had the impression that you were simply looking for evidence that various msm sources did harm to Nick with their biased and dishonest reporting.

I don't fully understand your challenge, but I know it would be VERY harmful to the innocent Catholic minor to be wrongly presented to the entire world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation. If the msm presented him to the world as initiating a racial confrontation without making it clear that he is only an innocent catholic minor who did not initiate it, they would do this child a LOT of harm.

Actually it looks like you understood it exactly. To sum it up it's been alleged that "NBC" or "Washington Post" or "the networks" (or whoever applies) defamed the boy with false reporting. So I asked the board, last January, to show any evidence where they did so. Links, videos, screenshots, whatever. I have still received nothing in response. There were responses but nothing showing any actual such evidence. As noted above there were reports of quotes, "this person said this, that person said that". There were subjective interpretations. But I have yet to see any news medium issuing false declarative-sentence statements that could be basis for libel. Not a one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, but after ten months on a board that will willingly scrape up anything no matter how specious, it sure doesn't make much of a case. And if some report could be found, the fact that it took ten months or more to dig up strongly indicates it wasn't influential anyway.

And as also previously noted the recent suit (I think it involved WaPo) was dismissed exactly for that reason --- lack of any evidence.

What's going on at base here is that some people are conflating what they perceive was being said, with what was actually being said. Feelings over facts. And of course most of this indistinct snarling, if not all of it, came from antisocial media, Nosebook et al, which as one of today's links noted, killed the account that posted misleading videos that led to it, which seems like due diligence.

To winnow it down even further this is basically a lot of wags frothing at the mouth over suggestions made in the blogosphere, and then blaming news media for their own froth instead of themselves for said frothing. Jumping to conclusions while failing to ask questions or wait for clarifications. News media knows full well not to do that.

Pogo, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I see the merit in what you say about the need to wait for clarification. Not enough people vet their news and propaganda before believing what is said, and the media are used to exploiting this problem.

Would you agree that it would do a lot of harm to an innocent child if the media were to wrongly present him to the world as somebody who initiated a racial confrontation?

Sure.

Would we also agree that it would to a lot of harm to legitimate news media to characterize them as "fake news" and "slanderous" when they did no such thing?

This is probably where lefties and righties go separate ways. To righties, it appears that the lefty media failed to make it clear that the kid was an innocent child who did not initiate a racial confrontation, but DID present him as an evil race baiter who initiated a racial attack. We can see that the media exploited their viewers in order to advance lefty agenda. To us, it appears that the media knew good and well that they were exploiting this child for political gain

This ^^ presumes that an event is presented "as" something. "As" an evil race baiter, "as" a victim, etc. Those are value judgment conclusions and as such not a part of what News is. In actual news --- as opposed to antisocial media buzz or talking head commentary --- there is no "as". There's just bland neutral reporting of facts: who, what, where when. Once we waft off to the "why" we've left the domain of journalism and entered that of commentary. But objective news simply reads the script; it doesn't put the actors in costumes.

Or to put it another way, you can predict that it's going to rain in the late afternoon but you can't start whining about how that's going to mess your hair up.

Bottom line I believe what these various hairs-on-fire have done is conflated the latter (commentary) with the former (News). And that's why they have yet to find any.

As for the last line of your post, media has nothing to gain from political points. Media (commercial media) makes its fortunes through advertising. As I keep pointing out in the Media forums, no media entity ever made a dime from ideology or agendas. They make many a dime from cultivating attention, which is in fact why they would have ever even given a silly story like this a glance at all --- it's emotional bait.

If the msm had vetted the story the way a news journalist does they would have known that they would have known that their story as it was presented would be fake news and harmful to a child. Sure, viewers can believe what they want to, but that does not excuse the msm from being accountable for hiding the relevant facts. The story went viral and the msm made the money on the story, but they owe something big to the child that they harmed when they tried to sell that fake news story.