Nick Sandmann case against NBC goes to Discovery Phase

[daveman]

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?

Good grief, are you lost again?

Somebody lead little Pogo by the hand. I'm tired of it.

 

[daveman]

The Left hates Trump using Twitter because he uses it to speak directly to the American people. The leftist media can no longer "interpret" for us what the President says.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Good grief, are you lost again?

Somebody lead little Pogo by the hand. I'm tired of it.

uh HUH. So you think "NBC" in the title stands for Nabisco Baking Company?

 

[Pogo]

The Left hates Trump using Twitter because he uses it to speak directly to the American people. The leftist media can no longer "interpret" for us what the President says.

Tweeter Just the idea of it is laughable.

As I always say, if a wrecker is for wrecks, what's Twitter for?

 

[rightwinger]

All of Sandman’s other lawsuits crashed and burned

This one will be no different

 

[daveman]

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?

Good grief, are you lost again?

Somebody lead little Pogo by the hand. I'm tired of it.

uh HUH. So you think "NBC" in the title stands for Nabisco Baking Company?

Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas, but you're dumb.

You claimed I said the networks were making death threats. That is categorically false. When I pointed that out to you, you weaseled out of acknowledging your intentional lie.

And Nabisco is an acronym for the National Biscuit Company. NBC does not stand for National Biscuit Company Baking Company.

Dumbass.

 

[daveman]

The Left hates Trump using Twitter because he uses it to speak directly to the American people. The leftist media can no longer "interpret" for us what the President says.

Tweeter Just the idea of it is laughable.

As I always say, if a wrecker is for wrecks, what's Twitter for?

Who cares what you always say?

 

[rightwinger]

Sandmann is suing the media for reporting that he is a little shit?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Good grief, are you lost again?

Somebody lead little Pogo by the hand. I'm tired of it.

uh HUH. So you think "NBC" in the title stands for Nabisco Baking Company?

Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas, but you're dumb.

You claimed I said the networks were making death threats. That is categorically false. When I pointed that out to you, you weaseled out of acknowledging your intentional lie.

And Nabisco is an acronym for the National Biscuit Company. NBC does not stand for National Biscuit Company Baking Company.

Dumbass.

Then it must stand for something else, MUSTN'T IT.

Cheeses Christ on a Cracker I all but steered the barge of your brain into paydirt and you still don't get it.

 

[hadit]

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.

Well, duh. NBC and the other long-term media outlets are well versed in how to push a narrative while not venturing into libel and slander territory. Simply say, "many are calling" the scene racist and DON'T say, "many others are saying there is no racism in the scene", and at all costs avoid, "We are calling" the scene racist. Note that there were no voices in the same story analyzing the adult's behavior. No, the focus was completely on the faux outrage at the child.

Then say, students were "accused of mocking", instead of saying that the adult was "accused of getting in a child's face", and at all costs avoid saying, "We also are accusing" the student of mocking.

Then say someone is blaming the child by "seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything" while of course avoiding quoting any other observer who "seemingly suggested the adult was the one who started everything".

That's how you push an untrue narrative while avoiding technically slandering or libeling anyone.

 

[Pogo]

Sandman is suing the media for reporting that he is a little shit?

For allegedly reporting that he is a little shit.

That's the key. If anybody can find them actually doing that, he's got a case. Ten months in however ---- nothing.

 

[Polishprince]

Sandman is suing the media for reporting that he is a little shit?

Basically speaking,yes.

It isn't a proper news story for a news network to report their negative opinions about private citizens- particularly when the information they are basing their opinions in false and misleading.

 

[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.

Well, duh. NBC and the other long-term media outlets are well versed in how to push a narrative while not venturing into libel and slander territory. Simply say, "many are calling" the scene racist and DON'T say, "many others are saying there is no racism in the scene", and at all costs avoid, "We are calling" the scene racist. Note that there were no voices in the same story analyzing the adult's behavior. No, the focus was completely on the faux outrage at the child.

Then say, students were "accused of mocking", instead of saying that the adult was "accused of getting in a child's face", and at all costs avoid saying, "We also are accusing" the student of mocking.

Then say someone is blaming the child by "seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything" while of course avoiding quoting any other observer who "seemingly suggested the adult was the one who started everything".

That's correct, they all know what language can be used and what language can't. As I keep pointing out, that's basic Journalism 101.

But as far as inferences, that's up to the reader/the listener/the viewer. That's the receiver's responsibility. We can sit here and declare they "avoided" this or that but that is entirely subjective. They also "avoided" divulging the correct ignition timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic inch engine and a 4-barrel carburetor. We can't blame somebody else for what we inferred from what they just told us.

The Mitch McConnell lawyer team's task is to find anywhere the WaPo, the NBC, whoever, came out and made the declarative statement of something that didn't happen, and did so knowingly. It would not appear they can do that. Therefore all of this is circus.

 

[Pogo]

The Left hates Trump using Twitter because he uses it to speak directly to the American people. The leftist media can no longer "interpret" for us what the President says.

Tweeter Just the idea of it is laughable.

As I always say, if a wrecker is for wrecks, what's Twitter for?

Who cares what you always say?

Apparently you do, for every time I post you're there humping my leg.

 

[hadit]

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.

Well, duh. NBC and the other long-term media outlets are well versed in how to push a narrative while not venturing into libel and slander territory. Simply say, "many are calling" the scene racist and DON'T say, "many others are saying there is no racism in the scene", and at all costs avoid, "We are calling" the scene racist. Note that there were no voices in the same story analyzing the adult's behavior. No, the focus was completely on the faux outrage at the child.

Then say, students were "accused of mocking", instead of saying that the adult was "accused of getting in a child's face", and at all costs avoid saying, "We also are accusing" the student of mocking.

Then say someone is blaming the child by "seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything" while of course avoiding quoting any other observer who "seemingly suggested the adult was the one who started everything".

That's correct, they all know what language can be used and what language can't. As I keep pointing out, that's basic Journalism 101.

But as far as inferences, that's up to the reader/the listener/the viewer. That's the receiver's responsibility. We can sit here and declare they "avoided" this or that but that is entirely subjective. They also "avoided" divulging the correct ignition timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic inch engine and a 4-barrel carburetor.

The Mitch McConnell lawyer team's task is to find anywhere the WaPo, the NBC, whoever, came out and made the declarative statement of something that didn't happen, and did so knowingly. It would not appear they can do that. Therefore all of this is circus.

In this case, the actions of the adult were CERTAINLY germane to the story, and they were ignored, While not going to end with the major media outlets financially damaged, this IS useful for once again putting on display their incredibly obvious bias. They have a narrative they're pushing and shouldn't try to hide behind the "journalism" facade.

At least we don't have to pretend that they were in any way attempting to actually report on what happened.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Well, duh. NBC and the other long-term media outlets are well versed in how to push a narrative while not venturing into libel and slander territory. Simply say, "many are calling" the scene racist and DON'T say, "many others are saying there is no racism in the scene", and at all costs avoid, "We are calling" the scene racist. Note that there were no voices in the same story analyzing the adult's behavior. No, the focus was completely on the faux outrage at the child.

Then say, students were "accused of mocking", instead of saying that the adult was "accused of getting in a child's face", and at all costs avoid saying, "We also are accusing" the student of mocking.

Then say someone is blaming the child by "seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything" while of course avoiding quoting any other observer who "seemingly suggested the adult was the one who started everything".

That's correct, they all know what language can be used and what language can't. As I keep pointing out, that's basic Journalism 101.

But as far as inferences, that's up to the reader/the listener/the viewer. That's the receiver's responsibility. We can sit here and declare they "avoided" this or that but that is entirely subjective. They also "avoided" divulging the correct ignition timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic inch engine and a 4-barrel carburetor. We can't blame somebody else for what we inferred from what they just told us.

The Mitch McConnell lawyer team's task is to find anywhere the WaPo, the NBC, whoever, came out and made the declarative statement of something that didn't happen, and did so knowingly. It would not appear they can do that. Therefore all of this is circus.

Here's the next aspect of this. In order to make the case for libel/slander (libel = printed or broadcast, slander = spoken), the plaintiff must prove intent. That means the alleged slanderer had to not only disseminate false derogatory information, but also know that they were doing it, i.e. know that it was false when they put it out.

So far, in e.g. the challenge I put out in January, we've been looking only at the first part, "does it exist", regardless whether the issuing entity would have known better or not. If it can be found that it does exist, then the next phase for McConnell's team would be to prove that (say) NBC knew that what they were putting out was not true when they put it out.

But of course you can't get to phase 2 (intent) before you get past phase 1 (existence).

 

[hadit]

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.

Well, duh. NBC and the other long-term media outlets are well versed in how to push a narrative while not venturing into libel and slander territory. Simply say, "many are calling" the scene racist and DON'T say, "many others are saying there is no racism in the scene", and at all costs avoid, "We are calling" the scene racist. Note that there were no voices in the same story analyzing the adult's behavior. No, the focus was completely on the faux outrage at the child.

Then say, students were "accused of mocking", instead of saying that the adult was "accused of getting in a child's face", and at all costs avoid saying, "We also are accusing" the student of mocking.

Then say someone is blaming the child by "seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything" while of course avoiding quoting any other observer who "seemingly suggested the adult was the one who started everything".

That's correct, they all know what language can be used and what language can't. As I keep pointing out, that's basic Journalism 101.

But as far as inferences, that's up to the reader/the listener/the viewer. That's the receiver's responsibility. We can sit here and declare they "avoided" this or that but that is entirely subjective. They also "avoided" divulging the correct ignition timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic inch engine and a 4-barrel carburetor. We can't blame somebody else for what we inferred from what they just told us.

The Mitch McConnell lawyer team's task is to find anywhere the WaPo, the NBC, whoever, came out and made the declarative statement of something that didn't happen, and did so knowingly. It would not appear they can do that. Therefore all of this is circus.

Here's the next aspect of this. In order to make the case for libel/slander (libel = printed or broadcast, slander = spoken), the plaintiff must prove intent. That means the alleged slanderer had to not only disseminate false derogatory information, but also know that they were doing it, i.e. know that it was false when they put it out.

So far, in e.g. the challenge I put out in January, we've been looking only at the first part, "does it exist", regardless whether the issuing entity would have known better or not. If it can be found that it does exist, then the next phase for McConnell's team would be to prove that (say) NBC knew that what they were putting out was not true when they put it out.

But of course you can't get to phase 2 (intent) before you get past phase 1 (existence).

I don't think there's much of any chance the case will end in a judgement against NBC because their editors and legal team are far too adept and experienced in skirting the law for that. I do, however, see even more erosion of NBC's reader and viewership because of this. The bottom line is, Sandmann got a raw deal, whether it was legally slander or not.

 

[westwall]

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.

Well, duh. NBC and the other long-term media outlets are well versed in how to push a narrative while not venturing into libel and slander territory. Simply say, "many are calling" the scene racist and DON'T say, "many others are saying there is no racism in the scene", and at all costs avoid, "We are calling" the scene racist. Note that there were no voices in the same story analyzing the adult's behavior. No, the focus was completely on the faux outrage at the child.

Then say, students were "accused of mocking", instead of saying that the adult was "accused of getting in a child's face", and at all costs avoid saying, "We also are accusing" the student of mocking.

Then say someone is blaming the child by "seemingly suggesting he was the one who started everything" while of course avoiding quoting any other observer who "seemingly suggested the adult was the one who started everything".

That's correct, they all know what language can be used and what language can't. As I keep pointing out, that's basic Journalism 101.

But as far as inferences, that's up to the reader/the listener/the viewer. That's the receiver's responsibility. We can sit here and declare they "avoided" this or that but that is entirely subjective. They also "avoided" divulging the correct ignition timing on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic inch engine and a 4-barrel carburetor. We can't blame somebody else for what we inferred from what they just told us.

The Mitch McConnell lawyer team's task is to find anywhere the WaPo, the NBC, whoever, came out and made the declarative statement of something that didn't happen, and did so knowingly. It would not appear they can do that. Therefore all of this is circus.

Here's the next aspect of this. In order to make the case for libel/slander (libel = printed or broadcast, slander = spoken), the plaintiff must prove intent. That means the alleged slanderer had to not only disseminate false derogatory information, but also know that they were doing it, i.e. know that it was false when they put it out.

So far, in e.g. the challenge I put out in January, we've been looking only at the first part, "does it exist", regardless whether the issuing entity would have known better or not. If it can be found that it does exist, then the next phase for McConnell's team would be to prove that (say) NBC knew that what they were putting out was not true when they put it out.

But of course you can't get to phase 2 (intent) before you get past phase 1 (existence).

And, they did know. Thank you for stating the obvious .

 

[rightwinger]

Sandman is suing the media for reporting that he is a little shit?

Basically speaking,yes.

It isn't a proper news story for a news network to report their negative opinions about private citizens- particularly when the information they are basing their opinions in false and misleading.

Where did they give their opinion?

 

[bodecea]

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!!!

Good luck with that....