Nick Sandmann case against NBC goes to Discovery Phase

[Pogo]

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.

That's exactly what I mean by "circus". Lawyers sometimes (sometimes??) engage in all kinds of posturing bullshit not because they think it's going anywhere in the legal process --- they know it isn't ---- but because of the public impressions it can create. Which is exactly the same thing as the impressions you imagine the media can create. Flip side of the same coin. The fact that there is no evidence that can be found for (say) NBC committing libel, the more continuous buzz the lawyer team can create, the more perception is created in the public, and that's what they're really after. Wiser than we have observed that a lie makes its trip halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.

The fake Sean Spicer "suit" is another example from half a year before this. Spicer's lawyer started blustering about how they were going to sue the Associated Press for libel. What had AP done? Nothing. It passed on (distributed) a locally-source story about how a heckler at a Spicer book signing publicly claimed back in college Spicer had called him "ni66er". It was all on video, obviously there was nothing fabricated about the event --- what the Spicer lawyer didn't like was that MORE PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT IT once AP disseminated it. Needles to say that suit never happened. Another publicity stunt. Done entirely for perceptions, not for any legal goal.

And it's probably crucial to point out here that the McConnell legal team leading this imaginary 'libel' suit, is a PR firm. So there it is. Perceptions. Perceptions like:

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

Perceptions like the title of the fake link above:

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

-- that's why I then debunked that headline, pointing out there's nothing in the article to support it.

Perceptions like the breathless OP who thought he was going somewhere with all this.

The bottom line is, Sandmann got a raw deal, whether it was legally slander or not.

The bottom line is, whose fault is that? Far as anyone can tell it ain't NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/FNC. It ain't the WaPo or the NYT. It appears to be the unbridled buzz on Nosebook and Tweeter and the blogosphere in general, NONE of which are news sources, NONE of which have editors or any vetting system, ALL of which are rumor generators. Again, the readers/listeners/viewers digesting the news had to INFER those motivations on their own and express them. That's well outside the control of the media.

NOW --- if we want to conclude from that that the blogosphere and Tweeter and Nosebook, and the fake headlines as referenced above, are a problem for democratic discourse, then I'm jumping right in there with you. That's exactly why I've been doing what I do on this site for the last seven years, debunking mythologies.

 

[Meathead]

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.

The kid was standing around when some self-righteous asshole, not unlike yourself, got in his face trying to sound like Pocahontas. NBC slandered him. Fuck them and fuck you!

 

[Pogo]

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.

The kid was standing around when some self-righteous asshole, not unlike yourself, got in his face trying to sound like Pocahontas. NBC slandered him. Fuck them and fuck you!

Your sexual fantasies aside, you have no evidence of that.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. The offer has been on the table since last January.

It would appear you're of the "saying so makes it so" persuasion. What then shall we make of your user name?

 

[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.

Where did they give their opinion?

The whole story was their opinion.

Someone being a "little shit" isn't a fact- its their assessment of the young man.

 

[Meathead]

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.

The kid was standing around when some self-righteous asshole, not unlike yourself, got in his face trying to sound like Pocahontas. NBC slandered him. Fuck them and fuck you!

Your sexual fantasies aside, you have no evidence of that.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. The offer has been on the table since last January.

It would appear you're of the "saying so makes it so" persuasion. What then shall we make of your user name?

The evidence of your being an asshole has been around a lot longer than last January.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about otherwise.

Youre just a self-righteous asshole'and so was that Indian asshole. We get that.

But fuck, he was jut a kid wearing a MAGA hat minding his own business.

He will soon be a millioaire. Good for him!

 

[Pogo]

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.

The kid was standing around when some self-righteous asshole, not unlike yourself, got in his face trying to sound like Pocahontas. NBC slandered him. Fuck them and fuck you!

Your sexual fantasies aside, you have no evidence of that.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. The offer has been on the table since last January.

It would appear you're of the "saying so makes it so" persuasion. What then shall we make of your user name?

The evidence of your being an asshole has been around a lot longer than last January.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about otherwise.

Youre just a self-righteous asshole'and so was that Indian asshole. We get that.

But fuck, he was jut a kid wearing a MAGA hat minding his own business.

He will soon be a millioaire. Good for him!

Thank you for that scintillating example of just what I mean by "circus", "perceptions" and "argument from emotion devoid of substance".
Saves me a lot of work.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

 

[Pogo]

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 .

Ironic that a post invoking "state the obvious" misses the obvious last line of the post quoted.

"They did know" --------------------------------- what? Aye, there's the rub.

 

[Meathead]

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 .

Ironic that a post invoking "state the obvious" misses the obvious last line of the post quoted.

"They did know" --------------------------------- what? Aye, there's the rub.

Doesn't that get to the core of fake news? Dan Rathar is likely your idol, being an asshole.

 

[Pogo]

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 .

Ironic that a post invoking "state the obvious" misses the obvious last line of the post quoted.

"They did know" --------------------------------- what? Aye, there's the rub.

Doesn't that get to the core of fake news? Dan Rathar is likely your idol, being an asshole.

Whelp --- no answer there either. Another day, another pile of zero evidence.

I should get paid for this. It could be funded out of all these wags who claim shit they can't prove. I'd be rich. I'd be really really rich. I'd be rich enough to buy a very wonderful place in Germany. Then I could drive down to Prague in my Lamboughini and we could, y'know, "discuss" things.

 

[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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

 

[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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

 

[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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

When you were one of the teenagers, how would you have behaved to a group of Black Congressional Israelites who were trashing the children calling them everything except a child of God?

How would you have responded to drunk in Indian garb walking straight into your space , banging a bongo 3 inches from your face?

I think the real problem CNN had with the boys is that they wore patriotic headgear and were in Washington to support life, so they put out liberal dogwhistles to try and ruin the children's lives.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

Oh? Quote me.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

And I think --- no, I can tell you for a fact because I know how it works --- that the only reason a meaningless standoff between an Indian and a smirking kid made any media attention at all was because it's emotional candy. Emotion sells, it was already selling in the blogosphere, and that means ATTENTION for any entity that makes its profits from advertising. Without lifting a finger to look it up I can guarantee you there were, ten, twenty, fifty, probably a hundred stories that day more deserving of public attention. Ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred stories however that would not have sold as many pickup trucks during the commercials and click-bait ads.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

When you were one of the teenagers, how would you have behaved to a group of Black Congressional Israelites who were trashing the children calling them everything except a child of God?

How would you have responded to drunk in Indian garb walking straight into your space , banging a bongo 3 inches from your face?

I think the real problem CNN had with the boys is that they wore patriotic headgear and were in Washington to support life, so they put out liberal dogwhistles to try and ruin the children's lives.

Neither CNN, nor NBC/ABC/CBS/FNC, nor WaPo, nor NYT (etc etc) makes a dime off "dog whistles". They make many a dime from selling you shit you don't need. And the way they do that is to capture your ATTENTION with some kind of bait.

 

[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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

When you were one of the teenagers, how would you have behaved to a group of Black Congressional Israelites who were trashing the children calling them everything except a child of God?

How would you have responded to drunk in Indian garb walking straight into your space , banging a bongo 3 inches from your face?

I think the real problem CNN had with the boys is that they wore patriotic headgear and were in Washington to support life, so they put out liberal dogwhistles to try and ruin the children's lives.

The boys were on a class trip
They should not have been mixing it up with Black Israelites or and old man banging a drum

If an old man banging a drum came towards me, I would have stepped aside

 

[Polishprince]

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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

When you were one of the teenagers, how would you have behaved to a group of Black Congressional Israelites who were trashing the children calling them everything except a child of God?

How would you have responded to drunk in Indian garb walking straight into your space , banging a bongo 3 inches from your face?

I think the real problem CNN had with the boys is that they wore patriotic headgear and were in Washington to support life, so they put out liberal dogwhistles to try and ruin the children's lives.

Neither CNN, nor NBC/ABC/CBS/FNC, nor WaPo, nor NYT (etc etc) makes a dime off "dog whistles". They make many a dime from selling you shit you don't need. And the way they do that is to capture your ATTENTION with some kind of bait.

The purpose of the Lame Stream media wasn't making money here.

The purpose was to create a narrative that discourages young Deplorables from becoming civically involved. Instead of being saluted for getting involved in public affairs like the Pro-life issue where there is a lively public discussion about it, they are condemned and their lives are ruined to try and discourage other Deplorables from speaking out.

 

[Pogo]

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

When you were one of the teenagers, how would you have behaved to a group of Black Congressional Israelites who were trashing the children calling them everything except a child of God?

How would you have responded to drunk in Indian garb walking straight into your space , banging a bongo 3 inches from your face?

I think the real problem CNN had with the boys is that they wore patriotic headgear and were in Washington to support life, so they put out liberal dogwhistles to try and ruin the children's lives.

Neither CNN, nor NBC/ABC/CBS/FNC, nor WaPo, nor NYT (etc etc) makes a dime off "dog whistles". They make many a dime from selling you shit you don't need. And the way they do that is to capture your ATTENTION with some kind of bait.

The purpose of the Lame Stream media wasn't making money here.

The purpose was to create a narrative that discourages young Deplorables from becoming civically involved. Instead of being saluted for getting involved in public affairs like the Pro-life issue where there is a lively public discussion about it, they are condemned and their lives are ruined to try and discourage other Deplorables from speaking out.

The purpose of mass media is ***ALWAYS*** to make money. That's the whole point of capitalism. Nobody makes a damn dime from "saluting" or "condemning" anything. Not to mention you have yet to supply us with any evidence of it anyway.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Correct, it isn't.

Can you show us where one did that?

I can look at the responses of liberals in reaction to the story and can see that the Main Stream Media message that Sandmann and companions were "little shits" was received.

I think its the fact that the boys were engaged in the big protest in favor of Life Itself as well as their patriotic head gear that got the media's goat about this.

The boys were little shits and their chaperones are lucky they did not get the shit beat out of them

When you were one of the teenagers, how would you have behaved to a group of Black Congressional Israelites who were trashing the children calling them everything except a child of God?

How would you have responded to drunk in Indian garb walking straight into your space , banging a bongo 3 inches from your face?

I think the real problem CNN had with the boys is that they wore patriotic headgear and were in Washington to support life, so they put out liberal dogwhistles to try and ruin the children's lives.

The boys were on a class trip
They should not have been mixing it up with Black Israelites or and old man banging a drum

If an old man banging a drum came towards me, I would have stepped aside

Me too

​

 

[westwall]

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 .

Ironic that a post invoking "state the obvious" misses the obvious last line of the post quoted.

"They did know" --------------------------------- what? Aye, there's the rub.

Doesn't that get to the core of fake news? Dan Rathar is likely your idol, being an asshole.

Whelp --- no answer there either. Another day, another pile of zero evidence.

I should get paid for this. It could be funded out of all these wags who claim shit they can't prove. I'd be rich. I'd be really really rich. I'd be rich enough to buy a very wonderful place in Germany. Then I could drive down to Prague in my Lamboughini and we could, y'know, "discuss" things.

Another day, another asshole ignoring evidence that is plain to see because he is an asshole.