Jury Find Rolling Stone GUILTY of Defamation!

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider
Rolling Stone gathers no truth.

I'm so glad to see this happening. Rolling Stone, along with a number of corporate media organizations have been increasingly guilty of this behavior. They simply look for a few facts and a happenstance that matches a preconceived narrative and then they run with the narrative rather than the actual story. It has become far worst in the past couple decades as the media becomes more insulated, self-reinforcing and a mono-block in terms of beliefs.

Decliming profits haven't managed to change their behavior. Perhaps several large judgements for millions of dollars will end it instead.

if Trump loses, I'm hoping he starts with the NY Times and a suit about all the magical sex claims that never appeared before there were six weeks left in the election. If ever there were a clear case of malice that would be it.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    I think the NY times response to Trumps lawyer seems to think they would love to go to court to defend, especially since pussygate. 

    Re: Demand for Retraction

    Dear Mr. Kasowitz:

    I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States.

    You write concerning our article “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately” and label the article as “libel per se.” You ask that we “remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology.” We decline to do so.

    The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a “piece of ass.” Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

    But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance — indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump’s response, including his forceful denial of the women’s reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

    Sincerely,

    David E. McCraw


  • Reply 2 of 5
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,357member
    I think the NY times response to Trumps lawyer seems to think they would love to go to court to defend, especially since pussygate. 

    Re: Demand for Retraction

    Dear Mr. Kasowitz:

    I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States.

    You write concerning our article “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately” and label the article as “libel per se.” You ask that we “remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology.” We decline to do so.

    The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a “piece of ass.” Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

    But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance — indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump’s response, including his forceful denial of the women’s reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

    Sincerely,

    David E. McCraw


    I'm sure Gawker and Rolling Stone both felt the same as the Times.

    Here's the reasoning that will lead to the payout..."But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance — indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate."

    This is the reasoning that explains why the Times and others think they are above the law. The stakes are higher than the law in their reasoning and thus the law can be discarded.

    Any news organization doesn't just publish any allegation. They don't even publish every allegation that a few friends and confidants will claim they confirmed via hearsay with each other. They look for outside sources to confirm the actions. The Times article tells the story and claims it is backed by a circle of friends or family who heard it from the primary source. In their view where "there is a larger and much more important point" that is good enough. In the legal world it wouldn't stand at all. Saying you know something is true because someone told you it is true is straight up hearsay.

    Trump supposedly groped one of the women in plain site on a first class airplane flight. Where are the confirmations that the woman was on the flight, that Trump was on the flight, that she moved from coach to first class at the request of the staff and that all said staff saw any of these actions? You know the stuff that would prove this legally? They aren't there and the Times doesn't need them there because they have "an issue of national importance" that puts them above the law per their reasoning.

    I hope their reasoning will end up costing them a pretty penny or three.
  • Reply 3 of 5
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,357member
    Round 2 happening soon?

    One of the websites The Washington Post labeled “fake news” in a November story demanded a retraction and threatened the paper with a defamation lawsuit in a demand letter Sunday.

    A lawyer for Naked Capitalism accuses WaPo of running a debunked list of “fake news” sites in the “sensational” story compiled by a dubious team of researchers, without substantiating their claims or giving Naked Capitalism a chance to respond to the allegation. The Washington Post’s actions constitute defamation, the lawyer writes in the letter published Monday.

    “You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”

    Maybe the best way to break the partisan and biased habits of the corporate media is simply to sue them out of existence when they keep lying.


    jbdragon
  • Reply 4 of 5
    trumptman said:
    Huddler doesn’t like it when you use secure http links and leaves its filler “http://” text if you copy one in. Your link’s broken, is what I’m saying.  p

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

    Great news, though. Time for the MSM to pay the piper.

    EDIT: or whatever software this is. It’s not huddler anymore, is it? Fuck, I want to be dead.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 5 of 5
    brbr Posts: 8,321member
    trumptman said:
    Round 2 happening soon?

    One of the websites The Washington Post labeled “fake news” in a November story demanded a retraction and threatened the paper with a defamation lawsuit in a demand letter Sunday.

    A lawyer for Naked Capitalism accuses WaPo of running a debunked list of “fake news” sites in the “sensational” story compiled by a dubious team of researchers, without substantiating their claims or giving Naked Capitalism a chance to respond to the allegation. The Washington Post’s actions constitute defamation, the lawyer writes in the letter published Monday.

    “You did not provide even a single example of ‘fake news’ allegedly distributed or promoted by Naked Capitalism or indeed any of the 200 sites on the PropOrNot blacklist,” James A. Moody writes. “You provided no discussion or assessment of the credentials or backgrounds of these so-called ‘researchers’ (Clint Watts, Andrew Weisburd, and J.M. Berger and the ‘team’ at PropOrNot), and no discussion or analysis of the methodology, protocol or algorithms such ‘researchers’ may or may not have followed.”

    Maybe the best way to break the partisan and biased habits of the corporate media is simply to sue them out of existence when they keep lying.


    Agreed. The corporate media blacked out Bernie, and consistently lied about superdelegates and violence in NV. They got us Hillary, which gave us Trump. The corporate media also completed ignored Standing Rock until veterans showed up. They covered the Bundy Oregon nonsense 24/7, but wouldn't spend 30 seconds on the Standing Rock Sioux when the water protectors were being brutalized by militarized police.

    Fuck the corporate media.
    Fuck Bill Clinton for signing the Telecommunications of 1996.
    Fuck WaPo for their bullshit propaganda. The worst fake news is coming from the MSM.
    edited December 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.