Dang it. Gotta get me a MAGA hat and head to Washington.
Washington Post settles Nicholas Sandmann defamation lawsuit in Covington Catholic High School controversy
'I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit,' Sandmann announced on Twitter
The Washington Post is the latest news organization to settle a defamation lawsuit launched by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann over its botched coverage of a viral confrontation with a Native American elder that had portrayed the Kentucky teen as the aggressor.
Sandmann announced the victory on Twitter.
"On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit. Thanks to @ToddMcMurtry & @LLinWood for their advocacy. Thanks to my family & millions of you who have stood your ground by supporting me. I still have more to do," Sandmann wrote on Friday.
This follows the multi-million dollar settlement CNN made with the teenager back in January.
It's about time some of these "News" outlets start to get their wallets hit
Poor news isn't necessarily "fake news"
They weren't smart enough to realize what they were doing.
They're just bad at their job.
(07-24-2020, 01:38 PM)Norman Mushari Wrote: [ -> ]Poor news isn't necessarily "fake news"
They weren't smart enough to realize what they were doing.
They're just bad at their job.
They intentionally mischaracterized events in order to cast aspersion on a 17-year-old boy, and by extension, Donald Trump supporters. They saw a big meaty opportunity to use their journalistic front to score political bias points. And it worked, for a while.
Not only is it dishonest news, it is F-A-K-E.
I just think they weren't smart enough to realize the other footage was the real story. (Or, no real story at all.)
I think they're both bad, but different.
I could be wrong. I wasn't in the news room.
(07-24-2020, 01:53 PM)Norman Mushari Wrote: [ -> ]I just think they weren't smart enough to realize the other footage was the real story. (Or, no real story at all.)
I think they're both bad, but different.
I could be wrong. I wasn't in the news room.
Sure.
(07-24-2020, 01:46 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 01:38 PM)Norman Mushari Wrote: [ -> ]Poor news isn't necessarily "fake news"
They weren't smart enough to realize what they were doing.
They're just bad at their job.
They intentionally mischaracterized events in order to cast aspersion on a 17-year-old boy, and by extension, Donald Trump supporters. They saw a big meaty opportunity to use their journalistic front to score political bias points. And it worked, for a while.
Not only is it dishonest news, it is F-A-K-E.
No, their editorial team saw a photo and made a bunch of assumptions about what the photo meant. Most people who just saw the photo and nothing else would have thought those assumptions were likely true. The editorial team should have checked for the real story before publishing the photo.
It's hard to figure out how much was malice and how much was negligence. Malice and negligence were both there. Glad they settled it out of court.
(07-24-2020, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 01:46 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]They intentionally mischaracterized events in order to cast aspersion on a 17-year-old boy, and by extension, Donald Trump supporters. They saw a big meaty opportunity to use their journalistic front to score political bias points. And it worked, for a while.
Not only is it dishonest news, it is F-A-K-E.
No, their editorial team saw a photo and made a bunch of assumptions about what the photo meant. Most people who just saw the photo and nothing else would have thought those assumptions were likely true. The editorial team should have checked for the real story before publishing the photo.
It's hard to figure out how much was malice and how much was negligence. Malice and negligence were both there. Glad they settled it out of court.
The fact that you think they would care what the real story was is Interesting.
(07-24-2020, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 01:46 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]They intentionally mischaracterized events in order to cast aspersion on a 17-year-old boy, and by extension, Donald Trump supporters. They saw a big meaty opportunity to use their journalistic front to score political bias points. And it worked, for a while.
Not only is it dishonest news, it is F-A-K-E.
No, their editorial team saw a photo and made a bunch of assumptions about what the photo meant. Most people who just saw the photo and nothing else would have thought those assumptions were likely true. The editorial team should have checked for the real story before publishing the photo.
It's hard to figure out how much was malice and how much was negligence. Malice and negligence were both there. Glad they settled it out of court.
There was plenty of video available immediately after that told the entire story. Even Che Guevara shirt-wearing Redditors were commenting the next day that what the MSM was portraying was off the mark. The fact of the matter is the entities being sued did not practice even a smidgen of journalistic integrity and attempt to characterize the situation in its actual light. It was an intentional smear that they're paying dearly for and profoundly reinforces the accusations that they are biased organizations.
(07-24-2020, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 01:46 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]They intentionally mischaracterized events in order to cast aspersion on a 17-year-old boy, and by extension, Donald Trump supporters. They saw a big meaty opportunity to use their journalistic front to score political bias points. And it worked, for a while.
Not only is it dishonest news, it is F-A-K-E.
Glad they settled it out of court.
I'm not, I would've loved to see those bastards on the stand under oath explain to the world that they are either evil or incompetent.
(07-24-2020, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 01:46 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]They intentionally mischaracterized events in order to cast aspersion on a 17-year-old boy, and by extension, Donald Trump supporters. They saw a big meaty opportunity to use their journalistic front to score political bias points. And it worked, for a while.
Not only is it dishonest news, it is F-A-K-E.
No, their editorial team saw a photo and made a bunch of assumptions about what the photo meant. Most people who just saw the photo and nothing else would have thought those assumptions were likely true. The editorial team should have checked for the real story before publishing the photo.
It's hard to figure out how much was malice and how much was negligence. Malice and negligence were both there. Glad they settled it out of court.
No. They intentionally took a photo and ran a FAKE story to make Trump supporters and more specifically this young man look bad. It's almost like they were trying to "
teach the young man a lesson" indoctrinate him like so many other young impressionable youths.
I wish it would have gone to court. Settling still makes the FAKE news media look bad, but not as bad as a court judgement against them.
(07-24-2020, 05:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No, their editorial team saw a photo and made a bunch of assumptions about what the photo meant. Most people who just saw the photo and nothing else would have thought those assumptions were likely true. The editorial team should have checked for the real story before publishing the photo.
It's hard to figure out how much was malice and how much was negligence. Malice and negligence were both there. Glad they settled it out of court.
There was plenty of video available immediately after that told the entire story. Even Che Guevara shirt-wearing Redditors were commenting the next day that what the MSM was portraying was off the mark. The fact of the matter is the entities being sued did not practice even a smidgen of journalistic integrity and attempt to characterize the situation in its actual light. It was an intentional smear that they're paying dearly for and profoundly reinforces the accusations that they are biased organizations.
That was the next day. MSM had already gone bonkers before that.
(07-24-2020, 05:32 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No, their editorial team saw a photo and made a bunch of assumptions about what the photo meant. Most people who just saw the photo and nothing else would have thought those assumptions were likely true. The editorial team should have checked for the real story before publishing the photo.
It's hard to figure out how much was malice and how much was negligence. Malice and negligence were both there. Glad they settled it out of court.
No. They intentionally took a photo and ran a FAKE story to make Trump supporters and more specifically this young man look bad. It's almost like they were trying to "teach the young man a lesson" indoctrinate him like so many other young impressionable youths.
I wish it would have gone to court. Settling still makes the FAKE news media look bad, but not as bad as a court judgement against them.
What happened was someone posted the photo, I believe on Twitter, with text explaining that the kid in the red hat had shouted "build the wall" at the native American.
That just wasn't true.
But if it was true, it would have been outrageous.
and the idea of it got stuck in these editor's minds as they decided to retweet the post.
(07-24-2020, 06:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 05:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]There was plenty of video available immediately after that told the entire story. Even Che Guevara shirt-wearing Redditors were commenting the next day that what the MSM was portraying was off the mark. The fact of the matter is the entities being sued did not practice even a smidgen of journalistic integrity and attempt to characterize the situation in its actual light. It was an intentional smear that they're paying dearly for and profoundly reinforces the accusations that they are biased organizations.
That was the next day. MSM had already gone bonkers before that.
(07-24-2020, 05:32 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]No. They intentionally took a photo and ran a FAKE story to make Trump supporters and more specifically this young man look bad. It's almost like they were trying to "teach the young man a lesson" indoctrinate him like so many other young impressionable youths.
I wish it would have gone to court. Settling still makes the FAKE news media look bad, but not as bad as a court judgement against them.
What happened was someone posted the photo, I believe on Twitter, with text explaining that the kid in the red hat had shouted "build the wall" at the native American.
That just wasn't true.
But if it was true, it would have been outrageous.
and the idea of it got stuck in these editor's minds as they decided to retweet the post.
Are you really trying to justify incompetence?
(07-24-2020, 06:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 05:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]There was plenty of video available immediately after that told the entire story. Even Che Guevara shirt-wearing Redditors were commenting the next day that what the MSM was portraying was off the mark. The fact of the matter is the entities being sued did not practice even a smidgen of journalistic integrity and attempt to characterize the situation in its actual light. It was an intentional smear that they're paying dearly for and profoundly reinforces the accusations that they are biased organizations.
That was the next day. MSM had already gone bonkers before that.
(07-24-2020, 05:32 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]No. They intentionally took a photo and ran a FAKE story to make Trump supporters and more specifically this young man look bad. It's almost like they were trying to "teach the young man a lesson" indoctrinate him like so many other young impressionable youths.
I wish it would have gone to court. Settling still makes the FAKE news media look bad, but not as bad as a court judgement against them.
What happened was someone posted the photo, I believe on Twitter, with text explaining that the kid in the red hat had shouted "build the wall" at the native American.
That just wasn't true.
But if it was true, it would have been outrageous.
and the idea of it got stuck in these editor's minds as they decided to retweet the post.
They ran that narrative for weeks.
Surprised you didn't make the same thread about Fox news fake photos of Seattle.
Or is that good fake news?
Man, this kid just turned 18 and he's already set for life with more on the way. Journalistic crime does pay.
(07-24-2020, 08:10 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 06:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That was the next day. MSM had already gone bonkers before that.
What happened was someone posted the photo, I believe on Twitter, with text explaining that the kid in the red hat had shouted "build the wall" at the native American.
That just wasn't true.
But if it was true, it would have been outrageous.
and the idea of it got stuck in these editor's minds as they decided to retweet the post.
Are you really trying to justify incompetence?
Nope.
Incompetence sucks, and it's fair that they have to pay a penalty for their incompetence.
All I'm saying is it might not have been malice. Malice is harder to prove.
(07-24-2020, 10:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2020, 08:10 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Are you really trying to justify incompetence?
Nope.
Incompetence sucks, and it's fair that they have to pay a penalty for their incompetence.
All I'm saying is it might not have been malice. Malice is harder to prove.
Malice? No. Naked bias? Yes. The problem is their naked and reckless bias resulted in Sandmann experiencing malice and threats due to their journalistic malfeasance. You can argue that the MSM went "bonkers", but that is exactly the standard they are held to NOT attain.
(07-24-2020, 09:08 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Surprised you didn't make the same thread about Fox news fake photos of Seattle.
Or is that good fake news?
Oh no, don't shine a light on their partisan hackery. On the subject, capitalism is great for a lot of things, but it does a great disservice to journalism. It's no longer about reporting a story as it happened. It's about two things. Attracting and maintaining viewership of the partisans and taking political shots at the opposition. The latter works to bolster the former. State run media certainly isn't the answer, so we're stuck what we have. But the people who cling to either FOX News or CNN while declaring the other fake news are comical to me. But partisan hacks always are humorous. That they can't see it is especially humorous.
Good for the kid.
He should donate most of that money to others who have been slandered by fake news so they can hire legal counsel and really gut the establishment.
I wonder if the fake Indian with the drum got any cash.