Convington High victims sue CNN for OVER $250M + Wash Post for $250M + others

[Machismo]

@Dadwen and @Machismo - Could you two take it to DM's, please? Y'all have derailed the thread with pointless sniping at each other.

I love you, too.

[Machismo]

This is what Machismo does....its commonplace.

And you spread lies... that's also commonplace.

[Maruka]

It's nice to know you support the government of Canada punishing people for saying the wrong pronoun.

I didnt say that.

- - - Updated - - -

Smirking kid reported as smirking. Truly no human has ever suffered so before.

If that is all they did then the court will prove them innocent.

[Machismo]

I didnt say that.

- - - Updated - - -



If that is all they did then the court will prove them innocent.

So, it's just speech you don't like, then?

[Theodarzna]

This is what Machismo does....its commonplace.

Put Machismo on ignore. You really only need sarahtasher, he or she at least writes stuff that reads like amazing fanfiction.

[Orbitus]

Why don't leftists understand free speech... at all? Supporting this case doesn't make you anti free speech because slander and defamation are not protected by the first amendment. These news outlets failed to do their due diligence and proceeded to slander and defame A GROUP OF MINORS knowing full well that a rabbit horde of leftists frothing at their mouths would go to town on these kids. They also waited far too long to issue retractions or apologies, several videos disproving the original narrative had been around for days in some cases before any remedial action was taken. The kids will win a settlement of a few million because of this. Will CNN and all the other sensationalist, dishonest media outlets learn a thing or two from this? Of course not, and neither will all of the brain dead leftists who don't see a problem with what happened to the Covington kids and how the media acted.

Because this isn't slander. They didn't KNOWINGLY post this shit while knowing they are wrong. They reported it, and as new information came out, update or retracted their stories. Something that right wing media doesn't do until they are sued.

- - - Updated - - -

As if Fox News doesn't cause the same harassment.

Fox News has actually caused a death thanks to Bill O'Reilly and his "George Tiller the Baby Killer" rhetoric.

[Frogguh]

If something looks bad on someone, the media should investigate the facts and confirm that the person deserves to be smeared on an international level. What actually happened is a disgrace.

I doubt the media gets held accountable, but I'm rooting for them to get annihilated in court.

[McFuu]

They reported the truth to the best of their ability. That's why every news organization in the country and a few world wide ones ran the same story at the same time. As the story developed, they reported the new facts. They never manufactured a narrative. It's asinine to even suggest that. If they wanted to guide a narrative then this vast, deep state conspiracy that apparently exists would have buried the real information instead of immediately reporting on it, you know, exactly like they actually did.

They rushed a story to print to be first, without confirming the story. In their race to get to post, they defamed highschool children. I didn't suggest that they attempted to manufacturer a narrative. I'm saying they choose to report what they heard, haphazardly, without actually confirming if it were true.

So to put this to bed.

It doesn't matter if a source lies to them.

[Theodarzna]

They rushed a story to print to be first, without confirming the story. In their race to get to post, they defamed highschool children. I didn't suggest that they attempted to manufacturer a narrative. I'm saying they choose to report what they heard, haphazardly, without actually confirming if it were true.

So to put this to bed.

It doesn't matter if a source lies to them.

Given that even after the facts became undeniable, many continued to keep the same basic narrative and insisting on using Russell conjugations to ensure that Nicholas and friends were still basically the villains of the story, and Philips and company the heroes, I'd say a case for some malice exists.

[buck008]

They rushed a story to print to be first, without confirming the story. In their race to get to post, they defamed highschool children. I didn't suggest that they attempted to manufacturer a narrative. I'm saying they choose to report what they heard, haphazardly, without actually confirming if it were true.

So to put this to bed.

It doesn't matter if a source lies to them.

Yes, it absolutely does. It goes to the heart of the matter, in fact. In actuality, they absolutely did confirm it. Initially there were two corroborating videos. They went with the best info they had, and they corrected it when they had better info. At the time, there was nothing to suggest what they had was incorrect in any way.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that even after the facts became undeniable, many continued to keep the same basic narrative and insisting on using Russell conjugations to ensure that Nicholas and friends were still basically the villains of the story, and Philips and company the heroes, I'd say a case for some malice exists.

Not from the entity being named in the suit. Others did, sure. But those people aren't being sued.

[Theodarzna]

Not from the entity being named in the suit. Others did, sure. But those people aren't being sued.

Washington Post is mentioned in the title which is the specific article I reference.

[buck008]

Washington Post is mentioned in the title which is the specific article I reference.

The Washington Post similarly reported information as it became available. They did not hang on to the story after it was proven false. A suit against them also has no merit.

[McFuu]

Yes, it absolutely does. It goes to the heart of the matter, in fact. In actuality, they absolutely did confirm it. Initially there were two corroborating videos. They went with the best info they had, and they corrected it when they had better info. At the time, there was nothing to suggest what they had was incorrect in any way.

- - - Updated - - -



Not from the entity being named in the suit. Others did, sure. But those people aren't being sued.

Again no it doesn't, they have the responsibility to not use shit sources. 2 crappy cell phone videos that are chopped and edited are not real sources.

Think of it this way.

CNN owns a car, they are driving around in the rain and slide off the road. They go to their insurance and the insurance inspects the vehicle and the tires are bald. The insurance company says the tires are bald, CNN says why does that matter? The insurance company tells them "you are a multibillion dollar company, you have the resources to replace the tires.

That's the crux of the issue, they are a massive company, they are obligated to dedicate resources to ensure their sources. They did not do that. The argument that more information came out quickly is even more damning for them... The information was there, they just didn't spend the time to research it. They just wanted to get their story out.

[buck008]

Again no it doesn't, they have the responsibility to not use shit sources. 2 crappy cell phone videos that are chopped and edited are not real sources.

Think of it this way.

CNN owns a car, they are driving around in the rain and slide off the road. They go to their insurance and the insurance inspects the vehicle and the tires are bald. The insurance company says the tires are bald, CNN says why does that matter? The insurance company tells them "you are a multibillion dollar company, you have the resources to replace the tires.

That's the crux of the issue, they are a massive company, they are obligated to dedicate resources to ensure their sources. They did not do that. The argument that more information came out quickly is even more damning for them... The information was there, they just didn't spend the time to research it. They just wanted to get their story out.

If it was that available then why did every single news source report the same story? Your argument holds no water unless someone else quickly and easily provided counter evidence. That didn't happen until the next day. Everybody had the same sources. They all came to the same conclusions.

[Theodarzna]

The Washington Post similarly reported information as it became available. They did not hang on to the story after it was proven false. A suit against them also has no merit.

The information was as available from the outset as Mr. Philips narrative. The WaPo as did CNN elected not to do any research.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was that available then why did every single news source report the same story?

That is an excellent question. We could assume that legions of reporters simply saw a story and didn't bother to spend a few minutes on google searches. We could also ponder why these specific news agencies are considered VITAL for Our Democracy (TM), despite for some reason they were incapable of fact checking this story. Something prevented them in this case from doing the bare minimum of research, I am really puzzled, the mystery really gets the ol' noggin joggin, really activates those almonds you know. I am straining, wracking my brain trying to think of why these reporters would rush to such a story and post it without a single critical look. Why o' why would they do this?

[buck008]

The information was as available from the outset as Mr. Philips narrative. The WaPo as did CNN elected not to do any research.

- - - Updated - - -



That is an excellent question. We could assume that legions of reporters simply saw a story and didn't bother to spend a few minutes on google searches. We could also ponder why these specific news agencies are considered VITAL for Our Democracy (TM), despite for some reason they were incapable of fact checking this story. Something prevented them in this case from doing the bare minimum of research, I am really puzzled, the mystery really gets the ol' noggin joggin, really activates those almonds you know. I am straining, wracking my brain trying to think of why these reporters would rush to such a story and post it without a single critical look. Why o' why would they do this?

Well, the truth is, they did look. You just don't care because it suits your particular way of thinking to demonize the press and assume them to be a monolithic groupthink entity that controls the weak minded sheeple. But never ones such as you, no. You're far too above that.

If you want some dickhead navel gazing that has no effect on the reality of the story but "really makes you think, you know?" Maybe ask yourself just how shitty Trump hats have to be for the American public to hear that story and go, "You know what, occam's razor says the simplest solution is that those school children are the bullies." Now that leaves you the ability to hurl waste at me about how the liberal media controls the flow of information and makes people believe that those Trump people are so bad, but no it fucking doesn't.

Not everyone in a MAGA hat is the devil. The "media" as you are attempting to position it doesn't exist. It's all bullshit. McFuu came the closest to the truth when he said that they were just trying to get the scoop first. But he left out the part that everybody else, even the Fox News et al, also reported the same story in the same way. If it wasn't CNN, someone else would have scooped it. You know when we realized the 24 hour news cycle was not great for news? Like 15 years ago. This isn't new. These kids aren't being sacrificed on the altar of liberal news. You fact check things once, and if it looks good, you run it. That's all.

[Deadite]

Because this isn't slander. They didn't KNOWINGLY post this shit while knowing they are wrong. They reported it, and as new information came out, update or retracted their stories. Something that right wing media doesn't do until they are sued.

Did they not send out 100+ letters telling people to change the muh nazi narrative or they would get sued? I would have to assume the folk they are going after did not do that. This case seems like that wackadoodle Alex Jones vs the Sandy Hook families. Obviously no where near as egregious but defamation is defamation.

[Orbitus]

Did they not send out 100+ letters telling people to change the muh nazi narrative or they would get sued? I would have to assume the folk they are going after did not do that. This case seems like that wackadoodle Alex Jones vs the Sandy Hook families. Obviously no where near as egregious but defamation is defamation.

It wasn't defamation though. They weren't saying they were white nationalists or anything. Good try though.

[Dextroden]

It wasn't defamation though. They weren't saying they were white nationalists or anything. Good try though.

No. They we're just calling them representatives of Trump's America and them and their school hateful.

[Maruka]

So, it's just speech you don't like, then?

I don't understand what you are getting at or why you are aggravated by my statement.