Covington kid (Nick Sandmann) files first lawsuit against the Washington Post for $250 million

May 17, 2012
5,379
1,317
455
Canada
#52
The only thing you can criticize the kids for is chanting along with the drums like they were at a Braves game. (I don't) If that is not socially acceptable then it is best to stamp that out at the source and go after the millions of attendees of Braves games who participate in these activities rather than taking children to task for it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: #Phonepunk#
Oct 24, 2017
6,456
5,545
335
#53
I hope he wins and that is the cause of "journalists" actually taking responsibility for what they are writing. These people right now can not be called Journalists anymore but rather blogger.
 
Sep 4, 2018
2,504
2,781
265
#54
The only thing you can criticize the kids for is chanting along with the drums like they were at a Braves game. (I don't) If that is not socially acceptable then it is best to stamp that out at the source and go after the millions of attendees of Braves games who participate in these activities rather than taking children to task for it.
tomahawk chop has been a thing for decades for multiple sports teams. i grew up in Atlanta so i remember Chief Noc-A-Homa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Noc-A-Homa). there is a song they play on the organ and the whole crowd does this fake chopping motion w their hand. this is the Braves "rally" song. go watch some of the World Series from the 90s, that stuff is in there. they did it during the last Braves game i went to, which was ~10 years ago. no idea if they still do it but wouldn't be surprised.

yeah this kids just repeating all they know. this is the only representation of natives in pop culture. maybe if liberals had some Native American tv shows or movies they could point to as better examples then they'd have a point. but they don't! this is how progressive they really are. they don't, and it's unreasonable to demand these kids to behave different if this is all they have ever known.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Teletraan1
Jan 20, 2018
1,251
696
320
Pittsburgh
#55
There is no way he won't win something. His life is ruined and people were threatening to physically hurt and kill him over it.

I said this in the initial thread and of course the goalpost moving Nobody Important assured me I was out of my mind to think that. (And tried to bet me on it, despite him never to admit when wrong).
 
Jan 20, 2018
1,251
696
320
Pittsburgh
#56
tomahawk chop has been a thing for decades for multiple sports teams. i grew up in Atlanta so i remember Chief Noc-A-Homa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Noc-A-Homa). there is a song they play on the organ and the whole crowd does this fake chopping motion w their hand. this is the Braves "rally" song. go watch some of the World Series from the 90s, that stuff is in there. they did it during the last Braves game i went to, which was ~10 years ago. no idea if they still do it but wouldn't be surprised.

yeah this kids just repeating all they know. this is the only representation of natives in pop culture. maybe if liberals had some Native American tv shows or movies they could point to as better examples then they'd have a point. but they don't! this is how progressive they really are. they don't, and it's unreasonable to demand these kids to behave different if this is all they have ever known.
Only people who are out touch with reality thinks the tomahawk is racist.


It may be in poor taste to Native Americans, but to not understand why kids of all people would do it (and however many else in the world) is silly.
 
Likes: cryptoadam
Jan 20, 2018
1,251
696
320
Pittsburgh
#57
I hope he wins and that is the cause of "journalists" actually taking responsibility for what they are writing. These people right now can not be called Journalists anymore but rather blogger.
I watched the Amanda Knox documentary on Netflix. The journalist interviewed on it said he was given scoops and he had to rush them to the front page because "why take time to try and verify what is being said. By time you do that, someone else has already reported it and you lost your story". And that "getting front page headlines feels so good. It is like having sex".

Journalists don't give a shit about accuracy. Just about a story that grabs attention and getting it out as quickly as possible. That is the problem today with journalism and the media.
 
Likes: Dunki
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#58
I wish them luck, but I sincerely doubt they get anywhere to what they are trying to get if they get anything at all. There is simply too many things in the favor the Washington Post for any thing else to happen in my opinion. They reported the initial story and then proceeded to update and correct their reporting as the story evolved and their original information was proven inaccurate. Thats all any media outlet can do when they get something wrong or make a mistake. Otherwise every single outlet could be sued for every mistake they ever make or any story they ever run that has bad information in it and thats just not gonna happen in a country like the US that has such ironclad protections for the press.


If they had kept the number lower and more reasonable then I think that would have raised their chances to be honest, but $250 million is absolutely ridiculous. No judge is gonna look at that number and take it seriously given the context of the situation and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Especially when the Washington Post can prove they corrected themselves and updated their stories as the story evolved. And unless they can prove that the Washington Post intentionally released false information then there is not much that can be done as far as I know.


If they had never corrected themselves and never updated their story then they would have a solid shot, but thats not what happened. The fact that social media took their reports and the reports of other outlets and ran with them is not their fault. A newspaper or news outlet is not responsible for what its readers or viewers do with the information they put out. All they can do is report the news and reports as they get them and work from there. Anything beyond that is out of there hands as far as I am concerned.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
#59
Not a lawyer, but from what I have read malice only needs to be proven in cases involving public figures. In cases of private persons, defamation only requires false statements broadcast(spoken or written) to one or more persons and some degree of negligence on the part of the broadcaster in not checking for the truthfulness of the claims.
If this is the case its game over. Also add in the fact that Sandman is a minor and if this is in front of a Jury its double game over.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#60
Not a lawyer, but from what I have read malice only needs to be proven in cases involving public figures. In cases of private persons, defamation only requires false statements broadcast(spoken or written) to one or more persons and some degree of negligence on the part of the broadcaster in not checking for the truthfulness of the claims.
If thats accurate then it will be an interesting case indeed. Guess we will just have to wait and see.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
#61
The only thing you can criticize the kids for is chanting along with the drums like they were at a Braves game. (I don't) If that is not socially acceptable then it is best to stamp that out at the source and go after the millions of attendees of Braves games who participate in these activities rather than taking children to task for it.
That is pretty much the last thing truthers on this have to cling to. But if you watch the videos its like 3 or 4 kids half heartdly doing the chop for like 10 seconds. Most kids aren't doing it, and most of the kids are just doing the throw your hands in the air with one hand thing people do. You know if something is crazy you put your hand up and shake it and say "thats craaaaaaaaaaazy".

But seriously if the worst thing is a bunch of stupid kids did a tomahawk chop when the entire nation does it, and you have a team called the redskins its time to have the conversation with the adults of the country not stupid immature kids.
 
Likes: Teletraan1

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
#62
I wish them luck, but I sincerely doubt they get anywhere to what they are trying to get if they get anything at all. There is simply too many things in the favor the Washington Post for any thing else to happen in my opinion. They reported the initial story and then proceeded to update and correct their reporting as the story evolved and their original information was proven inaccurate. Thats all any media outlet can do when they get something wrong or make a mistake. Otherwise every single outlet could be sued for every mistake they ever make or any story they ever run that has bad information in it and thats just not gonna happen in a country like the US that has such ironclad protections for the press.


If they had kept the number lower and more reasonable then I think that would have raised their chances to be honest, but $250 million is absolutely ridiculous. No judge is gonna look at that number and take it seriously given the context of the situation and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Especially when the Washington Post can prove they corrected themselves and updated their stories as the story evolved. And unless they can prove that the Washington Post intentionally released false information then there is not much that can be done as far as I know.


If they had never corrected themselves and never updated their story then they would have a solid shot, but thats not what happened. The fact that social media took their reports and the reports of other outlets and ran with them is not their fault. A newspaper or news outlet is not responsible for what its readers or viewers do with the information they put out. All they can do is report the news and reports as they get them and work from there. Anything beyond that is out of there hands as far as I am concerned.
Why do you keep stanning for the media on this issue? So its ok if the media reports a completely false and made up story as long as they correct themselves? So if the WAPO read the Jussi Smollet story thread and wrote an article about how Kamal Harris and Jussi conspired to fake this hoax to push the anti lynching bill you would be fine with that? As long as a few days later they printed a correction? The media reported this story based on an alleged russian twitter bot account that posted an edited clip and lies given by Nathan Phillips. The media's job is not to report whatever lies come across their desk they are supposed to investigate.

Like in the Arial Sharon case, the media reported a false story that they claimed was in the annex of a Israeli government report, and it turned out that was false. The Jury found that the media reported a lie and were held accountable for that. So no the media does not just get to report lies and then say ooops sorry my bad.

If its true they don't have to prove malice since he isn't a public figure, this case is going to be a slam dunk. This Gawker vs Hogan v.2.0 and WAPO may not be in business in a year from now. Its also going to be interesting to see if they dig up any dirt. If they get internal memo's or emails pointing to WAPO having an anti-Trump slant oh boy. And TBH I think its very likely that we will get leaked dirt about someone there talking about how they need to take down Trump, or Trump is ruining America or whatever. I bet we get evidence that WAPO has been operating under an anti Trump agenda wether its twitter or internal email/memos I think its going to come out.
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,910
1,115
330
#63
I wish them luck, but I sincerely doubt they get anywhere to what they are trying to get if they get anything at all. There is simply too many things in the favor the Washington Post for any thing else to happen in my opinion. They reported the initial story and then proceeded to update and correct their reporting as the story evolved and their original information was proven inaccurate. Thats all any media outlet can do when they get something wrong or make a mistake. Otherwise every single outlet could be sued for every mistake they ever make or any story they ever run that has bad information in it and thats just not gonna happen in a country like the US that has such ironclad protections for the press.
No, that is not all any mdeia outlet can do. They are supposed to at least attempt to verify the story. Go back 30 years and you wouldn't see a story not being verified by additional sources, or attempting to contact the other party, before release. That is where the negligence will come in. I dont think I read any of the stories that reached out to Covington Catholic or the families of these kids until after the full video started to change the story.

It would be one thing to present the video and Nathan Phillips side of the story along with a statement from the school or parents of the kids. Even attempting to contact the other side and getting no comment would be fine. But these journalists are in such a hurry to put out negative news or scoop the story that they aren't even attempting to verify.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#64
Why do you keep stanning for the media on this issue? So its ok if the media reports a completely false and made up story as long as they correct themselves?
Is it okay if the media knowingly and intentionally releases false information and "made up stories"? Absolutely not. Not even if they correct themselves. Thats just not okay no matter how you slice it in my opinion.


Is it okay for the media to release whatever information or reports they think are accurate and then proceed to update their information as the situation evolves and more facts come out? Yes absolutely. When it comes to breaking news I am not going to expect anyone to get things right 100% of the time and as long as it was a genuine mistake and there was no intentional misinformation I am perfectly fine with it as long as they admit they were wrong and update their stories accordingly.


And as far as I know there is no hard evidence that the Washington Post intentionally lied is there? If it turns out they did knowingly release false information then I am all for them having to pay the affected families, but if its shown they truly just made a mistake and then proceeded to correct themselves in a timely manner then I don't think they should have to pay anyone anything. Now if the judge disagrees and says they still have to pay some kind of financial penalty then I will be fine with that as well. I am not gonna rant and rave if the family gets some amount of money. I just don't think $250 million is reasonable and I don't think they should pay anything in my opinion if it was a genuine mistake.


I don't feel like that is a controversial opinion to have, but maybe thats just me.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#67
Look its not like I am rooting against them. If they get paid I am not gonna really care. If they get paid then good for them. If its a significant amount of money then all I will say is that I hope they spend it well or decide to put the money towards a good cause. Aside from that I really don't care if they end up getting some kind of financial compensation if a court deems that its appropriate. Its not gonna affect me one way or another.


All I am saying is that in my opinion I don't think WaPo did anything wrong here given the circumstances and the absolute mess that surrounded the incident in question. So long as its proven they made a genuine mistake. If its proven they knowingly spread lies about the incident in order to get clicks and views then I hope they get some kind of financial penalty put on them. Maybe not $250 million, but something at least. No media outlet should knowingly spread lies and misinformation without having some kind of accountability to themselves or the public.
 
Last edited:
May 17, 2012
5,379
1,317
455
Canada
#68
You're duty as a journalist is to provide factual reporting. Not barf out whatever and then correct it after actual journalism does it's job. When some nobody on the internet does a better job than a large media organization the standards have fallen and cases like this are a check and balance to correct them.
 
Likes: cryptoadam

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff member
May 30, 2004
20,700
6,601
1,450
#70
These are the most relevant excerpts of the suit, I think (part 1 of 2):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnio82555...ann vs. Washington Post - Complaint.pdf?dl=0

INTRODUCTION

1. The Post is a major American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C. which is credited with inventing the term "McCarthyism" in an editorial cartoon published in 1950. Depicting buckets of tar, the cartoon made fun of then United States Senator Joseph McCarthy's "tarring" tactics of engaging in smear campaigns and character assassination against citizens whose political views made them targets of his accusations.

2. In a span of three (3) days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann (“Nicholas”), an innocent secondary school child.

3. The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C. when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face (“the January 18 incident”).

4. Nicholas stood quietly and respectfully for several minutes after being targeted and bullied by Phillips and Nicholas’ body language remained non-aggressive and passive throughout the incident.

5. Nicholas is 16-years of age, is 5’9” in height and weighs 115 pounds.

6. The school field trip to the Nation’s capital was the first out-of-state trip Nicholas had ever taken without being with his family.

7. In targeting and bullying Nicholas by falsely accusing him of instigating the January 18 incident, the Post conveyed that Nicholas engaged in acts of racism by “swarming” Phillips, “blocking” his exit away from the students, and otherwise engaging in racist misconduct.

8. The Post ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump (“the President”) by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the President.

9. As a 16-year old secondary school student, Nicholas’ political beliefs are anything but established and entrenched in his young mind.

10. Nicholas has zero history of political activism or aggressiveness and did not exhibit any such conduct even when confronted with unbridled racist attacks by activist bullies at the National Mall.

11. The Post’s campaign to target Nicholas in furtherance of its political agenda was carried out by using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles which effectively provided a worldwide megaphone to Phillips and other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the President.

12. Unlike the Post’s abuse of the profession of journalism, Plaintiffs do not bring this lawsuit to use the judicial system to further a political agenda. This lawsuit is brought against the Post to seek legal redress for its negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks on Nicholas which caused permanent damage to his life and reputation.

13. The Post bullied an innocent child with an absolute disregard for the pain and destruction its attacks would cause to his life.

14. The Post proved itself to be a loud and aggressive bully with a bully pulpit.

15. In this country, our society is dedicated to the protection of children regardless of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or the cap they wear.

16. But the Post did not care about protecting Nicholas. To the contrary, the Post raced with a reckless disregard of the facts and truth because in this day and time there is a premium for being the first and loudest media bully.

17. The Post wanted to lead the charge against this child because he was a pawn in its political war against its political adversary – a war so disconnected and beyond the comprehension of Nicholas that it might as well have been science fiction.

18. The Post must be dealt with the same way every bully is dealt with and that is hold the bully fully accountable for its wrongdoing in a manner which effectively deters the bully from again bullying other children. In a civil lawsuit, punishment and deterrence is found in awarding money damages to the victim and target of the bully.

19. In order to fully compensate Nicholas for his damages and to punish, deter, and teach the Post a lesson it will never forget, this action seeks money damages in excess of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00) – the amount Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, paid in cash for the Post when his company, Nash Holdings, purchased the newspaper in 2013.


THE POST COVERAGE

92. The Post rushed to lead the mainstream media to assassinate Nicholas’ character and bully him, publishing their first article no later than 1:37 p.m. January 19. This story was not “hot” or “breaking news.” To the extent the Post performed any investigation at all into what occurred, its unreasonable investigation did not take long, and contrary information did not stop it from publishing its first story in its Sunday newspaper the next day. One of the reporters on the story first retweeted the video approximately four hours before receiving credit for the Post’s first article. In the intervening time, the Post apparently managed to track down and interview Phillips, write a story, and fan the flames of the social media mob into a mainstream media frenzy of false attacks and threats against Nicholas.

93. In the Post’s own words – albeit a far cry from the true scope of the false and defamatory accusations it made against Nicholas – the readers of the Post’s coverage were “licensed to conclude that the students saw [Phillips] from afar, targeted him and advanced.” Of course, the Post’s readers were also licensed to falsely conclude that Nicholas physically and verbally assaulted Phillips while blocking his egress from a mob of students who were similarly engaged in racist conduct.

94. The Post, whose coverage emphasized that Nicholas was wearing a “MAGA” hat, contributed to the rampant cyber-assault and cyber-bullying suffered by Nicholas in the aftermath of its initial reporting which was also undertaken in mass by the mob of other bullies made up of other members of the mainstream media, individuals tweeting on Twitter, church officials, celebrities, and politicians.

95. Even the Twitter platform itself jumped into the bully pulpit and was influenced by early media coverage of the Post, as demonstrated when its “moment” feature falsely accused Nicholas and his classmates of “mocking” Phillips. According to reports, a Twitter spokesperson stated “Twitter Curation strives to fairly and accurately contextualize the nature of large conversations on the platform … The original Covington video appeared on Friday night. However, the Curation team did not compile a Moment until additional news media reporting emerged to provide context to the video – this included a source video interview with Nathan Phillips, which was featured in the Moment.”

CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

111. Nicholas reasserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 110 of this Complaint as if fully restated herein.

112. The Post published to third parties without privilege no less than six false and defamatory articles of and concerning Nicholas, including two in its print newspaper and four online. This number does not include those articles that the Post updated and changed after initial publication.

113. On January 19, 2019, the Post published online its first false and defamatory article entitled “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him” (the “First Article”). A true and correct copy of the First Article is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

114. The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”

115. The First Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas instigated a confrontation with Phillips and subsequently engaged in racist conduct.

116. The First Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas assaulted and/or physically intimidated Phillips.

117. The First Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas engaged in racist taunts.

118. In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”
(b) “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”
(c) “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”
(d) “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”
(e) “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”
(f) “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”
(g) “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
(h) “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”
(i) “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .”

119. On January 20, the Post updated its Second Article (the “Second Article”). A true and correct copy of the Second Article is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

120. The Second Article, as updated and in addition to the gists identified above in the First Article, communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the fundamental standards of his religious community and violated the policies of his school such that he should be expelled.

121. In its false and defamatory Second Article, in addition to those identified in the First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) “‘We [Bishop Foys and the Diocese of Covington] condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general,’ the statement said. ‘The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.’ … The diocese’s statement expressed regret that jeering, disrespectful students from a Catholic school had become the enduring image of the march.”

122. On January 20, 2019, the Post published in print its third false and defamatory article entitled “Marcher’s accost by boys in MAGA caps draws ire” (the “Third Article”). A true and correct copy of the Third Article is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

123. The Third Article was published in the Post’s Sunday edition of its newspaper.

124. The Third Article referenced the viral @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos that had gone viral, prominently featuring Nicholas, and emphasized Nicholas’ alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”

125. The Third Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas instigated a confrontation with Phillips and subsequently engaged in racist conduct.

126. The Third Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas assaulted and/or physically intimidated Phillips.

127. The Third Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the fundamental standards of his religious community.

128. The Third Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the policies of his school such that he should be expelled.

129. In its Third Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) The headline “Marcher’s accost by boys in MAGA caps draws ire.”
(b) “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”
(c) “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”
(d) “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”
(e) “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”
(f) “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”
(g) “‘We [Bishop Foys and the Diocese of Covington] condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general,’ the statement said. ‘The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.’”
(h) “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”
(i) “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”
(j) “In that role, he [Phillips] has encountered anti-Native American sentiment before . . . .”

130. On January 20, 2019, the Post published online its fourth false and defamatory article entitled “Opposed to the dignity of the human person’: Kentucky Catholic diocese condemns teens who taunted vet at March for Life” (the “Fourth Article”). A true and correct copy of the Fourth Article is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

131. The Fourth Article referenced the viral @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos that had gone viral, prominently featuring Nicholas, and emphasized Nicholas’ alleged involvement as being the “teen, shown smirking at him in the video, was blocking him from moving.”

132. The Fourth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas instigated a confrontation with Phillips and engaged in racist conduct.

133. The Fourth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas assaulted Phillips.

134. The Fourth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the fundamental standards of his religious community.

135. The Fourth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the policies of his school such that he should be expelled.

136. In its Fourth Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) The headline “Opposed to the dignity of the human person’: Kentucky Catholic diocese condemns teens who taunted vet at March for Life.”
(b) “A viral video of a group of Kentucky teens in ‘Make America Great Again’ hats taunting a Native American veteran on Friday …”
(c) “A few of the young people chanted ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ the man said, adding that a teen, shown smirking at him in the video, was blocking him from moving.”
(d) “‘We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic high school students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general,’ a statement by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School read. ‘We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person. The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.’”

137. On January 20, 2019, the Post published online its fifth false and defamatory article entitled “Most young white men are much more open to diversity than older generations” (the “Fifth Article”). A true and correct copy of the Fifth Article is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

138. The Fifth Article emphasized Nicholas’ alleged involvement by stating that “one of their [the students’] members appeared to physically intimidate Nathan Phillips …”

139. The Fifth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas instigated a confrontation with Phillips and subsequently engaged in racist conduct.

140. The Fifth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas assaulted and/or physically intimidated Phillips.

141. In its Fifth Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) “Friday’s incident near the Lincoln Memorial in which a group of high school boys confronted an elderly Native American man sent a ripple of fear and anger across the country. The image of a group of high school boys clad in ‘Make America Great Again’ hats, smirking and laughing as one of their members appeared to physically intimidate Nathan Phillips resurfaced tensions that have been simmering since President Trump’s campaign began.”
(b) “At one point, some reportedly chanted, ‘Build the wall!’”
(c) “It’s clear from Friday’s incident on the Mall that the young men who confronted the Native American protester had somehow internalized that their behavior was acceptable.”

142. On January 21, 2019, the Post published in print its sixth false and defamatory article entitled “Fuller view emerges of conflict on Mall” (the “Sixth Article”). A true and correct copy of the Sixth Article is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

143. The Sixth Article was published in the Post’s Monday edition of its newspaper.

144. The Sixth Article references Nicholas by name.

145. The Sixth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas instigated a confrontation with Phillips and subsequently engaged in racist conduct.

146. The Sixth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas assaulted and/or physically intimidated Phillips.

147. The Sixth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the fundamental standards of his religious community.

148. The Sixth Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the policies of his school such that he should be expelled.

149. In its Sixth Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) “The Israelites and students exchanged taunts, videos show. The Native Americans and Hebrew Israelites say some students shouted, ‘Build the wall!’”
(b) “When I took that drum and hit that first beat … it was a supplication to God,” said Nathan Phillips, a member of the Omaha tribe and a Marine veteran. ‘Look at us, God, look at what is going on here; my America is being torn apart by racism, hatred, bigotry.’”
(c) “While the groups argued, some students laughed and mocked them . . . . ‘They were sitting there, mocking me as I was trying to teach my brothers, so yes the attention turned to them,’ Israel told The Washington Post.”
(d) “Phillips said he and his fellow Native American activists also had issues with the students throughout the day. ‘Before they got centered on the black Israelites, they would walk through and say things to each other, like, ‘Oh, the Indians in my state are drunks or thieves,’ the 64-year-old said.”
(e) “Phillips said he heard students shout, ‘Go back to Africa!’”
(f) “‘They were mocking my ancestors in a chant …’ he said.”
(g) “Jon Stegenga, a photojournalist who drove to Washington on Friday from South Carolina to cover the Indigenous Peoples March, recalled hearing
students say ‘build the wall’ and ‘Trump 2020.’ He said it was about that time that Phillips intervened.”
(h) “Most of the students moved out of his way, the video shows. But Sandmann stayed still. Asked why he felt the need to walk into the group of students, Phillips said he was trying to reach the top of the memorial, where friends were standing. But Phillips also said he saw more than a teenage boy in front of him. He saw a long history of white oppression of Native Americans. ‘Why should I go around him?’ he asked. ‘I’m just thinking of 500 years of genocide in this country, what your people have done. You don’t even see me as a human being.’”
(i) “‘He [Phillips] was dealing with a lot of feelings, as he was being surrounded and not being shown respect,’ the photographer said.”
(j) “School officials and the Catholic Diocese of Covington released a joint statement Saturday condemning and apologizing for the students’ actions. ‘The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion,’ the statement said.”

150. On January 21, 2019, the Post published online its seventh false and defamatory article entitled “Viral standoff between a tribal elder and a high schooler is more complicated than it first seemed” (the “Seventh Article”). A true and correct copy of the Seventh Article is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

151. The Seventh Article references Nicholas by name.

152. The Seventh Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas instigated a confrontation with Phillips and subsequently engaged in racist conduct.

153. The Seventh Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas assaulted Phillips.

154. The Seventh Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the fundamental standards of his religious community.

155. The Seventh Article communicated the false and defamatory gist that Nicholas’ behavior violated the policies of his school such that he should be expelled.

156. In its Seventh Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:
(a) “The Israelites and students exchanged taunts, videos show. The Native Americans and Hebrew Israelites say some students shouted, ‘Build the wall!’”
(b) “When a Native American elder intervened, singing and playing a prayer song, scores of students around him seem to mimic and mock him, a video posted Monday shows.”
(c) “The Kentucky teens’ church apologized on Saturday, condemning the students’ actions.”
(d) “‘When I took that drum and hit that first beat … it was a supplication to God,’ said Nathan Phillips, a member of the Omaha tribe and a Marine veteran. ‘Look at us, God, look at what is going on here; my America is being torn apart by racism, hatred, bigotry.’”
(e) “While the groups argued, some students laughed and mocked them . . . .”
(f) “‘They were sitting there, mocking me as I was trying to teach my brothers, so, yes, the attention turned to them,’ Israel told The Washington Post.”
(g) “Phillips said he and his fellow Native American activists also had issues with the students throughout the day. ‘Before they got centered on the black Israelites, they would walk through and say things to each other, like, ‘Oh, the Indians in my state are drunks or thieves,’ the 64-year-old said.”
(h) “Phillips said he heard students shout, ‘Go back to Africa!’”
(i) “‘They were mocking my ancestors in a chant . . . .’ he said.”
(j) “Jon Stegenga, a photojournalist who drove to Washington on Friday from South Carolina to cover the Indigenous Peoples March, recalled hearing students say ‘build the wall’ and ‘Trump 2020.’ He said it was about that time that Phillips intervened.”
(k) “Most of the students moved out of his way, the video shows. But Sandmann stayed still. Asked why he felt the need to walk into the group of students, Phillips said he was trying to reach the top of the memorial, where friends were standing. But Phillips also said he saw more than a teenage boy in front of him. He saw a long history of white oppression of Native Americans. ‘Why should I go around him?’ he asked. ‘I’m just thinking of 500 years of genocide in this country, what your people have done. You don’t even see me as a human being.’”
(l) “‘He [Phillips] was dealing with a lot of feelings, as he was being surrounded and not being shown respect,’ the photographer said.”
(m) “School officials and the Catholic Diocese of Covington released a joint statement Saturday condemning and apologizing for the students’ actions. ‘The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion,’ the statement said.”

157. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles are collectively referred to herein as the “Articles.”

158. On January 19, 2019, the Post also posted to its Twitter page and published to approximately 13 million followers its First Article with the following false and defamatory captions, all within a span of 14 minutes, and all within the same thread:
(a) “In an interview with The Post, Omaha Tribe elder Nathan Phillips says he ‘felt like the spirit was talking through me’ as teens jeered and mocked him.”
(b) “He was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home. ‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial.’”
(c) “Phillips, who fought in the Vietnam War, says in an interview ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

159. These three tweets are collectively referred to herein as the “Tweets,” true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit K.

160. In addition to the false and defamatory gists of the First Article, the Tweets also independently communicated the false and defamatory gists that Nicholas engaged in racist conduct and that Nicholas assaulted Phillips.

161. The Tweets and Articles are collectively referred to herein as the “False and Defamatory Accusations.”

162. As the natural and foreseeable consequence of its actions, the Post knew and intended that its False and Defamatory Accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff member
May 30, 2004
20,700
6,601
1,450
#71
(part 2 of 2)

NICHOLAS IS A PRIVATE FIGURE

163. Nicholas is a private figure for the purposes of this defamation action, having lived his entire life outside of the public eye.

164. Prior to the January 18 incident, Nicholas had no notoriety of any kind in the community at large.

165. Nicholas did not engage the public’s attention to resolve any public issue that could impact the community at large.

166. Nicholas made no public appearances prior to the false accusations against him.

167. Nicholas has not inserted himself into the forefront of any public issue.

168. Nicholas’ limited public statements after the accusations against him were reasonable, proportionate, and in direct response to the false accusations against him and do not render Nicholas a limited purpose public figure.

THE POST PUBLISHED NEGLIGENTLY AND WITH ACTUAL MALICE

169. The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations negligently and with actual knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.

170. As one of the world’s leading news outlets, the Post knew but ignored the importance of verifying damaging, and in this case, incendiary accusations against a minor child prior to publication.

171. The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.

172. Instead of investigation and publishing the true story, the Post recklessly rushed to publish its False and Defamatory Accusations in order to advance its own political agenda against President Trump.

173. In doing so, the Post lifted the incident from social media and placed it in the mainstream media, giving its False and Defamatory Accusations credibility and permanence.

174. The Post negligently published its False and Defamatory Accusations by departing from the reasonable standard of care employed by journalists, including those standards articulated by the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.

175. The Post’s collective conduct demonstrates a purposeful avoidance of the truth and the publication of the False and Defamatory Accusations with actual knowledge of falsity following its review of the complete video evidence and Nicholas’ statement no later than January 20.

176. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to publication.

177. The Post’s failure to investigate is heightened where, as here, the January 18 incident was not breaking news and involved a minor child.

178. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation by not having a credible or reliable source for its publications.

179. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations by relying on unreliable and biased sources with questionable credibility.

180. Indeed, the Post negligently and recklessly relied upon only Phillips and other Native Americans with a biased pre-disposition.

181. Phillips, himself, is wholly unreliable and lacks credibility as shown in part by his false claim to have served in Vietnam while a member of the military, as a professional activist with a known bias against President Trump and his supporters, his documented history of making similar false accusations, his use of the January 18 incident to promote his own political and personal agenda, the contradictions in his story established in his interviews, and that the video evidence that totally refute his story.

182. The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations in continued reliance upon those it knew to have political and personal biases, including Chase Iron Eyes of the Lakota People Law Project who was, in effect, managing and/or representing Phillips, Jon Stegenga who had also attended the Indigenous Peoples March, Deb Haaland who is a politician with a demonstrable bias against President Trump, and the Hebrew Israelites whose lack of credibility is widely known.

183. The Post had obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of its purported firsthand sources, including because they are manifestly biased and because the short video evidence on which the Post relied did not show Nicholas or the students swarming Phillips, uttering the chants or slurs they were accused of making, or Nicholas or the students blocking Phillips’ egress.

184. The Post further had reason to doubt the veracity of its social media sources, including Kaya Taitano and @2020fight. Kaya Taitano also had a known bias having been

present to support the Indigenous Peoples March, and the @2020fight account bore all the hallmarks of being a fraudulent account with a political agenda, as later proven true.

185. The Post consciously elected to ignore this contrary information in favor of its pre-conceived false narrative against President Trump and his supporters.

186. The only category of individuals present at the January 18 incident that the Post chose not to rely upon were the CovCath students.

187. The Post negligently and recklessly failed to consult publicly available information demonstrating its False and Defamatory Accusations to be false, including, without limitation, other video evidence available online demonstrating that Phillips specifically approached the students and specifically confronted Nicholas, and that Nicholas did not engage in swarming, surrounding, mocking, taunting, blocking, or otherwise physically intimidating Phillips or anyone else present.

188. Not only was the Post aware that the snippets of video it reviewed did not support its False and Defamatory Accusations, but it was also aware that the video it reviewed was woefully incomplete, but the Post nonetheless published its accusations against Nicholas without any further investigation.

189. The Post continued to publish its False and Defamatory Accusations with actual knowledge of falsity, having reviewed video evidence and statements of Nicholas Sandmann contradicting its False and Defamatory Accusations.

190. The Post negligently and recklessly failed to seek information from other obvious sources who would have demonstrated its False and Defamatory Accusations to be false, including Nicholas, his classmates, and/or the chaperones present at the January 18 incident.

191. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations despite internal inconsistencies in Phillips’ claims as well as material differences in his statements to other outlets published January 19 and 20.

192. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles.

193. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to verify each before publication.

194. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify its coverage, and by failing to provide any appropriate context to its False and Defamatory Accusations.

195. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to avoid stereotyping.

196. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to examine the way in which its own biases and agenda shaped its false reporting.

197. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by failing to treat Nicholas as a human being deserving of respect.

198. The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by wrongfully placing the anti-Trump, anti-Catholic, and pro-life agenda over the harm its False and Defamatory Accusations caused to Nicholas.

199. At the time of its initial reporting of and concerning Nicholas, the Post did not know Nicholas’ age and did not make any reasonable attempt to ascertain it despite the general knowledge that Nicholas was a high school student.

200. Nicholas’ counsel propounded a demand for retraction upon the Post on February 14, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit L.

201. The Post’s actual malice is further evidenced by its failure to retract is False and Defamatory Accusations.

202. The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations with common law malice, including because it intended to harm Nicholas because he was a white, Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat, and consciously ignored the threats of harm that it knew would inevitably ensue, in favor of its political agenda.

203. The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations with common law malice, demonstrated by its failure to retract its False and Defamatory Accusations despite the harm and danger it knew would be inflicted upon Nicholas.

204. The Post published its False and Defamatory Accusations with common law malice, including because it callously ignored the consequences of its actions upon a minor child.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
#72
Is it okay if the media knowingly and intentionally releases false information and "made up stories"? Absolutely not. Not even if they correct themselves. Thats just not okay no matter how you slice it in my opinion.


Is it okay for the media to release whatever information or reports they think are accurate and then proceed to update their information as the situation evolves and more facts come out? Yes absolutely. When it comes to breaking news I am not going to expect anyone to get things right 100% of the time and as long as it was a genuine mistake and there was no intentional misinformation I am perfectly fine with it as long as they admit they were wrong and update their stories accordingly.


And as far as I know there is no hard evidence that the Washington Post intentionally lied is there? If it turns out they did knowingly release false information then I am all for them having to pay the affected families, but if its shown they truly just made a mistake and then proceeded to correct themselves in a timely manner then I don't think they should have to pay anyone anything. Now if the judge disagrees and says they still have to pay some kind of financial penalty then I will be fine with that as well. I am not gonna rant and rave if the family gets some amount of money. I just don't think $250 million is reasonable and I don't think they should pay anything in my opinion if it was a genuine mistake.


I don't feel like that is a controversial opinion to have, but maybe thats just me.
Well good thing we have hindsight, because IMO its not ok for the media to release wrong and false reports. They are investigators and if what if they don't have confidence on what they are reporting they shouldn't release it. Thats called standards and ethics, and the need for profitability isn't an excuse for sloppy journalism. The fact that media got this wrong and allowed Phillips lies to go unchallenged should be reason enough for us to use hindsight and hold them accountable, if not then they will keep doing the same thing. Maybe then they will learn to not print lies.

I have a question for you, where do you think WAPO was getting the information to report on this story? You keep giving them a break in this case because you say they reported what they thought was accurate and then corrected their mistakes? So you are willing to let the media decide what is accurate just based on what they say is? So if the media thinks its accurate that Kamal Harris conspired with Jussi to get the anti-lynching bill introduced they can print that story right now? They think its accurate because the posts are pretty convincing in the thread.

So I ask you where did WAPO get this information to report the story? A viral video on twitter and Nathan Phillips. If you use a viral video on twitter from some sketchy account you are not reporting anything. Nathan Phillips lied, and it wouldn't take much work to contact the school and get their side before printing word for word Phillips lies. Not to mention the 2 hour video was there for them to fact check Phillips lies.

So essentially you are saying if someone tells WAPO lies they have no responsability to investigate it, as long as WAPO journalist think its true thats all that matters and they have the right to print anything against anyone and the only consequences they should face is having to print a correction. So WAPO could print that Nobody Important was the Aurora shooter because I called them and told them it was you. They wouldn't need to contact the police, you, or anyone else, since they believe me they can print it.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,935
3,896
460
#73
they did it during the last Braves game i went to, which was ~10 years ago. no idea if they still do it but wouldn't be surprised.
We still do it in Atlanta. And fuck anyone who wants to get their panties in a bunch over it being insensitive.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,935
3,896
460
#74
I don't feel like that is a controversial opinion to have, but maybe thats just me.
Your opinions almost always look like they were ran by a progressive focus group before being approved for posting. It is freaking eerie how little you deviate from the approved narrative.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
#76
I fully support scorched earth tactics.

The media, the deep state, and the swamp need to not just be taken to task, but dismantled. It's sad that we got to the point where everything is is as calcified as it is, but whatever, that's where we are.

The culture war is a war, and battles like this will define it. The media and tech platforms [deplatforming, etc] seem to be the two frontlines right now. The democratic party might be next due to friendly fire when they start lobbing bombs at each other during the primaries. Hopefully the FBI. The universities.

Depending on the victor, in 50 years we are going to hear two very different versions of the 10s.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Cybrwzrd

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,935
3,896
460
#77
I lean hard left. How surprising is it really that my opinions and views reflect that?
So do I, on many topics. I also can lean hard right on other topics, and am dead centrist on others. Not everything the left says is correct, and not everything the right says is evil. I would go as far as to say that parroting a single narrative is indicative of close mindedness and immaturity.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff member
May 30, 2004
20,700
6,601
1,450
#78
And as far as I know there is no hard evidence that the Washington Post intentionally lied is there?
There is.

171. The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
#79
I lean hard left. How surprising is it really that my opinions and views reflect that?



I actually lean far left too, or at least I used to. Definitions have changed. Social justice, identity politics, victimology, socialism, and communism are huge no gos for me. Like, run away, far away.

Edit: not shown in photo, the amount of time I spent deciding whether it's better to show someone falling to the left from their perspective or our perspective.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#81
There is.

171. The negligence and actual malice of the Post is demonstrated by its utter and knowing disregard for the truth available in the complete video of the January 18 incident which was available contemporaneously with the edited clip the Post chose because it appeared to support its biased narrative.
If its proven the Post knew of the video and continued to put out what they did anyway then I 100% support them having to pay some kind of financial penalty.
 
Jan 20, 2018
1,251
696
320
Pittsburgh
#83
If its proven the Post knew of the video and continued to put out what they did anyway then I 100% support them having to pay some kind of financial penalty.
The other video surfaced pretty quickly. The left leaning websites continued with the initial story. FoxNews at least used "purportedly" in describing the event.

But, then again, you yourself refused to acknowledge the other video for even days upon days after it and argued with others who kept saying to watch the whole video. I believe you even said "I have seen all the evidence" while continuing to argue about the supposed racism.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#84
The other video surfaced pretty quickly. The left leaning websites continued with the initial story. FoxNews at least used "purportedly" in describing the event.

But, then again, you yourself refused to acknowledge the other video for even days upon days after it and argued with others who kept saying to watch the whole video. I believe you even said "I have seen all the evidence" while continuing to argue about the supposed racism.
And I was wrong. I already admitted that the situation was not what I thought it was initially.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#86
how the heck can you even consider yourself a journalist (and especially a left-wing one) when your newspaper is owned by one of the worst corporations in the world is beyond me.
I will agree to that. I don't like the idea of news outlets being owned by major corporations. I never have. Sadly we almost don't have a choice these days.
 
Likes: JareBear
Jun 12, 2018
423
670
210
#87
I think the link needs to point to this guy: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Lin_Wood

Richard Jewell was a case, not a lawyer
Nice, this attorney is NO joke. Hope he takes them all to the cleaners, especially the WaPo because that's where I first read the story.

I was ready to come in on the topic here and ream the little racist bastards. Fortunately the thread already had links to the the long form video which told the REAL story so I didn't end up making a complete fool of myself castigating these kids based on WaPo's one-sided and negligent reporting.
 

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,496
489
800
steamcommunity.com
#90
I am not really a big fan of ridiculous amounts of money being sued for, but the subtle but effective ACCUSE IN BOLD FONT ON THE COVER and retract on page 7 , biasing in news outlets has gotten a little out of hand. CNN is one of the worst in selective reporting, FOX does it also, but they are a lot more ham fisted at it. . Especially when we are supposed to believe accusers sight unseen as with all the hashtag movements lately.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
#91
If its proven the Post knew of the video and continued to put out what they did anyway then I 100% support them having to pay some kind of financial penalty.
There is nothing to debate. They did. Journalists are supposed to investigate a story before reporting on it, but they are failing at their one job. Tim pool, among others, was at the forefront of correcting a narrative that should never have been a narrative because the full facts were literally live-streamed and available to all from the get-go.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,960
2,049
240
#92
I think its pretty hard to argue for the media that they actually tried to find out more about this case before making it "big news" i am not a journalist and i found the longer video of the incident in about 30 minutes on youtube and this before it was big news.
Every Media outlet needs to be among the first to survive meaning they use twitter as news source, most of the time this works out ok... when it doesnt it gets buried or corrected later but sooner or later this is bound to backfire and this case was blown out of proportions by the media, celebs and famous twitter accounts jumping in on the insanity didnt exactly help either lol
Maybe its a calculation "we get clicks/revenue/mindshare and survive vs 1 case out of 500 needs to be settled outside of court."
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#93
There is nothing to debate. They did. Journalists are supposed to investigate a story before reporting on it, but they are failing at their one job. Tim pool, among others, was at the forefront of correcting a narrative that should never have been a narrative because the full facts were literally live-streamed and available to all from the get-go.
Then the lawyers will have no problem proving that WaPo knew about the video and will get a sizable settlement.


We will just have to wait and see.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,914
3,150
410
#94
I'm all for this lawsuit and media companies having to pay up.



Bezos could fund 10 washington posts if he wanted to tho? Not really in danger of going broke. And Amazon is set to retain more earnings than ever thanks to the Trump corporate tax cuts. MAGA.
Its not Bezos going broke its WAPO. 250 million means bye bye WAPO. Bezo's paid 250 for the paper, they lose and its like he is buying it a second time.

Hogan sunk Gawker for much less.

Wouldn't surprise me if some billionaire like Peter Thiel jumps onto this and starts funding this thing.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#95
Its not Bezos going broke its WAPO. 250 million means bye bye WAPO. Bezo's paid 250 for the paper, they lose and its like he is buying it a second time.

Hogan sunk Gawker for much less.

Wouldn't surprise me if some billionaire like Peter Thiel jumps onto this and starts funding this thing.
The Gawker story and this are not even remotely similar. You are crazy if you think that they are. Gawker released a fucking porno tape of Hogan. That is not even in the same galaxy as what happened here. Not even close.


At WORST what happened here is that WaPo knowingly spread bad info regarding a volatile situation in order to get clicks and thats the worst case scenario. That is not the same thing as maliciously releasing a private sex tape of someone to the public.
 
Last edited:
Sep 26, 2014
1,910
1,115
330
#96
Then the lawyers will have no problem proving that WaPo knew about the video and will get a sizable settlement.


We will just have to wait and see.
he doesn't have to prove they knew about the video. he only has to prove that they didn't do their job and investigate the claims. running a story about a private individual doesn't require the broadcaster to know its a lie, that is only needed for public figures. Only that they were negligent in checking to see if it was a lie.
 
Last edited:
Dec 18, 2010
8,238
959
660
51
washington d.c.
#97
Then the lawyers will have no problem proving that WaPo knew about the video and will get a sizable settlement.


We will just have to wait and see.
So you’re saying WaPo couldn’t go on YouTube like any regular person and watch the video before publishing a story that coincidentally serves their political leanings? You would need proof that that information was somehow unavailable to them, a news organization. Unbelievable.
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#98
Would rather Twitter axe all the accounts of people who advocated for violence against them but this will work too.
 
Likes: CatLady
Oct 1, 2006
3,412
2,867
1,090
#99
I am not really a big fan of ridiculous amounts of money being sued for, but the subtle but effective ACCUSE IN BOLD FONT ON THE COVER and retract on page 7 , biasing in news outlets has gotten a little out of hand. CNN is one of the worst in selective reporting, FOX does it also, but they are a lot more ham fisted at it. . Especially when we are supposed to believe accusers sight unseen as with all the hashtag movements lately.
I've tried to find it again, but I remember reading a study about how much (or little) most people read of articles. It is generally just the headline, sometimes the first paragraph, maybe skim the middle and read the last, but rarely is the whole thing read.

If anyone know what I am talking about, I would love to have it bookmarked. It is very useful to expose this tactic of deceitful journalism.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
Not saying they are the same situation, I am saying financially Hogan bankrupted Gawker. If Sandman wins this could potentially have the same financial impact on WAPO.

Its only similar in regards to the financial effect.
Well considering WaPo is owned by the richest man on earth I highly doubt WaPo is gonna go bankrupt regardless of what the courts decide lol

So you’re saying WaPo couldn’t go on YouTube like any regular person and watch the video before publishing a story that coincidentally serves their political leanings? You would need proof that that information was somehow unavailable to them, a news organization. Unbelievable.
No I am saying that if its proven they knew about the video and released the story anyway then by all means punish them.


Ignorance =/= Malice


That is where I differ from you all. Thats all I have left to say though. I am gonna wait for more information regarding the case and the arguments that each side is making before I say anything else. Its time to just wait and see.
 
Last edited: