Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Covington Catholic - MAGA DC Incident

Hank Kingsley

By Hank Kingsley
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 941
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Johnny Sack
Johnny Sack

The worst actors were in order 1 hebrew black group for vile racist and homophobic insults to a bunch of kids 2 Chief full of shit for lying  3 the white kids I guess for not de-escalat

Newy25
Newy25

Damn you are one racist piece of shit. 

Chuckie Finster
Chuckie Finster

We all know that kid.  That grin.  His buddies giggling and hollering behind him.  The group's knowledge that their actions have no consequence.  We all know that kid.  And we all knew that eventually

Posted Images

Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1743

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What does this mean? What did they report that they didn't previously verify? What did they report that was false?

Did they report what occurred before the “stare down”? I believe they did. Completely inaccurately to get viewership, but they did none-the-less. Wouldn’t that substantiate a false narrative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29425

Posted
Posted
Just now, Spankytoes said:

Did they report what occurred before the “stare down”? I believe they did. Completely inaccurately to get viewership, but they did none-the-less. Wouldn’t that substantiate a false narrative?

I don’t know. Do you have an actual example of something inaccurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105448

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Did they report what occurred before the “stare down”? I believe they did. Completely inaccurately to get viewership, but they did none-the-less. Wouldn’t that substantiate a false narrative?

If they reported that "Person X said that he walked over to the students, and they responded by shouting "you suck, old indian dude,"" and that accurately states what Person X told the paper, then they're in the clear.  Note that Person X might even be LYING -- that's on Person X, not the paper.  "You should have known he was lying" isn't a good predicate for a defamation case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1743

Posted
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If they reported that "Person X said that he walked over to the students, and they responded by shouting "you suck, old indian dude,"" and that accurately states what Person X told the paper, then they're in the clear.  Note that Person X might even be LYING -- that's on Person X, not the paper.  "You should have known he was lying" isn't a good predicate for a defamation case.

That’s how lawsuits go, not credible reporting. Credible reporting would print the student’s side or state “The student referenced in this story declined to comment despite multiple attempts to reach him”  or “The student has not yet been identified.” A credible story doesn’t edit a video to fit a narrative just because it will attract more eyes like yellow journalism. A credible story doesn’t print the name or high school of a minor. A credible paper doesn’t have two exclusive follow ups with the “victim” while knowingly printing a story that they know to be complete horseshit. (Or need to print a retraction on the “victim’s” published military service because they didn’t fact check.)

They had the video of the black Muslim group harassing the students. Why wasn’t there a credible story published about that? It doesn’t fit the narrative because no one gives a shit about white teens wearing MAGA hats getting what they “deserve”.

Edited by Spankytoes
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

That’s how lawsuits go, not credible reporting. Credible reporting would print the student’s side or state “The student referenced in this story declined to comment despite multiple attempts to reach him”  or “The student has not yet been identified.” A credible story doesn’t edit a video to fit a narrative just because it will attract more eyes like yellow journalism. A credible story doesn’t print the name or high school of a minor. A credible paper doesn’t have two exclusive follow ups with the “victim” while knowingly printing a story that they know to be complete horseshit. (Or have to print a retraction on the “victim’s” published military service because they didn’t fact check.)

They had the video of the black Muslim group harassing the students. Why wasn’t there a credible story published about that? It doesn’t fit the narrative because no one gives a shit about white teens wearing MAGA hats getting what they “deserve”.

This.  This right here.  Maybe he can’t get by Sullivan.  But he has good lawyers who are doing this on contingency.  And they will get to take all sorts of depositions of these “journalists” and their editors before the summary judgment stage.  And get all sorts of emails, texts and other communications.   I’m guessing their lawyers at a minimum are going to embarrass the shit out of wapo.  So Sullivan or not, wapo might be looking to settle to avoid all this shit getting public.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29425

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

That’s how lawsuits go, not credible reporting. Credible reporting would print the student’s side or state “The student referenced in this story declined to comment despite multiple attempts to reach him”  or “The student has not yet been identified.” A credible story doesn’t edit a video to fit a narrative just because it will attract more eyes like yellow journalism. A credible story doesn’t print the name or high school of a minor. A credible paper doesn’t have two exclusive follow ups with the “victim” while knowingly printing a story that they know to be complete horseshit. (Or need to print a retraction on the “victim’s” published military service because they didn’t fact check.)

They had the video of the black Muslim group harassing the students. Why wasn’t there a credible story published about that? It doesn’t fit the narrative because no one gives a shit about white teens wearing MAGA hats getting what they “deserve”.

Any evidence that WaPo did that? Can you actually provide any specific examples whatsoever of anything WaPo did wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105448

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

That’s how lawsuits go, not credible reporting. Credible reporting would print the student’s side or state “The student referenced in this story declined to comment despite multiple attempts to reach him”  or “The student has not yet been identified.” A credible story doesn’t edit a video to fit a narrative just because it will attract more eyes like yellow journalism. A credible story doesn’t print the name or high school of a minor. A credible paper doesn’t have two exclusive follow ups with the “victim” while knowingly printing a story that they know to be complete horseshit. (Or have to print a retraction on the “victim’s” published military service because they didn’t fact check.)

They had the video of the black Muslim group harassing the students. Why wasn’t there a credible story published about that? It doesn’t fit the narrative because no one gives a shit about white teens wearing MAGA hats getting what they “deserve”.

Well, being that we're talking about the suit filed.....and you are offering a critique of whether WAPO practiced good journalism.  That's a different conversation (and a pretty big one, in this era of 24-hour news cycle and "breaking news" where media outlets try to be the first to report a story).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
Just now, Johnny Sack said:

This.  This right here.  Maybe he can’t get by Sullivan.  But he has good lawyers who are doing this on contingency.  And they will get to take all sorts of depositions of these “journalists” and their editors before the summary judgment stage.  And get all sorts of emails, texts and other communications.   I’m guessing their lawyers at a minimum are going to embarrass the shit out of wapo.  So Sullivan or not, wapo might be looking to settle to avoid all this shit getting public.   

you don't think that cuts both ways?  wapo gets to do discovery on this kid's life, take depos, get text messages, as well as the actions of the boys throughout the day...in which there is already video of their behavior bordering on harassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1743

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Any evidence that WaPo did that? Can you actually provide any specific examples whatsoever of anything WaPo did wrong?

Besides the edited video posted in their website and social media page that was cut from a much longer video? Yes, I do. Read their original story and see what was mentioned. Then watch the actual, uncut, video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105448

Posted
Posted
Just now, Spankytoes said:

Besides the edited video posted in their website and social media page that was cut from a much longer video? Yes, I do. Read their original story and see what was mentioned. Then watch the actual, uncut, video.

Did Wapo edit the video, or pull it from a source?  Again, it's the difference between quoting someone and creating the quote.  That's a REALLY important distinction in a defamation suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29425

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

Besides the edited video posted in their website and social media page that was cut from a much longer video? Yes, I do. Read their original story and see what was mentioned. Then watch the actual, uncut, video.

...you got a link to anything?

It's really not hard to show your evidence if you have it. I'm not familiar enough with every outlet's reporting of this story. Maybe you are and can point to something specific, but it seems that most conservatives are conflating a specific outlet's reporting with the general online reaction to the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1743

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, being that we're talking about the suit filed.....and you are offering a critique of whether WAPO practiced good journalism.  That's a different conversation (and a pretty big one, in this era of 24-hour news cycle and "breaking news" where media outlets try to be the first to report a story).

The post you quoted of mine was talking specifically about what was being reported. Same deal with Wildcat’s question. I can read the transcript if you’d like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105448

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

The post you quoted of mine was talking specifically about what was being reported. Same deal with Wildcat’s question. I can read the transcript if you’d like.

I truly have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.  For example, you criticized the paper like this:

Quote

Credible reporting would print the student’s side or state “The student referenced in this story declined to comment despite multiple attempts to reach him”  or “The student has not yet been identified.” 

Failure to do either of those things (that is, things that were NOT reported) doesn't constitute defamation.  It may constitute a journalistic practice that we think is piss-poor, but for the 100th time, that's not the relevant standard in defamation.  So...I really don't know what you're getting at.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I truly have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.  For example, you criticized the paper like this:

Failure to do either of those things doesn't constitute defamation.  It may constitute a journalistic practice that we think is piss-poor, but for the 100th time, that's not the relevant standard in defamation.  So...I really don't know what you're getting at.

They will settle.  Because their shit practices and bias will be there for the world to see in discovery unless they settle.  

They can probably win on SJ.  But doing so exposes their bullshit. 

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1743

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I truly have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.  For example, you criticized the paper like this:

Failure to do either of those things (that is, things that were NOT reported) doesn't constitute defamation.  It may constitute a journalistic practice that we think is piss-poor, but for the 100th time, that's not the relevant standard in defamation.  So...I really don't know what you're getting at.

I’m not sure how I can explain it any clearer. I’m not talking about the lawsuit. The post I replied to, nor my replies, have anything to do with the filed lawsuit. We were talking journalistic practices and you brought the lawsuit into the discussion. He won’t win the lawsuit, nor should he. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I truly have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.  For example, you criticized the paper like this:

Failure to do either of those things (that is, things that were NOT reported) doesn't constitute defamation.  It may constitute a journalistic practice that we think is piss-poor, but for the 100th time, that's not the relevant standard in defamation.  So...I really don't know what you're getting at.

he's saying his posts had nothing to do with the context of the suit and yours do.  even though the conversation has turned to this suit and its prospects for success, he's saying that's not what he's talking about.

he thinks he's making a broader point about the sensationalizing of contemporary journalism and the lack of credibility in reporting by pointing to this example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spankytoes

Spankytoes 1743

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...you got a link to anything?

It's really not hard to show your evidence if you have it. I'm not familiar enough with every outlet's reporting of this story. Maybe you are and can point to something specific, but it seems that most conservatives are conflating a specific outlet's reporting with the general online reaction to the event.

It actually is hard because I can’t search Post stories without subscribing to read online and I’m not going to sift through twitter to find the original tweets. Let’s just stipulate that the WaPo spread the edited video on social media and they weren’t the only ones that did so. I read that there was another source for the video, so I’ll back off the claim that WaPo edited it.

Edited by Spankytoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

No. I'm serious. If the goal is to expose the bias inherent in left wing journalism outfits like the Washington Post, why on earth would he settle? 

lawyers on contingency in this type of case?  opportunistic family leveraging the situation.

like i said, LOL.

ironic for typical tort reform zealots but whatevs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29425

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

It actually is hard because I can’t search Post stories without subscribing to read online and I’m not going to sift through twitter to find the original tweets. Let’s just stipulate that the WaPo spread the edited video on social media and they weren’t the only ones that did so. I read that there was another source for the video, so I’ll back off the claim that WaPo edited it.

Fair enough. I have no idea if they were or not but the initial tweets may very well have been misleading. I'm fairly sure most newspapers have shitty interns with little editorial guidance handle their social media, which is why outlets are constantly updating their tweets because the originals suck pretty much all of the time. If WaPo's initial tweets were misleading, I think it's likely more a matter of institutional neglect of the importance of social media than it is an intentional institutional bias. Newspapers really should let reporters write their own headlines and their own tweets for their articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29425

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, sidis said:

lawyers on contingency in this type of case?  opportunistic family leveraging the situation.

like i said, LOL.

ironic for typical tort reform zealots but whatevs.

Naw, Johnny wants aggrieved white conservatives who were made fun of to be able to recover millions. It's the victims of medical malpractice he doesn't give a shit about. My man is a regular Clarence Thomas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

Naw, Johnny wants aggrieved white conservatives who were made fun of to be able to recover millions. It's the victims of medical malpractice he doesn't give a shit about. My man is a regular Clarence Thomas.

I’ve posted repeatedly I’m against damages caps.  But you be the dipshit you were born to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6691

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Quite the man you are. Kid/minor/ HS kid gets assaulted by an adult who claims to be a Viet Nam war vet, turns out he wasn't.  Kid did nothing but stand there, and let the guy go off on him. Then the Washington post makes lots of declarative (false as it turns out) claims about the incident, and the MINOR kid, all proven to be false.

A $250m lawsuit ?  Probably over the top, but because it's a republican it's all good right ?  RIGHT ?  

I would like to see your reasons for calling the kid clock boy ?  I think the fake war veteran would be better suited for the term, you know lying and such about his service in the war.  Care to comment on that ?  You know, about the guy who actually instigated the entire incident.

 

 

5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah that's horrid, despicable, and just mean. As opposed to the Washington Post attacking a 16 year old kid, which is totally cool apparently, if he's wearing the wrong color hat.

Wait. Wait wait wait. I don't recall you shedding crocodile tears when the right wing media absolutely ripped into David Hogg and tried to claim he was a college aged crisis actor for speaking out after 17 of his fellow students were turned into lifeless bullet-riddled corpses. Can you refresh my memory?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why do you think he or his family are tort reform zealots?  

i have no idea if they are...i am noting that hard core tort reform zealots are generally of a political persuasion that would align with this idiocy. and that's ironic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31573

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Also, does anyone know who edited the original video (if that's the case, honestly not up to speed on all the details)? My impression was it was originally posted by the Black Israelites? Are they gonna sue for (still) being identified as Muslims?

According to the lawauit:

Quote

On the evening of January 18, 2019, at 7:33 p.m., Kaya Taitano, a participant in the Indigenous Peoples March, posted online a selectively edited 59 second video depicting only a small portion of the interaction between Nicholas and Phillips, and later that night, she posted a 3 minute 44 second video. (collectively, the “Taitano Videos”).

I'm not sure I would ordinarily recommend using a plaintiff's complaint to judge the facts, but that one is pretty objective and it would be a grave mistake to put that kind of easily disproven allegation in the complaint.

One of the kid's lawyers, probably his main one, is Lin Wood, who is a pretty competent plaintiff's lawyer and defamation lawyer.  He represented Richard Jewell and the Ramseys.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14352

Posted
Posted
They will settle.  Because their shit practices and bias will be there for the world to see in discovery unless they settle.  
They can probably win on SJ.  But doing so exposes their bullshit. 

Yes, the Post, with its history on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate will settle to avoid “exposing their bullshit. “

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assume you’re not a litigation attorney and most certainly not one who has handled first amendment cases.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18951

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes, the Post, with its history on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate will settle to avoid “exposing their bullshit. “

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assume you’re not a litigation attorney and most certainly not one who has handled first amendment cases.

Plus, Jeff Bezos is a gazillionaire and gives zero fucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...