Harvey Weinstein went unpunished for years bc journalists couldn't ethically report w/o hard sources

Terry Crews is the best. Only thing that makes that African Adam Sandler watchable
 
They don't need hard sources for anything else.

What a crock of shit. They were looking out for their crony and most of them are still holding out.
 
Ethics didn't stop the NYT from fanning the flames on this one.
So what else stopped them with their Hollywood darling?

If your still a true believer read this book. It could destroy a progressives idealistic view of much of their world though, so be warned.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-credibility-nyts-duke-lacrosse-rape-coverage

New Book Destroys Credibility of NYT's Duke Lacrosse 'Rape' Coverage
Share Tweet 0
By Clay Waters | September 19, 2007 3:11 PM EDT

On Sunday, law professor Jeffrey Rosen reviewed for the New York Times the new book "Until Proven Innocent -- Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case," by Stuart Taylor & KC Johnson, which, among bringing other injustices surrounding the case to light, also excoriates the mainstream press's shoddy coverage, much of which presumed the guilt of the three white lacrosse players.


Rosen called the book "riveting," but devoted just two sentences to the frequent passages that rip apart the Times's shoddy coverage of the case, taking particular aim at reporter Duff Wilson and columnist Selena Roberts.

Rosen wrote:
 
SBJJ said:
Lol. You don't even realize what you did here!!

You just proved the media will protect a known rapist because he is liberal.

I swear, you crack me up! You seriously thought you were clever here but proved the exact other side right!
Click to expand...
No, the OP alludes to the difference between normalized reporting and reporting that entails allegations that could potentially be construed as libel.

Weinstein is a private individual before he is a Democrat. He's not a public official.
 
MMAViewer said:
Anything Trump or the partisan right wingers hear that they don't like is fake news it doesn't matter who said it or what source they have.
Click to expand...

That's their move A.

But they also have a move B when an allegation has been proven true beyond any reasonable doubt. They embrace the statement or behavior and defend it as a pure positive.

I guarantee that if a tape surfaced of Trump saying we should increase our nuclear arsenal tenfold his base would claim it was a strategic masterstroke and an indication of Trump's all-out commitment to America and our national defense.

"Build those bombs! Build those bombs!"
 
Madmick said:
No, the OP alludes to the difference between normalized reporting and reporting that entails allegations that could potentially be construed as libel.

Weinstein is a private individual before he is a Democrat. He's not a public official.
Click to expand...
Trump was a private citizen a year ago. Didn't stop them.
 
ultramanhyata said:
That's their move A.

But they also have a move B when an allegation has been proven true beyond any reasonable doubt. They embrace the statement or behavior and defend it as a pure positive.

I guarantee that if a tape surfaced of Trump saying we should increase our nuclear arsenal tenfold his base would claim it was a strategic masterstroke and an indication of Trump's all-out commitment to America and our national defense.

"Build those bombs! Build those bombs!"
Click to expand...
Cool story
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
Seems like there was enough firsthand leaks for them at least to have access to "unnamed sources" and it's not journalistic integrity to not write about this case -- it's worry about backlash by a higher ranking media outlet

And yes, eventually we would expect high ranking officials who sit in on national security meetings to be able to come forward with their concerns without hiding behind NBC news of all places.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why Deep Throat did that book tour.
 
Harvey Weinstein tried to blame the "right wing" for the reporting from left wing news sources. Think about that for a second. The New York Times and the New Yorker broke the stories, and Weinstein blamed a right wing conspiracy. This was immediately reported with absolutely no evidence to substantiate it. I made a thread about it because I thought it was important, and it was merged into the Weinstein accused of rape thread even though it was a completely separate topic. Hmmm.

"Harvey feels [he] is being set up by a team of people who are out to get him," a source told the Daily Mail. "Nobody is claiming that the New York Times spent any money to get this story done but other organizations may have done."

"There are conservative organizations who know he is a longtime foe of the [National Rifle Association], of Donald Trump, and a longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrats," the source added.
'He believes they are financing a team of lawyers who are digging up these stories.
'There's a political agenda behind this. Harvey feels it's a conspiracy and that's the most interesting part of this, where it originated from, not the erroneous reporting that's going on.
'He won't be the last, other people like him will be targeted too.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...einstein-right-wing-conspiracy-sex-shame.html
 
There are false rape accusations all over the net that msm ran with that had extremely flimsy "evidence". Gaul dang, the bubble is worse than I thought.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nute/2006/08/witness_for_the_prosecution.html

Witness for the Prosecution?
The New York Times is still victimizing innocent Dukies.
By Stuart Taylor Jr.




Imagine you are the world's most powerful newspaper and you have invested your credibility in yet another story line that is falling apart, crumbling as inexorably as Jayson Blair's fabrications and the flawed reporting on Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD. What to do?

If you're the New York Times and the story is the alleged gang rape of a black woman by three white Duke lacrosse players—a claim shown by mounting evidence to be almost certainly fraudulent—you tone down your rhetoric while doing your utmost to prop up a case that's been almost wholly driven by prosecutorial and police misconduct.


And by bad journalism. Worse, perhaps, than the other recent Times embarrassments. The Times still seems bent on advancing its race-sex-class ideological agenda, even at the cost of ruining the lives of three young men who ithas reason to know are very probably innocent. This at a time when many other true believers in the rape charge, such as feminist law professor Susan Estrich, have at last seen through the prosecution's fog of lies and distortions.
 
Madmick said:
No, the OP alludes to the difference between normalized reporting and reporting that entails allegations that could potentially be construed as libel.

Weinstein is a private individual before he is a Democrat. He's not a public official.
Click to expand...


You're right. They didn't have enough proof
 
I hope Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg and they go after the rest of the Satanic cult that is Hollywood. If they don't say anything about the pedophilia and homosexual abuse then we'll know what kind of "investigative reporting" this really is.
 
MMAViewer said:
by cool you mean true?!?
Click to expand...
You notice how 1 side in here is actually publishing sources and material. While the other side is sitting in front of blown up pics of Harvey jerking them selves off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,358
Messages
55,485,469
Members
174,789
Latest member
This Island Earth

Share this page

Back
Top