I think the NY times and other journalistic entries giving him a voice is well beyond Gawker "feeding" him. Though I do have to give them mad props to have the little troll himself retweet their accusations about him.
Of course he retweeted them. And if the rumors take off, you can bet he'll try his hand at amateur lawyering too.
Uh...he's been making legal threats for awhile now. Various legal people who actually understand libel law have been having a grand old time poking him with a stick.
This is basically what Gawker is doing as near as I can see. They carefully disclose all the facts about their coverage and make opinions based on those disclosed facts. That is a pretty strong safeguard against a libel suit.
I'm wondering if they ran the sheep incident story just to try and taunt him into a lawsuit that he probably doesn't want to ever go through discovery for.
Oh, they're taunting the hell out of him. And he's too busy lapping up site traffic and name checks to bother thinking to deep about it. You can practically see the smarmy grin and look of self satisfaction on his face as he relays his philosophy to Carr. And you get the same sense as he giddily retweets the gross stories they've posted about him as if it proves all along how misunderstood and maligned he's been. (One would assume he's aware of the Santorum problem...) He's not doing anything new, and he's only a few steps up from the gas station bathroom tricks he's gonna be pulling for stories when he's finally exhausted all credibility. Sadly, the absolute worst thing that could happen now is if that UVA woman recants her rape story, and it sure looks like that's going to happen sooner than later.
Yeah no, unless the media was publishing the actually sensitive stuff, there is no leg to stand on here. Some of it is of legitimate public interest, and some is mostly just gossip, but Hollywood is an industry built on gossip so I'm not really broken up about the fact that we might get a glimpse behind the facade.
There's an argument to be made that damaging Sony and Sony's reputation, if this was actually the work of North Korea, is the media doing the job that the hackers wanted them to do.
I'm not super compelled to make that argument, but I think it has validity. As amused as I am by real life Entourage douchery, there's an element of gross privacy violation and possible media appropriation by a foreign intelligence group that merits consideration.
That only the juicy material is being run by the gossip sites doesn't mean they aren't profiting from a leak that included huge amounts of personal data of a lot of Sony peons.
Who did the hack isn't relevant. They're bad guys sure, but if this was a usual leak or leaks the media would be doing exactly the same as they're doing now because that's what the media does. Do you honestly think the media would ever sit back and not report anything from this information?
Yeah no, unless the media was publishing the actually sensitive stuff, there is no leg to stand on here. Some of it is of legitimate public interest, and some is mostly just gossip, but Hollywood is an industry built on gossip so I'm not really broken up about the fact that we might get a glimpse behind the facade.
There's an argument to be made that damaging Sony and Sony's reputation, if this was actually the work of North Korea, is the media doing the job that the hackers wanted them to do.
I'm not super compelled to make that argument, but I think it has validity. As amused as I am by real life Entourage douchery, there's an element of gross privacy violation and possible media appropriation by a foreign intelligence group that merits consideration.
That only the juicy material is being run by the gossip sites doesn't mean they aren't profiting from a leak that included huge amounts of personal data of a lot of Sony peons.
Who did the hack isn't relevant. They're bad guys sure, but if this was a usual leak or leaks the media would be doing exactly the same as they're doing now because that's what the media does. Do you honestly think the media would ever sit back and not report anything from this information?
I'm generally uncomfortable with a media that ignores publicly available facts - even facts derived from illegal and unethical sources - because discussion of those facts makes the exposed parties uncomfortable. In my mind, the media works best when it functions in an almost academic capacity - informing the public of available information and explaining how and why this information is important in various contexts.
When the media starts "pretending" it doesn't know things that it does, it becomes propaganda. The public certainly doesn't benefit from a world where the insiders operate on one set of information while carefully preparing a scrubbed version of reality for the rubes.
Yeah no, unless the media was publishing the actually sensitive stuff, there is no leg to stand on here. Some of it is of legitimate public interest, and some is mostly just gossip, but Hollywood is an industry built on gossip so I'm not really broken up about the fact that we might get a glimpse behind the facade.
There's an argument to be made that damaging Sony and Sony's reputation, if this was actually the work of North Korea, is the media doing the job that the hackers wanted them to do.
I'm not super compelled to make that argument, but I think it has validity. As amused as I am by real life Entourage douchery, there's an element of gross privacy violation and possible media appropriation by a foreign intelligence group that merits consideration.
That only the juicy material is being run by the gossip sites doesn't mean they aren't profiting from a leak that included huge amounts of personal data of a lot of Sony peons.
Who did the hack isn't relevant. They're bad guys sure, but if this was a usual leak or leaks the media would be doing exactly the same as they're doing now because that's what the media does. Do you honestly think the media would ever sit back and not report anything from this information?
I'm generally uncomfortable with a media that ignores publicly available facts - even facts derived from illegal and unethical sources - because discussion of those facts makes the exposed parties uncomfortable. In my mind, the media works best when it functions in an almost academic capacity - informing the public of available information and explaining how and why this information is important in various contexts.
When the media starts "pretending" it doesn't know things that it does, it becomes propaganda. The public certainly doesn't benefit from a world where the insiders operate on one set of information while carefully preparing a scrubbed version of reality for the rubes.
How about because it isn't worth reporting on other than to grab eyeballs? Is there merit to reporting the released info (rather than reporting on the breach)?
How about because it isn't worth reporting on other than to grab eyeballs? Is there merit to reporting the released info (rather than reporting on the breach)?
There's quite a few newsworthy items in the hack, ignoring the industrial trade gossip like leaked screenplays and celebrities being dicks to each other. Also, there's a portion of media in Hollywood whose entire existence is based on circulating tabloid rumors for the eyeballs. The hack itself is a massive news story. Leaks like this happen every day in Hollywood and nobody blinks, just not on this scale and not by terrorist hackers.
If Cuba were a racist apartheid-style dictatorship rather than a Communist one, no one would be so eager to do business with it. Instead, the great and good celebrate as the welcome end of an era changes that will replenish the coffers of a Cold War regime that is stubbornly still standing.
I hate that line of thinking "If this situation was completely different than it currently is, well wouldn't we be doing things differently!" Yes we would, but its not so shut the fuck up.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah the classic strawman tear down, but its still stupid as shit. Then again its Rich Lowry I shouldn't expect an actual argument from such a low class intellect.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
If Cuba were a racist apartheid-style dictatorship rather than a Communist one, no one would be so eager to do business with it. Instead, the great and good celebrate as the welcome end of an era changes that will replenish the coffers of a Cold War regime that is stubbornly still standing.
If Cuba were a racist apartheid-style dictatorship rather than a Communist one, no one would be so eager to do business with it. Instead, the great and good celebrate as the welcome end of an era changes that will replenish the coffers of a Cold War regime that is stubbornly still standing.
If Cuba were a racist apartheid-style dictatorship rather than a Communist one, no one would be so eager to do business with it. Instead, the great and good celebrate as the welcome end of an era changes that will replenish the coffers of a Cold War regime that is stubbornly still standing.
Greta Van Susteren got hoodwinked by the infamous North Korea twitter account despite her specialist knowledge of the Korean peninsula. When called on it she pulled a Cavuto and updated with "Some say this is a hoax..." The owner of the twitter, who has publicly acknowledged it as parody multiple times, has some more fun with her.
Greta Van Susteren got hoodwinked by the infamous North Korea twitter account despite her specialist knowledge of the Korean peninsula. When called on it she pulled a Cavuto and updated with "Some say this is a hoax..." The owner of the twitter, who has publicly acknowledged it as parody multiple times, has some more fun with her.
The best part is when Greta tries to play the "some say" card and the guy, seriously trying to help her, gets sick of her shit and embarrasses her by predicting with 100% accuracy what "North Korea" will post about Joe Biden.
Then, when she pulls her webpage, he runs a tweet how "North Korea" successfully gets an American journalist to pull the story. Bringing the whole thing full circle, juxtaposing the entire reason this is such a scandal in the first place.
Bravo.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Satellite-TV provider Dish Network dropped the Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network on Saturday night after the companies couldn’t come to terms on a new distribution contract, reports TVNewser.
According to Fox Executive Vice President of Distribution Tim Carry, contract talks have broken off and nothing is happening, depriving Dish’s 14 million subscribers of Fox News’ “fair and balanced” approach to current event coverage.
“Our phone line is open, we’re willing to talk,” Carry said. “Am I negotiating right now? I’m not.”
Executives at Dish say Fox is playing hardball with them by attempting to use the news channel as leverage to increase fees for their sports and entertainment channels normally covered by separate contracts.
“It’s like we’re about to close on a house and the realtor is trying to make us buy a new car as well,” said Warren Schlichting, Dish Network’s Senior Vice President of programming. “Fox blacked out two of its news channels, using them as leverage to triple rates on sports and entertainment channels that are not in this contract.”
Carry disagrees, saying Dish refuses to accept the same deal other major pay-TV distributors have agreed to.
“They did not want to accept terms and commitments that have become customary in a Fox News renewal,” Carry said.
In the meantime, Fox is using Facebook to reach Dish subscribers, directing viewers to a separate Facebook page called “Keep Fox News.”
On both Fox Facebook accounts, they posted: “#Attention DISH Customers: DISH has blocked Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network. Despite the undeniable demand, you can no longer watch The O’Reilly Factor, The Kelly File, Hannity or Fox & Friends. Don’t let DISH control the news you watch! Make the switch to another TV provider NOW. www.KeepFoxNews.com ”
According to Fox, they have received over 12,000 calls about the blackout, with 7,000 asking to be connected to Dish to disconnect their service. The network also states 22,000 viewer emails have been sent to Dish about the blackout, with reports of viewers inundating the Dish Facebook page with complaints.
Said Fox’s Carry, “Relative to any other fight they’ve had, they’ve never had a viewer as personally invested as Fox News. Our viewers are invested. They have a personal relationship with us.”
That line is glorious.
+2
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
What I'm reading is from that is that fox tried to bully more money out of dish, who responded by slapping fox in the face with their own hand.
These kind of disagreements between content companies and cable companies get out of hand pretty quickly.
When Viacom had disagreements with DirectTV, they retaliated against DirectTV's blockage of their channels by doing IP bans against all DirectTV broadband addresses, which meant no internet access to Viacom websites and no viewing of Viacom content on Hulu either. And Viacom owns a ton of content, including stuff like Comedy Central.
The craziest ban recently was Verizon banning Boston's Thanksgiving day NFL games on Fox. Oh boy, did that cause a ruckus.
That reminds me how the local media around here always tries to make May Day a big scary day in Seattle when its really just the stoner set going out and fucking up traffic.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
These kind of disagreements between content companies and cable companies get out of hand pretty quickly.
When Viacom had disagreements with DirectTV, they retaliated against DirectTV's blockage of their channels by doing IP bans against all DirectTV broadband addresses, which meant no internet access to Viacom websites and no viewing of Viacom content on Hulu either. And Viacom owns a ton of content, including stuff like Comedy Central.
The craziest ban recently was Verizon banning Boston's Thanksgiving day NFL games on Fox. Oh boy, did that cause a ruckus.
A great example of why we need net neutrality. Though I do wonder if DirectTV or their customers had some legal recourse they could pursue. That was an incredibly shitty thing of Viacom to do and it shows how fucking petty they are.
Honestly, I'd prefer that TV packages had an a la carte setup. This would probably resolve some of the BS inherent with cable TV. Since it would give customers more control and with that control, would probably be better quality and more options. It'd be harder for cable companies to justify not carrying a channel. On the other hand, it would also be harder for entertainment companies to pull some of their BS of taking things hostage, to make more money off of something sub par, that no one wants.
That said, I'm a little less concerned when these fights involve satellite TV, since there usually is an option for the customers to run with a different provider. I'm aware the field is extremely anemic since there aren't many satellite TV companies, but sometimes they are also competing with cable. It's more worrisome with cable because they are often much closer to having an iron grip because there isn't another cable company and there are a few factors that can knock out satellite alternatives.
These kind of disagreements between content companies and cable companies get out of hand pretty quickly.
When Viacom had disagreements with DirectTV, they retaliated against DirectTV's blockage of their channels by doing IP bans against all DirectTV broadband addresses, which meant no internet access to Viacom websites and no viewing of Viacom content on Hulu either. And Viacom owns a ton of content, including stuff like Comedy Central.
The craziest ban recently was Verizon banning Boston's Thanksgiving day NFL games on Fox. Oh boy, did that cause a ruckus.
A great example of why we need net neutrality. Though I do wonder if DirectTV or their customers had some legal recourse they could pursue. That was an incredibly shitty thing of Viacom to do and it shows how fucking petty they are.
Honestly, I'd prefer that TV packages had an a la carte setup. This would probably resolve some of the BS inherent with cable TV. Since it would give customers more control and with that control, would probably be better quality and more options. It'd be harder for cable companies to justify not carrying a channel. On the other hand, it would also be harder for entertainment companies to pull some of their BS of taking things hostage, to make more money off of something sub par, that no one wants.
That said, I'm a little less concerned when these fights involve satellite TV, since there usually is an option for the customers to run with a different provider. I'm aware the field is extremely anemic since there aren't many satellite TV companies, but sometimes they are also competing with cable. It's more worrisome with cable because they are often much closer to having an iron grip because there isn't another cable company and there are a few factors that can knock out satellite alternatives.
The individuals in the crowd could sue for libel. The legal standards to clear that hurdle are either presence of malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. Both seem to be present here.
These kind of disagreements between content companies and cable companies get out of hand pretty quickly.
When Viacom had disagreements with DirectTV, they retaliated against DirectTV's blockage of their channels by doing IP bans against all DirectTV broadband addresses, which meant no internet access to Viacom websites and no viewing of Viacom content on Hulu either. And Viacom owns a ton of content, including stuff like Comedy Central.
The craziest ban recently was Verizon banning Boston's Thanksgiving day NFL games on Fox. Oh boy, did that cause a ruckus.
A great example of why we need net neutrality. Though I do wonder if DirectTV or their customers had some legal recourse they could pursue. That was an incredibly shitty thing of Viacom to do and it shows how fucking petty they are.
Honestly, I'd prefer that TV packages had an a la carte setup. This would probably resolve some of the BS inherent with cable TV. Since it would give customers more control and with that control, would probably be better quality and more options. It'd be harder for cable companies to justify not carrying a channel. On the other hand, it would also be harder for entertainment companies to pull some of their BS of taking things hostage, to make more money off of something sub par, that no one wants.
That said, I'm a little less concerned when these fights involve satellite TV, since there usually is an option for the customers to run with a different provider. I'm aware the field is extremely anemic since there aren't many satellite TV companies, but sometimes they are also competing with cable. It's more worrisome with cable because they are often much closer to having an iron grip because there isn't another cable company and there are a few factors that can knock out satellite alternatives.
The individuals in the crowd could sue for libel. The legal standards to clear that hurdle are either presence of malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. Both seem to be present here.
Well, demonstrable harm as well (a requirement for all civil suits), but that shouldn't be very hard here.
Of course, what are the odds the protesters know libel law, and can afford to sue Fox?
Posts
Oh, they're taunting the hell out of him. And he's too busy lapping up site traffic and name checks to bother thinking to deep about it. You can practically see the smarmy grin and look of self satisfaction on his face as he relays his philosophy to Carr. And you get the same sense as he giddily retweets the gross stories they've posted about him as if it proves all along how misunderstood and maligned he's been. (One would assume he's aware of the Santorum problem...) He's not doing anything new, and he's only a few steps up from the gas station bathroom tricks he's gonna be pulling for stories when he's finally exhausted all credibility. Sadly, the absolute worst thing that could happen now is if that UVA woman recants her rape story, and it sure looks like that's going to happen sooner than later.
Who did the hack isn't relevant. They're bad guys sure, but if this was a usual leak or leaks the media would be doing exactly the same as they're doing now because that's what the media does. Do you honestly think the media would ever sit back and not report anything from this information?
The best thing that's been on CSPAN since that time it accidentally got mixed up with a porn channel.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm generally uncomfortable with a media that ignores publicly available facts - even facts derived from illegal and unethical sources - because discussion of those facts makes the exposed parties uncomfortable. In my mind, the media works best when it functions in an almost academic capacity - informing the public of available information and explaining how and why this information is important in various contexts.
When the media starts "pretending" it doesn't know things that it does, it becomes propaganda. The public certainly doesn't benefit from a world where the insiders operate on one set of information while carefully preparing a scrubbed version of reality for the rubes.
News: By calling in to their live show on C-SPAN.
Ah. Still, you have to love the "Oh god, it's mom" line.
pleasepaypreacher.net
There's quite a few newsworthy items in the hack, ignoring the industrial trade gossip like leaked screenplays and celebrities being dicks to each other. Also, there's a portion of media in Hollywood whose entire existence is based on circulating tabloid rumors for the eyeballs. The hack itself is a massive news story. Leaks like this happen every day in Hollywood and nobody blinks, just not on this scale and not by terrorist hackers.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/castro-finally-hit-the-jackpot
somehow forgetting Saint Reagan was a huge fan of apartheid South Africa
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I thought that was a jab at Isreal from the quote.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
You'll see a gay atheist Iranian-American President before someone from the National Review criticizes Israel.
Iranian American cant be president, you have to be born a citizen to be president, don't you?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I hate the phrase. You are not X-American if you were a born Citizen and live here. You are a American of X descent.
X-American implies you were a citizen of X and immigrated to America and became a Citizen.
African-American, Iranian-American, Irish-American.
The best part is when Greta tries to play the "some say" card and the guy, seriously trying to help her, gets sick of her shit and embarrasses her by predicting with 100% accuracy what "North Korea" will post about Joe Biden.
Then, when she pulls her webpage, he runs a tweet how "North Korea" successfully gets an American journalist to pull the story. Bringing the whole thing full circle, juxtaposing the entire reason this is such a scandal in the first place.
Bravo.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/dish-network-dumps-fox-news-setting-off-social-media-war-on-facebook/
That line is glorious.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's like a fight between a colostomy bag and an asshole.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
When Viacom had disagreements with DirectTV, they retaliated against DirectTV's blockage of their channels by doing IP bans against all DirectTV broadband addresses, which meant no internet access to Viacom websites and no viewing of Viacom content on Hulu either. And Viacom owns a ton of content, including stuff like Comedy Central.
The craziest ban recently was Verizon banning Boston's Thanksgiving day NFL games on Fox. Oh boy, did that cause a ruckus.
Fox News taking a page from The Simpsons.
Doesn't mean they can't or won't do super-shady-shit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No no, net neutrality is internet Obamacare.
And of course, Obamacare is literally the Holocaust.
I really hope someone can find a legal way to give that shit affiliate some serious financial hurt to discourage such shitty behavior.
A great example of why we need net neutrality. Though I do wonder if DirectTV or their customers had some legal recourse they could pursue. That was an incredibly shitty thing of Viacom to do and it shows how fucking petty they are.
Honestly, I'd prefer that TV packages had an a la carte setup. This would probably resolve some of the BS inherent with cable TV. Since it would give customers more control and with that control, would probably be better quality and more options. It'd be harder for cable companies to justify not carrying a channel. On the other hand, it would also be harder for entertainment companies to pull some of their BS of taking things hostage, to make more money off of something sub par, that no one wants.
That said, I'm a little less concerned when these fights involve satellite TV, since there usually is an option for the customers to run with a different provider. I'm aware the field is extremely anemic since there aren't many satellite TV companies, but sometimes they are also competing with cable. It's more worrisome with cable because they are often much closer to having an iron grip because there isn't another cable company and there are a few factors that can knock out satellite alternatives.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The individuals in the crowd could sue for libel. The legal standards to clear that hurdle are either presence of malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. Both seem to be present here.
Well, demonstrable harm as well (a requirement for all civil suits), but that shouldn't be very hard here.
Of course, what are the odds the protesters know libel law, and can afford to sue Fox?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy