They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
"Oh man this could make me so much more money on top of my already mountain sized pile of money, and who gives a fuck if its risky, that's what FDIC is for! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
Do we have a thread for this case? I have a ton of questions and aren't really sure where to talk about it.
I could go into detail, but I won't. Suffice it to say that most folks here want to believe that non-Rolling Stone reporters are willfully making the same mistake that the Rolling Stone reporter made - that of not double checking or triple checking statements made by anyone involved. Because of course they would willfully repeat Rolling Stone's mistake, on a story about Rolling Stone's mistake.
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
"Hey, let's go to Store X"
"Ok, but can we go to Store Y first?"
"Sure, but let's make sure to get to Store X afterwards"
*never make it to Store X*
"Hey, let's eat at Restaurant X"
"Can we eat there tomorrow? Tonight I want to eat at Restaurant Y?"
"Ok, but let's make sure to get to Restaurant X, it's really important"
*never make it to Restaurant X*
"Hey, let's go to Movie X"
"Let's do a double header, Movie You plays first and gets done in time"
"Ok, but I really want to see Movie X..."
*never make it to Movie X*
At some point its no longer a compromise and "being the adult" and starts being "do whatever they want" and one side being completely irrelevant, which kinda breaks the system in irreparable ways.
Edit: I can't believe I'm essentially advocating shutting the government down. What kind of bizarro world is this?
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
Do we have a thread for this case? I have a ton of questions and aren't really sure where to talk about it.
I could go into detail, but I won't. Suffice it to say that most folks here want to believe that non-Rolling Stone reporters are willfully making the same mistake that the Rolling Stone reporter made - that of not double checking or triple checking statements made by anyone involved. Because of course they would willfully repeat Rolling Stone's mistake, on a story about Rolling Stone's mistake.
A lot of people in this thread have a valid point though. The supposed assaulter questioned has every reason to say he has no idea what Jackie's talking about. The friends not so much, other than the fact that Ederly's story paints them as dispassionate fucks more concerned with social status then their friend. Interestingly though, all 3 friends have been interviewed separately now and their accounts all agree that Jackie told them it was forced oral copulation by 5 men vs. the RS version where she was physically assaulted and then raped on a broken glass coffee table. They also all agree they saw no physical injuries or blood, and they all agree she was quite visibly upset. But they too could have gotten together beforehand to all give the same story, so grain of salt.
Even more bizarre is now we find out that the friends were in contact with this chem student, and the photos he sent them of himself were a person Jackie went to high school with, who wasn't even in the state the time this all went down. The name she started giving recently is different than the name she gave her friends when the assault happened. Now why her friends were texting some guy she was dating is beyond me, but they were curious enough to try and find him on social media and the university directory, and couldn't find anything. And they have provided those texts to the post.
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
Fuck this.
Minor nitpick: Dividends are what shareholders get, but most of these bankers will even try to screw over their shareholders if they can get away with it.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
Fuck this.
Okay, so what would happened if the House Dems/White House had put it's foot down and let us go into shutdown again?
...Because the way I see it, maybe they get the banking/campaign bullshit thrown out, but the tradeoff was almost certainly going be dropping the cromnibus bill for a straight CR that would last only until January/February, after the new Republican-led Senate and even more Republican House take over, and if you think they would ever offer the president a sensible bill that didn't have those two things and even more derp on top of that, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell ya.
It was a classic Win the battle, Lose the war-type scenario, and while I would have preferred that the White House waiting longer to give their public OK of the bill to see if they could have made the GOP blink, I find the current situation infinitely more preferable than the alternative.
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
Fuck this.
Okay, so what would happened if the House Dems/White House had put it's foot down and let us go into shutdown again?
...Because the way I see it, maybe they get the banking/campaign bullshit thrown out, but the tradeoff was almost certainly going be dropping the cromnibus bill for a straight CR that would last only until January/February, after the new Republican-led Senate and even more Republican House take over, and if you think they would ever offer the president a sensible bill that didn't have those two things and even more derp on top of that, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell ya.
It was a classic Win the battle, Lose the war-type scenario, and while I would have preferred that the White House waiting longer to give their public OK of the bill to see if they could have made the GOP blink, I find the current situation infinitely more preferable than the alternative.
Ok, so let the Republicans shut down the government again. And let them keep doing it all the way until 2016.
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
Fuck this.
Okay, so what would happened if the House Dems/White House had put it's foot down and let us go into shutdown again?
...Because the way I see it, maybe they get the banking/campaign bullshit thrown out, but the tradeoff was almost certainly going be dropping the cromnibus bill for a straight CR that would last only until January/February, after the new Republican-led Senate and even more Republican House take over, and if you think they would ever offer the president a sensible bill that didn't have those two things and even more derp on top of that, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell ya.
It was a classic Win the battle, Lose the war-type scenario, and while I would have preferred that the White House waiting longer to give their public OK of the bill to see if they could have made the GOP blink, I find the current situation infinitely more preferable than the alternative.
Ok, so let the Republicans shut down the government again. And let them keep doing it all the way until 2016.
I have a problem with going bankrupt and losing my house, kthx
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
You are a journalist
A woman comes to you with a similar story
How do you proceed
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
Fuck this.
Okay, so what would happened if the House Dems/White House had put it's foot down and let us go into shutdown again?
...Because the way I see it, maybe they get the banking/campaign bullshit thrown out, but the tradeoff was almost certainly going be dropping the cromnibus bill for a straight CR that would last only until January/February, after the new Republican-led Senate and even more Republican House take over, and if you think they would ever offer the president a sensible bill that didn't have those two things and even more derp on top of that, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell ya.
It was a classic Win the battle, Lose the war-type scenario, and while I would have preferred that the White House waiting longer to give their public OK of the bill to see if they could have made the GOP blink, I find the current situation infinitely more preferable than the alternative.
Ok, so let the Republicans shut down the government again. And let them keep doing it all the way until 2016.
I have a problem with going bankrupt and losing my house, kthx
Did you go bankrupt and lose your house the last time it shut down?
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
You are a journalist
A woman comes to you with a similar story
How do you proceed
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
You are a journalist
A woman comes to you with a similar story
How do you proceed
Record everything
Call police
As a journalist? Is that in keeping with your lead/source's requests and needs? Or you do it anyway, based on your opinion? Do you think she came to you so that you could call police?
That and the impending government shutdown/ridiculous bill the House passed last night are the two things I sort of keep meaning to make a thread about and then get depressed and don't.
Pretty much what happens with me, when I think, "Hey, I should make a Virginia politics thread because there are plenty of peeps in D&D that live in this state and there is quite a bit worth talking about in regards to political decisions here." Then I look at the energy, healthcare and ethics discussions going on in this state and it's like "fuck this state and like 70% of our elected officials; especially, the republicans, but man do some of the democrats in the GA suck fucking balls!"
Also doesn't help that most of the VA media scene wants to emulate the national media. ><
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
You are a journalist
A woman comes to you with a similar story
How do you proceed
Record everything
Call police
As a journalist? Is that in keeping with your lead/source's requests and needs? Or you do it anyway, based on your opinion? Do you think she came to you so that you could call police?
I guess I'm confused on what journalists do. It seems like if someone comes to you to report a crime, you should talk to the people in charge of handling crimes.
That and the impending government shutdown/ridiculous bill the House passed last night are the two things I sort of keep meaning to make a thread about and then get depressed and don't.
Pretty much what happens with me, when I think, "Hey, I should make a Virginia politics thread because there are plenty of peeps in D&D that live in this state and there is quite a bit worth talking about in regards to political decisions here." Then I look at the energy, healthcare and ethics discussions going on in this state and it's like "fuck this state and like 70% of our elected officials; especially, the republicans, but man do some of the democrats in the GA suck fucking balls!"
Also doesn't help that most of the VA media scene wants to emulate the national media. ><
One of the problems with VA government is that literally everyone has their eye on Washington, because it's within a commute. The media is not immune from that. Like, people talk about Inside the Beltway media, but using that rubric, our entire state is essentially within the Beltway.
Her story doesn't have 'minor discrepancies'.
Nothing in the Rolling Stone article can be independently verified.
No reporter (not named Erdely) could find a single detail that backed up the original story.
It's not just the Washington Post who looked into the story, but also CBS News, the Wallstreet Journal, the New Republic, Slate, and the Daily Progress (the local Charlotte VA paper) to name a few that actually tried to independently verify the story.
Pretty much every single reporter or editor who looked into the story would not have published it, due to all the problems with the story. Even Rolling Stone's editor said as much in his retraction.
Here's the thing, hsu, which seems to evade a lot of the reporters covering this story - the people who are in a position to verify the story have very good (for themselves) reasons to choose not to. Again, referencing my earlier post, you can't point out that Randall said that Erdely never contacted him without noting that hey, he was basically asked "So, Randall, are you or are you not a shitty human being?" by the question.
And this sort of illustrates the ongoing issue you see with women who come forward about being raped - they get their entire lives put under a microscope, and everyone looks for anything to find a reason to call her a liar. Meanwhile, you have a who makes a statement contradicting her, and he's accepted at face value, without anyone even considering the blatant self interest in his answer.
You are a journalist
A woman comes to you with a similar story
How do you proceed
Record everything
Call police
As a journalist? Is that in keeping with your lead/source's requests and needs? Or you do it anyway, based on your opinion? Do you think she came to you so that you could call police?
I guess I'm confused on what journalists do. It seems like if someone comes to you to report a crime, you should talk to the people in charge of handling crimes.
I'm pretty sure most people don't report crimes to journalists, they tell them about crimes so that the journalist can tell other people about it.
ie: You tell a journalist about an identity thief to warn other people about it, not because the journalist is going to help you get your financials back in order.
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.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
I will definitely say, shame on the grey lady for giving that moron a real platform.
“Have you ever read the book or heard of the book ‘Encyclopedia Brown’?” he asked, referring to a series about a boy detective. “That’s the capacity in which I help them. I don’t go out of my way to discuss the kind of, shall we say, clandestine work I do, because the nature of the work has to be clandestine in order for it be effective.”
Come. On. Next thing you're going to tell me you were a Navy Seal.
I think old Chuck is vastly underestimating the blowback he's eventually going to get from all this bullshit.
Some years ago, when I was an editor at George magazine, I was unfortunate enough to work with the writer Stephen Glass on a number of articles. They proved to be fake, filled with fabrications, as was pretty much all of his work. The experience was painful but educational; it forced me to examine how easily I had been duped. Why did I believe those insinuations about Bill Clinton-friend Vernon Jordan being a lech? About the dubious ethics of uber-fundraiser (now Virginia governor) Terry McAuliffe?
The answer, I had to admit, was because they corroborated my pre-existing biases. I was well on the way to believing that Vernon Jordan was a philanderer, for example—everyone seemed to think so, back in the ’90s, during the Monica Lewinsky time.
So Stephen wrote what he knew I was inclined to believe. And because I was inclined to believe it, I abandoned my critical judgment. I lowered my guard.
The lesson I learned: One must be most critical, in the best sense of that word, about what one is already inclined to believe.
“Jolie a ‘Spoiled Brat’ From ‘Crazyland,’ ” says The New York Post.
“Shocking New Reveals From Sony Hack,” says The Daily Beast.
“Sony’s Hacked Emails Highlight Hollywood’s Problems With Diversity,” says The Huffington Post.
“You’re Giving Material Aid to Criminals,” say the rest of us.
THREE weeks ago Sony Pictures Entertainment was the victim of a massive cyberattack by an outlaw group calling itself the Guardians of Peace. They breached Sony’s security and stole tens of thousands of internal documents and emails.
Then they left a threat. The Guardians said they were going to make these private documents public if the studio went ahead with its planned release of “The Interview,” a comedy with Seth Rogen and James Franco in which the two are tasked by the Central Intelligence Agency to whack the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Then they left another threat, this one accompanied by violent and disturbing imagery. “Not only you but your family will be in danger,” read a message to all Sony employees. The Federal Bureau of Investigation won’t say much, but it says the hack is sophisticated and backed by a lot of money.
The Guardians just had to lob the ball; they knew our media would crash the boards and slam it in. First, salaries were published. Not by the hackers, but by American news outlets.
Then came the emails. A squabble between the Sony executive Amy Pascal and the producer Scott Rudin, an inappropriate and racially charged exchange, an insulting critique of recent Adam Sandler movies, a new idea for the “Spider-Man” franchise. Published. Everywhere.
Finally the media got serious. Not because no one gets more use out of the First Amendment than they do, and here was a group threatening to kill people for exercising it. Not because hackers had released Social Security numbers, home addresses, computer passwords, bank account details, performance reviews, phone numbers, the aliases used when high-profile actors check into hotels (a safety measure to keep stalkers away), and even the medical records of employees and their children. But because a stolen email revealed that Jennifer Lawrence was being undervalued.
I’m not a disinterested third party. Much of the squabbling between Ms. Pascal and Mr. Rudin was about a movie that’s about to begin shooting, “Steve Jobs,” for which I wrote the screenplay, so my name comes up from time to time. The widely published documents that were stolen include an email to Ms. Pascal in which I advocated going to Tom Cruise for the lead role (I did), a second email from one executive to another speculating that I’m broke (I’m fine) and a third that suggested that I might be romantically involved with a woman whose book I’m using as source material for a new script (I wish).
And because I and two movies of mine get a little dinged up, I feel I have the credibility to say this: I don’t care. Because the minor insults that were revealed are such small potatoes compared to the fact that they were revealed. Not by the hackers, but by American journalists helping them.
It’s not a proud day for Hollywood either. This is a town of powerful people — leaders and risk-takers who create things that have the power to start and change conversations. So why has it been so awfully quiet out here?
We create movie moments. Wouldn’t it be a movie moment if the other studios invoked the NATO rule and denounced the attack on Sony as an attack on all of us, and our bedrock belief in free expression? If the Writers Guild and Directors Guild stood by their members? If the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the movie industry in Washington, knocked on the door of Congress and said we’re in the middle of an ongoing attack on one of America’s largest exports? We’re coming to the end of the first reel; it’s time to introduce our heroes.
I understand that news outlets routinely use stolen information. That’s how we got the Pentagon Papers, to use an oft-used argument. But there is nothing in these documents remotely rising to the level of public interest of the information found in the Pentagon Papers.
Do the emails contain any information about Sony breaking the law? No. Misleading the public? No. Acting in direct harm to customers, the way the tobacco companies or Enron did? No. Is there even one sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?
The co-editor in chief of Variety tells us he decided that the leaks were — to use his word — “newsworthy.” I’m dying to ask him what part of the studio’s post-production notes on Cameron Crowe’s new project is newsworthy. So newsworthy that it’s worth carrying out the wishes of people who’ve said they’re going to murder families and who have so far done everything they’ve threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the character Inigo Montoya said in “The Princess Bride,” I do not think it means what you think it means.
So much for ever getting a good review from Variety again. And so much for our national outrage over the National Security Agency reading our stuff. It turns out some of us have no problem with it at all. We just vacated that argument.
As a screenwriter in Hollywood who’s only two generations removed from probably being blacklisted, I’m not crazy about Americans calling other Americans un-American, so let’s just say that every news outlet that did the bidding of the Guardians of Peace is morally treasonous and spectacularly dishonorable.
I know there’s juicy stuff in the emails and I know some of us have been insulted and I know there’s more to come. No one’s private life can totally withstand public scrutiny. But this is much bigger than hurt feelings and banged-up egos.
If you close your eyes you can imagine the hackers sitting in a room, combing through the documents to find the ones that will draw the most blood. And in a room next door are American journalists doing the same thing. As demented and criminal as it is, at least the hackers are doing it for a cause. The press is doing it for a nickel.
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.
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.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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.
Not to mention the incidents of sexual harassment claims, racism in the higher ranks, MPAA/Google news and news related to the hack like the exposed SSN's and employees and their families being threatened.
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.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/226817-white-house-signals-support-for-cromnibus-ahead-of-critical-vote
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And then when it's a republican as president for the next round, they'll get to blame Obama when the economy melts down again.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They just kept the government running. Being the adult in the room sometimes means busying yourself putting out a fire before dealing with the guy with the gasoline can starting them.
"Oh man this could make me so much more money on top of my already mountain sized pile of money, and who gives a fuck if its risky, that's what FDIC is for! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
No i do not accept this argument. We need to stop giving free reins to the banking industry, i think there is ample historical evidence that they will take every opportunity available to fuck over the rest of the world as long as it adds a little but to their dividends. Removing the regulations that were put in place BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CRASHED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY is foolishness of the highest order and just demonstrates how beholden this administration and the rest of the government is to the keepers of the purse strings.
Fuck this.
"Hey, let's go to Store X"
"Ok, but can we go to Store Y first?"
"Sure, but let's make sure to get to Store X afterwards"
*never make it to Store X*
"Hey, let's eat at Restaurant X"
"Can we eat there tomorrow? Tonight I want to eat at Restaurant Y?"
"Ok, but let's make sure to get to Restaurant X, it's really important"
*never make it to Restaurant X*
"Hey, let's go to Movie X"
"Let's do a double header, Movie You plays first and gets done in time"
"Ok, but I really want to see Movie X..."
*never make it to Movie X*
At some point its no longer a compromise and "being the adult" and starts being "do whatever they want" and one side being completely irrelevant, which kinda breaks the system in irreparable ways.
Edit: I can't believe I'm essentially advocating shutting the government down. What kind of bizarro world is this?
A lot of people in this thread have a valid point though. The supposed assaulter questioned has every reason to say he has no idea what Jackie's talking about. The friends not so much, other than the fact that Ederly's story paints them as dispassionate fucks more concerned with social status then their friend. Interestingly though, all 3 friends have been interviewed separately now and their accounts all agree that Jackie told them it was forced oral copulation by 5 men vs. the RS version where she was physically assaulted and then raped on a broken glass coffee table. They also all agree they saw no physical injuries or blood, and they all agree she was quite visibly upset. But they too could have gotten together beforehand to all give the same story, so grain of salt.
Even more bizarre is now we find out that the friends were in contact with this chem student, and the photos he sent them of himself were a person Jackie went to high school with, who wasn't even in the state the time this all went down. The name she started giving recently is different than the name she gave her friends when the assault happened. Now why her friends were texting some guy she was dating is beyond me, but they were curious enough to try and find him on social media and the university directory, and couldn't find anything. And they have provided those texts to the post.
Minor nitpick: Dividends are what shareholders get, but most of these bankers will even try to screw over their shareholders if they can get away with it.
Okay, so what would happened if the House Dems/White House had put it's foot down and let us go into shutdown again?
...Because the way I see it, maybe they get the banking/campaign bullshit thrown out, but the tradeoff was almost certainly going be dropping the cromnibus bill for a straight CR that would last only until January/February, after the new Republican-led Senate and even more Republican House take over, and if you think they would ever offer the president a sensible bill that didn't have those two things and even more derp on top of that, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell ya.
It was a classic Win the battle, Lose the war-type scenario, and while I would have preferred that the White House waiting longer to give their public OK of the bill to see if they could have made the GOP blink, I find the current situation infinitely more preferable than the alternative.
Ok, so let the Republicans shut down the government again. And let them keep doing it all the way until 2016.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I have a problem with going bankrupt and losing my house, kthx
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
You are a journalist
A woman comes to you with a similar story
How do you proceed
I host a podcast about movies.
Did you go bankrupt and lose your house the last time it shut down?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I made a thread for discussion. With a totally unbiased title.
Call police
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
As a journalist? Is that in keeping with your lead/source's requests and needs? Or you do it anyway, based on your opinion? Do you think she came to you so that you could call police?
I host a podcast about movies.
Pretty much what happens with me, when I think, "Hey, I should make a Virginia politics thread because there are plenty of peeps in D&D that live in this state and there is quite a bit worth talking about in regards to political decisions here." Then I look at the energy, healthcare and ethics discussions going on in this state and it's like "fuck this state and like 70% of our elected officials; especially, the republicans, but man do some of the democrats in the GA suck fucking balls!"
Also doesn't help that most of the VA media scene wants to emulate the national media. ><
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
One of the problems with VA government is that literally everyone has their eye on Washington, because it's within a commute. The media is not immune from that. Like, people talk about Inside the Beltway media, but using that rubric, our entire state is essentially within the Beltway.
I'm pretty sure most people don't report crimes to journalists, they tell them about crimes so that the journalist can tell other people about it.
ie: You tell a journalist about an identity thief to warn other people about it, not because the journalist is going to help you get your financials back in order.
MWO: Adamski
Gawker going after the Chuck Johnson, its like an asshole fight you can't look away from.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Of course he retweeted them. And if the rumors take off, you can bet he'll try his hand at amateur lawyering too.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Come. On. Next thing you're going to tell me you were a Navy Seal.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
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.
Not to mention the incidents of sexual harassment claims, racism in the higher ranks, MPAA/Google news and news related to the hack like the exposed SSN's and employees and their families being threatened.
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.