Initial reporting of any incident is usually inaccurate. As details emerge and more facts are made known, reporting will change.
I’m sure when the first jet hit the towers on 911, initial reports were it was an accident. I’m also sure it was reported that a plane crashed into one of the towers but somehow using the word crash in this incident, is a sign of wokeism gone mad.
Also, the article quoted states that Brooks “allegedly” drove his vehicle into a parade. Hmmmm… the irony. As in, it couldn’t even say he was actually the one who did it.
they do this for legal reasons. if they state that he drove his vehicle into the parade, then he is proven innocent in court (no matter how unlikely), it is legally considered ‘slander’. if someone, or specifically a media outlet, slanders you - get some lawyers and quit your job so you can spend your time raking in that cheddar.
that’s why you hear the word “allegedly” a LOT in most news coverage.
I don’t have an answer for why some choose not to use that terminology - im not a law expert. I just know that its pretty common to hear the word “allegedly” in live news while its actually a pretty uncommonly spoken word for most people. Like if we were having a conversation about this, its unlikely either of us would use the word “allegedly” at all.
I interpreted that differently. I think “allegedly drove his car into…” here means that he may have done that…but a bunch of white folks may also have come after and attempted to trample him and his car.
It’s not about terminology. It’s about a so called news source that uses the word allegedly, criticizing another for not saying the act was deliberate.
Again, i think it’s based in legal purposes. But maybe im wrong and they just use it to push a narrative. I mean, what news source doesnt push a narrative?
Proving defamation is very hard. They call it opinion and it is over. You need a judge to make a case. It is not for legal issues, it is for propaganda issues.
I will give Kyle Rittenhouse as an example. He may have legal basis only on the narrative him crossing the border lines with a weapon, which corporate media ran with. Because it is a clear statement but he cant have them on other lies. Only The Independent calling on him killing 3 black people during or after the veridict may be not that hard to win a case for defamation against corporate media. He may sue Biden easier for defamation, because he cant claim opinion article.
I am actually quite sure if conservatives win majority they will use Kyle to impeach Biden. They are already targering Harris.
I agree. There is a need for alternative perspectives because MSM in general intentionally do a poor job of reporting news.
MSM are so bad they make it very easy for Crowder and others to get an audience.
Its hardly ever for the sake of divisiveness, or contrariness. If it was I thought you would be impressed if it was, as you like playing Devil’s advocate on here so much(and can be entertaining whilst doing so). Crowder doesn’t pretend to be a news broadcaster, he’s a commentator(yes an entertainer too). The problem is MSM pretends to be news broadcasters when they are just propaganda merchants.
Most people don’t wan’t anything, maybe bread and circuses from MSM. They need journalism, but don’t get it.
If MSM actually still did decent journalism, there wouldn’t be a demand for op-eds.
All I am going to say is you don’t understand American law. Most Americans don’t understand American law.
Talking to my wife (who is in her second year of 3 studying law) your “legal” argument outlined above is utter bull crap.
Most legal arguments presented by non-attorneys on any news source are BS. The US is one of the few western countries where law is a graduate degree. That should give you an idea of how complex it actually is.
Your wife, nor you understand law. I am actually quoting discussions on the topic from actual practicing lawers. Let me just tell you I am more informed than you are and probably your highly uneducated wife. And I dont care who your wife and anecdotal experience is. Or do you want me bring quotes from actual practicing lawers for what I said on my previous post. Will you read them or just ignore them again like the last time?
I am also following very closely Project Veritas suit against New York times which is one of the big cases for defamation.
Lawyers can be wrong and the answer I hear most from attorneys on any question in person is “it depends” which all they are allowed to tell you unless you retain them.
Following a case does not make you informed in the law
You brought your wife to discussion. Man, start taking some responsibility for your actions. We have a saying here. If two guys are in a dick measuring contest, dont put your ass between them. That is for girls who interupt. So dont bring your wife in our dick measuring contest.
I did not bring any quotes, because it is a lot of work. But that is the discussion on Kyle defamation cases. This is why he was probably advised from his lawers to take the Tucker Carlson interview and make some money out of it.
Lawers can be wrong. So can be your wife and you.
Do you follow any defamation cases? How are informed on the law and the cases with drfamation? You dont. You dont know the law as well. So how do you speak from a position of authority?
You provided anecdotal evidence (you troll shitty Internet forums) as did I. That was the extent of it. You flat out stated you believe you are more educated in US Law than someone actually studying US law. You can’t claim authority on the law either. Tell me, how many years of formal law education do you have? So yes, I will take my wife’s word over yours and the anecdotal stories from some internet black hole.
I am not measuring dicks. I am Pointing out how fucking insane your argument is. You are essentially claiming to be some expert in US law despite not even being a citizen. I don’t know crap about the law (studied a totally unrelated field) and hence I default to someone who does.
Also “that is for girls who interrupt” - so you are sexist too.
Like I said above, yes the MSM is biased and pushing an agenda, but so is every single human on the planet who has the privilege to contemplate such things and doesn’t have to spend their entire day hunting for freshwater.
For illustrative purposes; you constantly hang out on mount stupid below. I know I don’t know shit about law so I am in The valley of despair.
Do I need years of styding law in an American critical theory university? Are you sure you are not involved in a debt for life so your wife can study critical race theory and social studies, while you think it is a law. Can she even fill an ethics form and write a general statement?
How the fuck then I am even going to degrade to the level of lack of education of your wife?
I will give you and your friends a dumbed down discussion on what Kyle Rittenhouse can do from a couple of lawers on Tim Pool
I’m sorry, but just because @cyclonengineer mentioned his (highly educated) wife doesn’t mean you have the right to insult her, or anyone for that matter
