To reference images from other websites within your posts, simply right-click (desktop), or hold your finger over (mobile devices), the image and select to copy the link. You can then copy-paste this link within your post. When viewing the post, it will be automatically hyperlinked directly to the image.
- Manlobbi
Personal Finance Topics / Retirement Investing
No. of Recommendations: 9
White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told CBS News that if it didn't air the entirety of its interview with the Pedophile Protector, "We'll sue your ass off."
Hence the power of Ms. Leavitt’s words to Mr. Dokoupil on Tuesday. Once a president is willing to sue a news outlet, and the outlet is willing to settle, the calculus for its journalists has indelibly, inexorably changed.To think, Walter Cronkite, Douglas Edwards, Edward R. Murrow, Mike Wallace, Harry Reasoner, and Eric Sevareid once worked for the network that has abandoned journalism and buckled under the intimidation of the most evil, crooked, loathsome president in American history.
Oh yeah, where are those Epstein Files the Pedophile Protector continues to hide?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/17/business/media/...
No. of Recommendations: 7
The obvious take-away from this threat, and the suit of the Beeb, for it's editing of his Jan 6 speech, is for the media to totally ignore him, "put him on extinction", in Skinnerian behavior mod terms. Deny him the attention he craves. Decline all offers of an interview, from him. Never ask him anything, never ask anything of him. Of course, Fox Noise and OAN, would not participate in the extinction exercise, but people know those outlets pedal pure propaganda.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hence the power of Ms. Leavitt’s words to Mr. Dokoupil on Tuesday. Once a president is willing to sue a news outlet, and the outlet is willing to settle, the calculus for its journalists has indelibly, inexorably changed.Dokoupil's tenure may be short-lived:
Barely two weeks into Tony Dokoupil's new role as anchor of CBS Evening News, network executives are reportedly considering replacing him in the coming days.
The idea has gained traction after his presence failed to attract the level of audience interest they had hoped for when he assumed the role.
According to a source who spoke with Rob Shuter's #ShuterScoop, the segment is "barely pulling half of ABC and NBC in the key 25–54 demo."
The claim seemed further confirmed by new Nielsen data, which showed that the program averaged just 4.17 million viewers in Dokoupil's first full week.
The data also noted that the viewership was down 23 percent from the same week last year, another poor trend that further highlights the show's struggles. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tony-dokoupils...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wouldn't the prudent economic response be to not air it and rerun Sanford and Son episodes. I am sure that they would get higher ratings.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Steve,
No, the obvious takeaway from the Trump lawsuits against various media organizations is not to deliberately make editorial judgments with "reckless disregard for the truth" or with "actual malice" that act to defame public figures like Trump or to place them in a false light.
This is standard defamation law.
While the hurdle for a public figure plaintiff like Trump against a media company like CBS or BBC is extremely high under the NY Times v. Sullivan precedent, media companies do not have absolute immunity to defame public figures under U.S. defamation law.
These suits get settled because the media companies in question do not want to turn over discovery materials such as all the many emails and texts and other written materials in which their various employees are saying things (which they think will never be disclosed) about Trump that show obvious malice, bias, and intent to falsely defame him.
The difference between Trump and most other defamation plaintiffs is he has plenty of dough to finance an expensive lawsuit against a huge media company.
They are not used to having someone who can actually take them on in court.
It's the Leftist snobbish pseudo-intellectual arrogance and hubris at work.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes, the calculation for the journalists at places like CBS has definitely changed after Trump sued them.
They have to do a much better job of being honest and far less reflexively biased against Trump.
Also, they need to stop lying.
No. of Recommendations: 10
The difference between Trump and most other defamation plaintiffs is he has plenty of dough to finance an expensive lawsuit against a huge media company.
Anymore he has the financial and personnel resources of the entire Department of Justice.
And before that, he fundraised a big portion of his legal fees from his supporters
No. of Recommendations: 4
I thought you were 'paraphrasing' her. But, no, she actually said that. And it's also true that our corrupt dictator will sue anyone at the drop of a hat.
‘If it’s not out in full, we’ll sue your ass off,” Leavitt added.
She's awful and the perfectly loony voice for Trump's PS.
No. of Recommendations: 2
let's pretend that :
a. dookypill was the most qualified in-house candidate
b. foxnews would not offer dozens more
and bigly of all,
news director leni weiss was not bought off for $150m for her website on its way to myspace type relevancy.
(for a cbs ministry of propaganda post she would have done for free !)
No. of Recommendations: 5
No, the obvious takeaway from the Trump lawsuits against various media organizations is not to deliberately make editorial judgments with "reckless disregard for the truth" or with "actual malice" that act to defame public figures like Trump or to place them in a false light.
iirc, the suit against the Beeb is over a documentary it produced that had an excerpt of his Jan 6 speech, that put the lines about going to the Capital, and the "fight like hell" lines together. I watched the noon local news that day, and they cut over to that speech, as it was going on, for a couple minutes. All the language I heard was inflammatory. His intent was clearly to get the mob more agitated. Saying "peacefully", once, does not outweigh an hour of getting the mob wound up, any more than saying "that would be wrong", on one occasion, absolved Nixon of everything related to Watergate. The USian media caves to Trump, and pays him millions, to maintain access to his ravings. It will be interesting to see if the Beeb is made of sterner stuff.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
The defamation laws in Great Britain are much more plaintiff-friendly than those in the USA. BBC will cave because they have to. You can't deliberately mislead by the way you edit.
Again, what you seem to fail to recognize is that this wasn't simply a mistake or error of editorial judgment. It was a deliberate effort by the BBC to edit Trump's speech to cast him in the worst possible light.
And if the case isn't settled and gets into discovery, the thousands of emails, texts, notes, and other evidence will prove that was the motivation--i.e. a "reckless disregard" for the truth.
They don't care about the settlement dollars, $16 million was chump change for CBS, a fraction of the legal fees it would have cost them to go to trial.
The defendants are trying to avoid a punitive damages verdict which could well be in the billions, or if not, the hundreds of millions.
That would be catastrophic.
Since you don't live in reality, and only see things one way, in your tunnel-vision leftist manner, and since you do not have to personally be responsible for being wrong and on the losing end of a multi hundreds of millions of dollars verdict; and you don't have to worry about the case flushing out for all the public to see the incredible bias at the BBC; you don't consider what would happen if your biases don't happen to coincide with reality.
However, the people running the BBC and their solicitors DO have to worry about such things.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The defamation laws in Great Britain are much more plaintiff-friendly than those in the USA.
BBC will win in ANY "reasonable" court. In Spankee's kangaroo court, they will pull out a bunch of joeys.
