Oh, even better! A paid journalist circumvents the networks Legal and Standards Department and releases a story – which she initially got using the network’s resources – to some blogger working out of his mother’s basement, just hoping it doesn’t get traced back to her, and ABC. Yeah, that’ll shield them from serious litigation.
They chose to can it because they didn’t want another GWB/Texas ANG/AWOL story blowing up in their faces with every rightwing pundit from Hannity to Limbaugh crowing about it 24/7.
And “not that secret”? I must have missed that episode of Lifestyles of the Rich & Shameless. :dubious:
Exactly. These sorts of stories cost money, time and effort, and if they couldn’t verify it to their standards and it involves the rich, powerful and public people, then it is either a tabloid story, or a giant journalistic misstep. Both of those would seriously hamper their future efforts to get interviews/information from those people (the Royal Family).
So in absence of adequate verification, they likely passed on it because the potential downsides outweighed the upside for them. And they’re not obligated to run down and report on every wild-ass allegation they hear; that’s why they have these rules like two credible sources.
Another thing- the law enforcement agencies involved aren’t exactly Sheriff Andy and Barney Fife- I suspect they knew something was up for an equally long time, but ran into the same problems that the journalists did- a lack of verifiable evidence.
Did you, like, actually watch the video? If you’re going to discredit it just because of the website that it’s hosted on (the one in the OP, someone else linked to it on NPR, I linked to it on Fox’s youtube channel) I’m not sure what to tell you. Like I said earlier, it’s all over the internet, you can google it and find it on a multitude of sites and and youtube channels.
If you can watch her say the words and not believe that she said the words, why believe anything you see anywhere?
ETA, also, it should be noted that her own network, ABC, has responded to it (explaining? defending? admitting?). If it was just a few soundbites edited to get everyone riled up, wouldn’t you have expected either her or ABC to ‘set the story straight’ instead of ABC coming out and saying ‘this is why we did this’.
For three years? What happened to “believe all women”? It wasn’t high journalistic standards, it wa fear and/or money.
In the Kavannaugh case, everyone run the story with just one person’s 30-year-old memories which nobody else could verify. Here, there is a pedophile ring of powerful people, including a former US president, and suddendly they need a note from mom.
If instead of Epstein the name had been Trump, they would’ve run the story faster than Ussain Bolt on steroids with with a torando tailwind and on a downslope.
Even now, even with Epstein dead and knowing 100% that he’s guilty, the story has almost died with him. Nobody cares about the victims and it is because the criminals are the “wrong” people and they don’t want to upset them.
This is amazingly silly. THere is video on mutiple platforms. ABC has commented and accepted that the video exists but has tried to downplay it with “out of context” comments. Also, her complaint isn’t that “it looks good but we need more data” the complain is “we have everything, but they don’t want to upset powerful people.”
CBS has fired the person who possibly leaked the video, very possibly at ABC’s request.
The ammount of deflecting in this thread is, again, astonishing. Some motherfucking rich people rape minors for years and what we get “I don’t like the website”. I never expected this strong defense of child rapists here.
With the Covington kid, they ran he story with a 30second video of a kid smirking and they decided to ruin his life and, after the whole exchange was seen, nobody decided to change the story to reflect what happened.
Then, instead of asking multiple times for proof it exists, you should be denying it exists. Life is easier when people tell us what they’re thinking instead of beating around the bush.
One big mystery is: How did Epstein get his huge wealth in the first place?
Nobody seems to know. He was a failed nobody with expensive tastes and suddenly started throwing huge parties. Maybe the IRS should know where his money came from, but they aren’t talking. I just watched the FoxNews video; Amy Robach says that Epstein “made his whole living blackmailing people.” Occam’s Razor says she’s right. Wikipedia suggests Epstein’s business was rather like Madoff’s. Voluntarily being fleeced à la Madoff is one way for a rich man to funnel large sums to Epstein without leaving an undesirable paper trail.
I hardly know the Covington details, and would be guessing to venture at Prince Andrew’s guilt. But lumping in the hideous harasser Kavanaugh, along with “unproven/disproven” tells me what I need to know about your opinions.
Wow! Just wow!!! I guess FoxNews/Limbaugh/Infowars are responsible media who would never impugn the Clintons. But ABC is a Lie Machine that would jump all over Trump or Pence. Is that it? WOW!
Society has a long, long way to go. Folks like you are still dismissing allegations if they’re against someone you support, and the powerful and wealthy are still paving over allegations in the fear that their own misdeeds will be uncovered. This problem isn’t going to be solved by powerful news organizations – it’s going to be solved by everyday people, when we decide we have enough, and when folks like you (based on your posts, at least) decide that fighting sexual assault and abuse of women is more important than beating your political/ideological opponents.
This is a very interesting angle that hasn’t come up enough.
How do you know Kavannaugh is a hideous harasser? What proof? Would you accept that proof against you?
FoxNews/Limbaugh/Infowars being good or bad is immaterial to this thread. However, I am more tan willing to concede that their bar for a “fuck Clinton” story is much, much lower than for a “fuck Trump” one, no question about it. If Limbaugh had the Epstein story and it implicated Trump he would sat on it, hard, or at least hide DJT’s involvement, for sure, no question about it.
ABC is not specifically bad, the state of media is terrible. As I said, CBS fired the whistleblower of an ABC story, that’s how bad they are.
In this specific story, “believe all women” didn’t quite work, even in child rape. The Smollet story, which was dodgy from the very start, had headlines without any further corroboration; it didn’t matter how ridiculous it was.
Dopers can be very very stupid when they want to be. And screw Kavanaugh and forget about Sandmann, the Epstein story is important in its own right and the fact is that the media has done a lousy job in reporting it.
Powerful People always get their way.
Ever heard the phrase “a broken clock is right twice a day”?
I dont care how crazy the website or source is, sometimes they actually DO get something RIGHT.
We are talking about a political and economic power group that has influence in not just the US, but also the UK and apparently several other countries.
The only news outlet that could run it is some oddball one like Veritas. Every other news outlet is too tied into this group.
