WHO GIVES A SHIT??
I see a pattern.
- Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"
- Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!
- Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.
ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.
The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.
It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.
Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.
I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "
they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any
evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.
That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.
Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.
Here's what actually
is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.
The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.
That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to
suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as
to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.
Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.
Again ----
*WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?
It's a
video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's
recorded.
Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it
DOES go back and to the left. It's on
film.
As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.
That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?
And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.
Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?
HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?
See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.
