bamawriter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 26,018
- Likes
- 16,147
Fair point on retraction. I meant defamation only in the buzzfeed case sorry for confusion. In this case I think updates are warranted but I expect to see none. If the MSM was really feeling unbiased I think reaching out to the school and kids and getting their version in an interview is warranted.I don't know about "retractions" because you only issue a retraction when a story is completely false or fabricated. I don't think the stories here rise to that level. That's not excusing the terrible journalism on display. But there is a difference between something like the UVA story that Rolling Stone had to retract and the shoddy reporting on this dust up.
In this instance, the appropriate action would be to continue reporting on the story with the new information. They should do what they should have done before publication and get comments from the kids or their parents. And any outlet that posted or linked to the abbreviated video should now post or link to the more complete videos that are publicly available.
As far as consequences? A defamation lawsuit may be tough. The kids would have more of a case against the NA activist than against the outlets that simply reported a story from a legitimate source. But this will continue to erode convidence in the MSM. Newsrooms will continue to shrink as publishers' profits dwindle.
They might have standing on their own if the misrepresented image of their students could result in a loss of admissions and tuition. The students conduct on a school supervised function is a reflection on the institution.Not sure how the school would have standing to sue on behalf of the students.
They might have standing on their own if the misrepresented image of their students could result in a loss of admissions and tuition. The students conduct on a school supervised function is a reflection on the institution.
Nah. Ongoing threats forced them to make a statement before being able to investigate is a play they can easily take.I could see that if there were accusations that the school instructed or encouraged the behavior. Given that the cowards at the school fell all over themselves to apologize and condemn the behavior, that's a tough sell.
Like I said in another post the threat of a lawsuit might be all they need. Is the MSM really this invested in this particular dumbazz narrative when they have so many other ongoing dumbazz narratives to work with?I could see that if there were accusations that the school instructed or encouraged the behavior. Given that the cowards at the school fell all over themselves to apologize and condemn the behavior, that's a tough sell.
Nah. Ongoing threats forced them to make a statement before being able to investigate is a play they can easily take.
Their applogy was carried far and wide. If they can find an outlet that refused to publish the apology, and thus left the impression that the school encouraged the activity, then maybe they could sue that outlet.
Absent that, the boys, and not the school, were the defamed party. Heck, the school basically participated in the defamation.