Why the News In Not the Truth

The networks who only tangentially touched the topic didn't settle, and the kid lost in court against them iirc.

But if 3 major networks, who covered the story obsessively lying obscenely about it until it was impossible to keep lying, settle, it isn't just nuisance money.

Anyway the only reason we don't know the amount of the settlement is covid :-( because of it, proceedings were delayed a lot, to the point the kid became an adult when he settled, so the terms could be kept confidential.

Eh? Not saying you're wrong, but I thought minors got more privacy in court, not less? Why would it have been public if he had still been a minor?

The organizations that didn't settle won. The plaintiff accepted the settlement before depositions so CNN figured continuing with depositions and preparing a case so the judge would throw it out costs X and they offered .5X or something in that range which is 5 figures. The attorney for the plaintiff was Lin Wood, who maybe was competent at one point but is full on MAGA brained now and he was fired sometime in between the CNN case was settled and the other cases were thrown out. If a lawyer already got me millions on a case that publicly everyone was saying was frivolous I would not fire him in the middle.

Thank you. I did not know this.

That's another problem. There are no damages in this case. He got a job working for a MAGA congressmen despite low qualifications because of this incident. You can compare this to the case of Moss and Freeman who were 2 election workers who won a 148 M settlement against Giuliani (though obviously won't get that much if anything). One lady lost her business, had to move out of her house etc and was able to testify under oath to the real hardship Guiliani's lies caused her. Getting a job because you became known as the MAGA douche kid doesn't really qualify as damages.

Google says kids next worth is estimated at 1-2 Mil. No settlement amounts were ever made public.

Seems pretty paltry for private citizen who sued multiple networks that covered the story obsessively lying obscenely about it until it was impossible to keep lying. Kid should have used Trump's rape victim's attorney.

Those results when you google for someone's net worth are based on fewer hard facts than the wildest speculation on this board.

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/202...

Usually, settlements are confidential. But this one was almost released through a Kenton County probate case because, at the time, Sandmann was a minor and couldn't claim the money.

There was as reason better lawyers did not take this case.

but none of that occurred. what reputation did he have to damage? he wasn't trading on his reputation like a celebrity would lose an endorsement or something. you can't really make up damages that don't exist. i dont think he got fired from a little job or anything so he can't say future earnings were affected. if anything he benefited from the coverage by getting a foot in the door of the rightwing grift machine.

everyone that i know that does that work and everywhere i've seen online from other lawyers that do that work estimate five figures. because there are just no demonstrable damages

Settlements are not normally subject to confidentiality, they can be if agreed by the parties. Most settlements (however, defamation claims use them more often) do not as a true confidential clause generally has a holdback of funds, penalties for breaching and/or tax and insurance implications.

The article you cited is crap, a probate court could have sealed the records regarding the settlement, even on the grounds that it was for a minor. Merely seeking probate court approval would not determine if the settlement was confidential and it is generally required by defendants to protect the terms of the settlement when a minor is involved. The minor would retain a right to sue the defendants and his parents if probate court approval isn’t obtained.

No, citing “sources” that the kid bankrupted a bunch of major news organizations for “lying” and calling him smug is the wildest of speculation. Hence, the lack of proof provided by either Ndiggity or Lucio.

can we all at least agree CNN spread fake news about the topic, didn't vet it's sources, kept doing it for a while and only stopped when it was obvious to everyone they had lied till then?

if they can do this to a maga wearing 16 y old, can we generalize it to an attitude, a tendency, to completely disregard the truth and surgically look for narratives that give democrats an advantage?

that's true even if you are happy that a kid got his life messed up by nefarious, ill intended democratic media

Probably not, because I don't recall them doing anything but claiming he was disrespectful, smug and assumed he started the confrontation/being confrontational from the video.

I do not know what qualifies as fake news or source vetting?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm going off memory but the plaintiff made a bunch of claims and they were all thrown out except a claim aired on CNN that the plaintiff blocked the path of the other guy. The problem is this claim came from an eyewitness so even if it was wrong it would be a very high, almost impossible standard that to show CNN knew the witness was lying, if he was. Hence the likely low settlement. They also showed the video over and over again, which was really the most damaging part and that is obviously protected.

grunch: now do all the foxnews settlements

Also do libsoftiktok which is a serial harassment ring masquerading as a journalist

My "sources" are super secret.

Or I was kidding about him getting a BILLION dollars.

there is no greater harassment than reposting content people voluntary publish if you are a leftist, I get it.

some leftists are so out of their mind that literally showing you which content they produce is harassment.

incredible

Are you serious? She sics her followers on people by calling them pedophiles, groomers, etc. She’s not posting videos with no framing. Sometimes you are good faith and sometimes you sound absolutely braindead man

Oh, an insult. I'm rather shocked.

She posted videos with no framing for years and got described exactly like you do now anyway.

And got doxxed by a known psychopath democratic "journalist".

Denying this is literally what happened is bad faith.

So, when she became a public figure, she figured she could also add commentary, which tends to be absolutely correct.

Not sure who she called a pedophile without a conviction for that and without video proof of pedophiliac tendencies.

For sure she correctly described later as groomers, people who want to keep parents in the dark about what they discuss with their children.

"Don't tell your parents", when said by an adult to a minor, is the worst possible red flag that could exist and it's absolutely correct to point that out as grooming

Why did the Covington kid with the smug smile cross the mall?
To get a billion dollars.

That is a howler!

The Covington kid and Jesse Smollett are prime examples of were the media jumps the gun without all the facts. The problem is they do not come out on air and say we got this story wrong and apologize they just move on to the next story and folks to this day still believe the stories. It was the same when Rachel Maddow retweeted a claim that folks were lined up[ outside a hospital with gun shot wounds but could not get treated as the emergency room was full of Ivermectum overdoses