Author Topic: Super Dumbnado 2017: Free Speech version  (Read 1044 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline AngryRedMan

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 7808
  • Liked: 450
  • Karma: +19/-15
  • NewsRaker
    • View Profile
Re: Super Dumbnado 2017: Free Speech version
« Reply #105 on: August 07, 2017, 02:42:46 PM »
The issue you try so hard to avoid is, of course, the corrosiveness and the toxicity of the radical left. You are but one toxic and corrosive member of that worthless group. You are irrelevant, except I think your inability to own the consequences of your ideology and your sense of entitlement.

If that was the issue you meant to raise you should have raised it.  What you did was falsely accuse me of using the clinton cash nonsense and then when challenged about it re-asserted your lie.  That is the toxicity that really happens here from you.



 
I am not sure what to make of it yet but you are giving me useful data.

Bannon was quite clever and used you well. But as the dialectic goes, fortification and breach, we will be able to at least neutralize Bannon's tactic.

You are delusional.
I invited them to, but it was never compulsory. They usually cheerfully accepted, except for the few occasions where my son chose to lie on the floor instead.

Online Mornac

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 18851
  • Liked: 455
  • Karma: +64/-184
  • Self-absorbed promethean neopelagian
    • View Profile
Re: Super Dumbnado 2017: Free Speech version
« Reply #106 on: October 09, 2017, 11:28:59 PM »
The New York Times is a rag?  Seriously?
--I dunno, "flyboy". You tell me:

‘Harvey Weinstein’s Media Enablers’? The New York Times Is One of Them

Sharon Waxman

A whole lot of fur has been flying since last Thursday, when The New York Times published a game-changing investigative story about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct that in lightning speed brought the mogul to his knees.

He apologized and took an immediate leave of absence from the company he co-founded, but that wasn’t enough. His board members and legal advisers have been resigning en masse. And as new, ugly details emerge of three decades of settlements for sex-related offenses, he’s quickly becoming a national pariah.

I applaud The New York Times and writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for getting the story in print. I’m sure it was a long and difficult road.

But I simply gagged when I read Jim Rutenberg’s sanctimonious piece on Saturday about the “media enablers” who kept this story from the public for decades.

“Until now,” he puffed, “no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.”

That’s right, Jim. No one — including The New York Times.

In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there.

I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.

As head of Miramax Italy in 2003 and 2004, Fabrizio Lombardo was paid $400,000 for less than a year of employment. He was on the payroll of Miramax and thus the Walt Disney Company, which had bought the indie studio in 1993.

I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts.

At the time, he denied that he was on the payroll to help Weinstein with favors. From the story: “Reached in Italy, Mr. Lombardo declined to comment on the circumstances of his leaving Miramax or Ricucci, saying they were legal matters being handled by lawyers. ‘I am very proud of what we achieved at Miramax here in Italy,’ he said of his work for the film company. ‘It cannot be that they hired me because I’m a friend.'”

I also tracked down a woman in London who had been paid off after an unwanted sexual encounter with Weinstein. She was terrified to speak because of her non-disclosure agreement, but at least we had evidence of a pay-off.

The story I reported never ran.

After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.

I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known. I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times, and that he was a powerful person overall.

But I had the facts, and this was the Times. Right?

Wrong. The story was stripped of any reference to sexual favors or coercion and buried on the inside of the Culture section, an obscure story about Miramax firing an Italian executive. Who cared?

The Times’ then-culture editor Jon Landman, now an editor-at-large for Bloomberg, thought the story was unimportant, asking me why it mattered.

“He’s not a publicly elected official,” he told me.  I explained, to no avail, that a public company would certainly have a problem with a procurer on the payroll for hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the time, Disney told me they had no idea Lombardo existed.

A spokeswoman for the Times had no comment on Sunday.

I was devastated after traveling to two countries and overcoming immense challenges to confirm at least part of the story that wound up running last week, more than a decade later. I had met in person with a woman who said she’d been paid off for an unwanted sexual encounter and thus proved she existed.

Update: Several have asked why I did not pursue the story once I started TheWrap. Fair question. Five years later, 2009, the moment had passed to go back and write the missing piece about Lombardo, who was no longer on the scene and whose story had been half-published in the Times. Miramax was no longer part of the Walt Disney Company. And I did not have sufficient evidence to write about a pay-off, even though I knew one existed. My focus was on raising money, building a website and starting a media company. In the subsequent years since then I did not hear about further pay-offs or harrassment and thought the issue was in the past. Weinstein had made a big effort, supposedly, to curb his temper and behavior, which was reflected in other areas of his public life.

Today I wonder: If this story had come to light at the time, would Weinstein have continued his behavior for another decade, evidenced by the scathing 2015 memo by former staffer Lauren O’Connor unearthed by Kantor and Twohey.

Writes Rutenberg: “Mr. Weinstein had his own enablers. He built his empire on a pile of positive press clippings that, before the internet era, could have reached the moon.”

The New York Times was one of those enablers. So pardon me for having a deeply ambivalent response about the current heroism of the Times.

Source

Online Mornac

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 18851
  • Liked: 455
  • Karma: +64/-184
  • Self-absorbed promethean neopelagian
    • View Profile
Re: Super Dumbnado 2017: Free Speech version
« Reply #107 on: October 10, 2017, 10:08:05 PM »
The New York Times is a rag?  Seriously?

--I dunno, "flyboy". You tell me:

James O’Keefe Busts James Comey’s Purported ‘Godson,’ Video Editor at New York Times

JOEL B. POLLAK
10 Oct 2017

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released another mainstream media exposé — this time, showing a former Democratic campaign operative who helps edit the New York Times‘ video content on social media platforms and apparently pretended to be James Comey’s godson.



In the video, New York Times Audience Strategy Editor Nicholas Dudich claims to have worked on social media for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and to have worked on his 2012 re-election effort. He also says he was a volunteer media strategist for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, making her videos more “heartfelt.” Now, he says in the video, “I will be ‘objective.’ No, I’m not. That’s why I’m there. Like, after the Clinton campaign, I’m like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn’t going to change.”

In the Project Veritas video, he is shown expressing his ideas for bringing President Trump down: “I’d target his businesses, his dumb f**k of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric, so they’re running Trump, like, the Trump business. … And you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down. … He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. … He would resign.”

Bizarrely, Dudich then claims that former FBI director James Comey is his “godfather,” but it is not clear whether he meant that literally: “I’ve met him. He’s a great guy, actually. … [H]e’s my godfather. … My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time.” Although Dudich is shown speaking to a Project Veritas reporter down the street from the Times‘ main New York office, it is not clear where this particular portion of the video, among others, was shot. Dudich then is shown admitting that according to Times policies, he should have recused himself from editing videos on Comey’s testimony before Congress, but did not — and that he could lose his job at the Times if anyone knew.

In yet another bizarre portion of the Project Veritas video, Dudich seems to suggest that he was an undercover FBI informant as a member of the radical, violent left-wing Antifa organization (“I used to be an AntiFa punk once upon a time”), gathering “intelligence” as to whether they were involved in “domestic terrorism.” When asked if Comey was aware of his activities in Antifa, he answers: “I cannot confirm or deny that information.”

The video shows that Project Veritas journalists attempted to corroborate Dudich’s claims about his relationship to Comey, but both his grandmother and his father are seen claiming they have no knowledge of the connection. The video then shows Dudich denying the truth of his earlier “godfather” statement when asked why members of his family did not corroborate his claim.

Either way, claims O’Keefe in the video, the New York Times must face serious questions about its journalistic integrity.

Source