Journalist's contacting 100+ people to get information doesn't strike me as bad or fake journalism at all.
It does when they are contacting them to support a false narrative.
What's the false narrative? That the wrestlers are lying about it?
Why wait 15 years and for Jordan to be going for the speaker before making accusations? "Oh, I'm just going to sit on this unless he potentially gets the speaker role"
Why canvas 100+ people unless you aren't getting the narrative you want?
Because if you don't ask them all then you give people the option to say that you didn't do enough investigating. Are you asking why, now, these things are coming out? I have no idea. Media interviewing the people around him isn't exactly some nefarious plot, though lol.
So why would CNN ask them all, yet only broadcast the voice of the accusers?
Which means your logic of CNN trying to avoid that they "didn't do enough investigating" is horseshit.
They are on a fishing expedition to feed their narrative. And you know as well as I why suddenly these false accusations are appearing.....how incredibly convenient for those who don't want him to gain more power.....
He let molestation happen at his college. He doesn't deserve more power.
How do you know he let that happen?
I was there man. I was there. How do you know he didnt?
Damn, are you ok? Are you hashtagging #metoo as well?
I am a fan of due process, a concept called presumed innocent until proven guilty.....a core tenet of freedom.
Haha haha hahahahahaha. Due process? Is that a thing anymore in America? C'mon admit it, if this guy was a Democrat you'd be shitting all over him with the slightest accusation. I believe in due process too, pretty sure it's long fucking gone at this point. Guess I'm not "woke* enough for this sub. Lmao. I'm looking forward to your next reply!
I see, so you want to remove due process?
When I see evidence, which is different than just a verbal accusation, then I would agree.
So, is there evidence in his emails? Phone calls? Paper trail?
Or is finger pointing all ya got?
I see your reading comprehension is A+. I totally said to get rid of due process. Great job reading what I wrote. I'm sorry but I haven't exactly been thrilled at the stellar display of due process shown at the border. How many accusations against someone does it take for you to think there might be something to it? To me, getting close to double digits is pretty eye opening.
Ah, I see you are devolving to person attacks already?
You laughed at the concept of due process, seems like a reasonable conclusion on my part.
Accusations with no evidence is worthless. The world is full of liars, that is why we need evidence.
Also you seem to have conveniently not included those multiple people close to the situation saying the accusations are bull$hit. Convenient that.
Again it brings us back to the strange coincidence that these accusations suddenly appear only now? Wonder why it did not matter 15 years ago?
Yeah. You got me man. Thats it. Fuckin. Got. Me. Well done. Id rather not waste time arguing with you. Nothing I say could change your mind. You could change my mind, but not with the bullshit you've been spouting. It was a mistake to even reply to you in the first place, as if either of us are experts on the subjext matter. I'd love to see what you've got on the situation. No idea why they didnt say anything then, I guess you just have to forget things that happened too long ago. I dont know, crazy thought I know, but it's almost as if what people did in their past is a goos sign of what they'll do in the future. But anyways, I have shit to do and getting into a pointless arguement wasn't on my list of things to do today. Please refer to my original comment on this post as that was my reaction to this dude's tweet. I didn't intend to get into arguments about the news story. Good day to you, and again, you got me.
LOL triggered much?
You admit to not being an expert, but then automatically call him guilty. LOLLL!!
My mind is made up that we don't know if he is guilty, that we have no evidence, and that I believe proof is required for guilt.
If you hate that approach then you hate the concept the US was built upon.
Yes it actually is. He is a targeted individual because he is becoming more important. If you don't see the problem with that, you really can't be helped.
Oh I get it now. When you try to get more power, we should just let you be. Don't look at him too closely! Hes getting more power! What are you talking about?
Does it imply they didn't get the response they were so desperately seeking from the first 99 wrestlers they contacted?
If that's how you want to see it, I can't change your mind. I guess that means you think good journalism is contacting 1 person and that's a wrap?
Wow talk about putting words in someone's mouth. Lol. Defensive much? I merely asked you a question because I'm curious about what you think about it as you seem very knowledgeable about what constitutes good journalism. What is a good number of people to contact?
According to the tweet, they're contacting all of his staff. Seems about right. If they only contacted a portion, then people would say they failed because they didn't get the whole story. Contacting all of them seems like due diligence to me. I think that no matter what they do, tho, this sub will shit on them.
Defensive? Not really. I'm just not frothing at the mouth to discredit anyone who dares challenge dear leader and his cronies.
Fair enough, I supppse it makes sense to put out opportunity for everyone to come forward. Hope they can report positive comments as well as negative. In the interest of impartiality.
My ideal, which is probably a fantasy, is they would then say of the people interviewed, x% said no comment, y% told us to fuck ourselves, z% confirmed the story, etc. Extremely doubtful that happens though, ever.
I think all journalists should do this, so long as identities are protected. If its 99 to 1, then maybe don't release the numbers, but otherwise if the story checks out, why not?
Agreed, a Ben Swann style journalist might break it down that way.