Final-Fan said:
PhoenixKing said:
Final-Fan said:
You, sir, have not one damn clue what you're talking about, most particularly in regards to CNN iReport
Taking things out of order:
-- I agree with numonex?
Yes, ON THAT ONE POST. Most of his others were rants and unsubstantiated accusations.
-- The article I mentioned has no source?
It doesn't link to another source on the Internet, if that's what you mean. But at some point, news does come from somewhere, you know. You're right about one thing: I mistook the Examiner for a professional news organization -- online newspaper or whatever -- when it seems to be similar to CNN's iReport in actuality. I take full responsibility for that oversight and admit that it makes my talk about 'obliterating' your own source hyperbole.
Nevertheless, this Randy Aaron claims to have PERSONALLY done research to contact related parties (presumably Jordan Chandler or his legal counsel) who told him that no such confession had been made. How does that not count as a source?
-- The article you mentioned is just as valid as mine?
Let's see, completely unsubstantiated story by anonymous internet wackjob versus something posted by someone with an actual name, who could be easily sued for libel if lying. Which could possibly be less credible than the other?
-- It may not have been vetted, but they (CNN) must have checked it for untrue content.
Do you ... comprehend what "vetted" means? In point of fact, when you visit the site, there's a POP-UP THAT WARNS YOU:
"So you know: iReport is the way people like you report the news. The stories in this section are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post. Only ones marked 'CNN iReport' have been vetted by CNN."
NOT EDITED, FACT-CHECKED OR SCREENED BEFORE THEY POST. So you are completely wrong in every way. This pop-up happens EVERY TIME you go there until you tell it to stop, so it's a bit of a mystery how you could be ignorant to that, but here we are. And no, just in case you're clinging to that hope, the 'story' is NOT marked 'CNN iReport'. (Unlike, for example, this one: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-435235)
-- "Accepting the guilt of people without trying to learn more about the subject in question." No, you again confuse me with numonex. I am not so blissfully certain that Jackson is guilty, though I think it's pretty likely. And I have gone to at least some effort to discover truths about the matter ... whereas you, I suspect, look only for what you want to find, disregarding along the way all evidence that points in a direction you don't care to go.
I mean honestly, this is embarrassing. CNN goes out of its way to make sure that anyone who goes to iReport gets a short and sweet disclaimer shoved in their faces every single time they look at anything ever, until they check a little box that says "I know already, stop showing me this."
And then you tell me that iReport is the opposite of what the disclaimer says it is.
-- Also: Having done a little MORE research, it seems that the whole recanting thing goes back to a claim made by Jackson's brother. Soon after the alleged victim's father committed suicide, Jermaine Jackson comes out with a story about how he killed himself over the guilt of falsely accusing MJ and that the son had admitted that "MJ never touched him". http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/11/26/jermaine_jackson_abuse_victim_claims_mic
Classy. And uncorroborated. |
You obviously didn't grasp the fact that it would be bad propoganda for them to post something without at least looking it over otherwise much racist content could be found. And no, the man isn't liable for anything, nor does he have proof of such claims.
You also didn't look-up or read into the 1993 case itself, which was what I was referring too.
In this post you replied to me, and others, you just sound angry and seething with rage. Calm down.
|
The process of posts being held for a cursory check for unacceptably racist, vile, etc. content is, I believe, known as "screening".
Which CNN explicitly denies doing.
There is, I also believe, a method for people to report unacceptably racist etc. articles, which allows CNN to (presumably) delete them and ban the authors. This allows them a certain amount of control over the unacceptable content you mention. It's the same thing thousands of forums do, so it's entirely reasonable to believe CNN figures this, along with the HUGE UNMISSABLE DISCLAIMER, will allow rational people to realize that the iReport titled "Coons still subhuman despite taking our women" is not condoned in any way by CNN.
As for the rest, I can see why someone would think I was angry in the above post, although I'd say I was more like 'upset' and very annoyed by your seeming disregard for the most obvious of evidence to the contrary of what you were saying. Especially the parts about unvetted iReports being vetted, and me agreeing with numonex completely because I agreed with one post of his.
But "seething with rage" ... I can't see how you could have gotten that from my post. Nowhere do I depart from rational counterargument into ranting, nor succumb to excessive ALLCAPS or bolded tirades. I can only suppose that you eitherproject upon me what is either in yourself or in others you've argued with, or simply massively misread my mood.
P.S. If Mr. Aaron is making public statements to the effect that Jackson has not been exonerated of molesting a particular boy by that boy, when in fact he has been, and those statements are conscious lies (when given the story he posted they would pretty much have to be), how is it that he could not be sued for defamation of character etc.?
|
