MAGA brats mock Native American with "build the wall" chants

[Meadmaker]

So, today, WaPo issued an "Editor's Note" that included the following:

“Subsequent reporting, a student’s statement and additional video allow for a more complete assessment of what occurred, either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that story — including that Native American activist Nathan Phillips was prevented by one student from moving on, that his group had been taunted by the students in the lead-up to the encounter, and that the students were trying to instigate a conflict.”


That's the best they could manage. They "contradicted or failed to affirm", i.e. in some cases, they "failed to affirm", which means that we really can't tell from the videos, and since we didn't say which ones were contradicted, and which ones were simply "not affirmed", there's a possibility of any one of them being true. Although at least one of our statements must have been false.


What weasels.


Couldn't they just say, "We apologize for not checking out the story before we ran it."


I suppose not. Their legal department has pretty good lawyers, and a statement like that has absolutely zero to do with human decency at this point. It's all about avoiding punitive damages. I can't blame them in that regard. If I were being sued for 250 million dollars, I would do whatever my lawyers told me to do.



One thing that really bugged me about the coverage of this incident is the narrative, so incredibly common in the first couple of days after the incident, that the original video was contradicted by later videos. No. That's not true. None of the videos were altered. They all show the same thing. It's just that the original video didn't provide a lot of information, but was consistent with Phillips' story. They didn't bother to ask anyone from Covington what their version of the story was. They ran with a story without bothering to do a little bit of research to find out what really happened. Then, when more video giving a more complete picture surfaced, it turned out Phillips was lying. Worse yet, some of the media outlets actually embellished the lie, especially in the opinion pieces. Then, when it became obvious that the story was false it took these media outlets a very long time to pull down their stories.


It was really bad journalism in a lot of ways. My opinion is that neither Nick Sandmann nor Lin Wood ought to get rich off of it, but this is America, so somebody probably will.

 

[applecorped]

Lies are always printed on the front page in bold letters, retractions are usually buried in very small print many pages back, if at all.

 

[varwoche]

... Phillips could have replied to that question over the years with something like "I was a Marine Corps Reservist stationed in California, 1972–1976" and maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, he seems to have most often described himself as a "veteran from the Vietnam War era", which is evidently accurate, but douchey.

Why he chose to describe his service that way is to me a puzzle. I'm not convinced that he's been doing that to glom on to some greater prestige than he's due. For one, I actually find the former, more detailed description a lot more impressive than the vague Vietnam era stuff.

And why would he need greater stature? The dude is already a hero to the DAPL protestors. His activist-cred is sky high.

And yet, accomplished, seemingly respectable people exaggerate their experience in much the same way. It happens frequently.

Most important, Phillips must know that claiming military cred he hadn't earned would be a one-way ticket to the dung heap of history in the eyes of veterans who saw combat.

It's hard to grasp. And yet, prominent people do the same thing. It happens frequently. People lie about their military service, and other things that can easily be fact-checked. People are strange.

To be clear, I'm not cutting Phillips slack just because he's not alone. I think he's a liar and, may Odin forgive me, a grifter.

 

[applecorped]

How

 

[theprestige]

I think he's a liar and, may Odin forgive me, a grifter.

Odin doesn't forgive. You pay the weregild, or you take your chances.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Odin doesn't forgive. You pay the weregild, or you take your chances.

Correct. The forgiving god is a later invention. And a deception.

Hans

 

[Chris_Halkides]

involuntary versus limited-purpose

"Or Sandmann could be considered an involuntary public figure who has been thrust into the public spotlight against his will. This can apply to anyone at the center of a public controversy despite whether or not that person willed it. If Sandmann is determined to be a public figure of any classification, he will need to demonstrate not only that the Post published false statements with negligence, but that it acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth as outlined in New York Times v. Sullivan." Atlantic.

I had not heard of an involuntary public figure. I have to wonder why there is even a distinction between "involuntary" and "limited-purpose" public figures; I don't see a practical difference at least in this case.

 

[portlandatheist]

"Or Sandmann could be considered an involuntary public figure who has been thrust into the public spotlight against his will. This can apply to anyone at the center of a public controversy despite whether or not that person willed it. If Sandmann is determined to be a public figure of any classification, he will need to demonstrate not only that the Post published false statements with negligence, but that it acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth as outlined in New York Times v. Sullivan." Atlantic.

I had not heard of an involuntary public figure. I have to wonder why there is even a distinction between "involuntary" and "limited-purpose" public figures; I don't see a practical difference at least in this case.

The designation of involuntary pubic figure seems problematic and sketchy to me. Reporting about him now, weeks or months after the incident, seems like at this point he qualifies as an "involuntary public figure" but at the time of the writing, and for legal purposes, I think he should be considered a private citizen. It was the media shame mob that turned him into an involuntary public figure. Seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[theprestige]

"Or Sandmann could be considered an involuntary public figure who has been thrust into the public spotlight against his will. This can apply to anyone at the center of a public controversy despite whether or not that person willed it. If Sandmann is determined to be a public figure of any classification, he will need to demonstrate not only that the Post published false statements with negligence, but that it acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth as outlined in New York Times v. Sullivan." Atlantic.

I had not heard of an involuntary public figure. I have to wonder why there is even a distinction between "involuntary" and "limited-purpose" public figures; I don't see a practical difference at least in this case.

On the other hand, if the people who thrust him into the spotlight against his will are the same ones who defamed him, and it was in fact their defamation that made him a public figure, then that defense probably goes out the window.

 

[Giz]

The designation of involuntary pubic figure seems problematic and sketchy to me. Reporting about him now, weeks or months after the incident, seems like at this point he qualifies as an "involuntary public figure" but at the time of the writing, and for legal purposes, I think he should be considered a private citizen. It was the media shame mob that turned him into an involuntary public figure. Seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Indeed. Publicly defaming an unknown and then justifying it because they are now known by all those who had read the defamation... seems an itsy bit wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

involuntary, limited-purpose public figure?

"Plaintiff Merle Dameron appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in this defamation action. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the alleged libel was protected, but differ on the basis for such protection. The district court found that the defendants' statements about Dameron derived from an official report of a government proceeding. We do not believe the official report privilege applies in the circumstances of this case. However, we find that Dameron's role in a major public occurrence resulted in his becoming an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure. Under the controlling precedents, this status also forms a basis for protection, at least in the absence of actual malice by the alleged defamer. Accordingly, we affirm the court's grant of summary judgment." Link embedded in The Atlantic article.

It sounds as if an involuntary public figure is in essence still a limited-purpose public figure.

 

[The Big Dog]

BOY vs GIANTS: They Messed With the Wrong Kid! Covington Student, Nicholas Sandmann, Is Taking On the Goliath Corporations that Smeared His Good Name and Endangered His Life and Future. Please Watch. Like. Retweet. Together We Will...

Teen sues mega-media Conglomerate CNN

ENTER SANDMANN! Play it loud!

 

[sackett]

Teen sues mega-media Conglomerate CNN

ENTER SANDMANN! Play it loud!

Childish.

 

[The Big Dog]

Childish.

Their attacks on the teen DID expose the mega-media machines as childish and grossly incompetent by swallowing the sleazy spin of certified race grifters.

Another great post!

 

[portlandatheist]

John Oliver just did a whole segment on public shaming and even interviewed Monika Lewinsky.

He talked about recent events but not a single mention about the MAGA Covington incident which I thought was really strange. Mentioning the obvious: there are different standards for shaming public figures vs. non public figures.

 

[dann]

Excellent episode of Last Week Tonight with an in-depth interview with Monica Lewinsky, but I see no reason why John Oliver should mention the MAGA brat incident. He does mention both Jossie Smollett and the recent college admission scandal.

 

[portlandatheist]

Excellent episode of Last Week Tonight with an in-depth interview with Monica Lewinsky, but I see no reason why John Oliver should mention the MAGA brat incident. He does mention both Jossie Smollett and the recent college admission scandal.

Why not?0 It is/was a perfect example of an online shame mob bullying a non public citizen, with a Trumpian relationship to the evidence, and the moral compass of a grand inquisitor.

 

[Travis]

Okay, I've been away from this thread for awhile.



Can anyone summarize exactly what lie it is that will be the centerpiece of the lawsuits? Or does anyone even know yet and it is all just speculation?

 

[Myriad]

Can anyone summarize exactly what lie it is that will be the centerpiece of the lawsuits?

Probably, whatever press report(s) made claims like the following (demonstrable untruths highlighted):

"Some kids from a high school in Kentucky, Covington Catholic, wandered over from the debauchery of the forced birth rally to inflict some misery on the Native Americans.

They surrounded them. Started chanting "build the wall" and at least one of them got in real close and seemed to try and do a stare down. Thankfully the man, Nathan Philips of the Omaha Tribe (and a Vietnam veteran), chose not to engage with evil that day and just continued his song."

 

[MRC_Hans]

Probably, whatever press report(s) made claims like the following (demonstrable untruths highlighted):

"Some kids from a high school in Kentucky, Covington Catholic, wandered over from the debauchery of the forced birth rally to inflict some misery on the Native Americans.

They surrounded them. Started chanting "build the wall" and at least one of them got in real close and seemed to try and do a stare down. Thankfully the man, Nathan Philips of the Omaha Tribe (and a Vietnam veteran), chose not to engage with evil that day and just continued his song."

Judging from the video available of the event, this is obviously a lie. Whether it makes for a lawsuit .... well, US courts often appear to work in inscrutable ways. However, I do know of a prominent American who should be in deep trouble if this level of lying could result in lawsuits.

Hans