It's a baffling indeed and reading the judges reasoning, all I can do is shake my head and wonder about the horseshoe the Post has up its ass.
Obviously I'm not legal expert let alone a Kentucky legal expert (I play one on the Internet!) but nevertheless his explanation seemed like a stretch to me.
That the Post didn't specifically name Sandman in their article (s) is a technicality because they clearly were aiming to single him out. The whole 'smirk' thing and kids 'swarming' pretty much shows the Post was looking to sheep a narrative to any reasonable person.
Plus the judge shut this down before all evidence could be adduced. Worse, the judge seems to be using the article (s) itself as evidence!
It's like you suing a company for a faulty product and the judge using the company's handbook about the product as evidence it wasn't faulty. Or something like that.
Bizarre.
In my view, the Post were unprofessional and irresponsible with their reporting as they not only did libel a person but got the facts wrong. It doesn't take a genius to see what they were doing but the law is the law and sounds as though Sandman's lawyers (erroneously it turns out) thought they had enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
And there was enough to be concerned about their strategy.
As for the judge himself?
"William Odis Bertelsman (born 1936) is a Democrat and Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky."
A Democrat. Just saying.
Continuing on.
How pathetic are you that an established paper that goes around throwing its weight around about 'democracy' can't even do its job right? Still more, the Post pulled a 'I'm just a comedian' stunt. Whenever a comedian was forced to substantiate a specious claim to score a cheap political point, they'd answer 'I'm just a comedian!". Until they're not and they want to be take seriously.
The Post wrote a 'news' piece like it was an opinion. Sold it as news but then sleazed ball their way back into 'it's an opinion' position.
My advice? If you read legacy media, go in eyes wide open and understand their feeding you a narrative on events. They know how to manipulate words, form phrases and paint imagery so as to sculpt an answer before you arrive at it yourself.
They're linguistic alchemists. Narrative constructing troubadours and you're their target.
Don't be a target. Be the arrow if you get my drift. Seek out second and third opinions on whatever is reported in the mainstream press. You think they want the truth? Think again. Read this article in the Colombia Journal Review about how to report on 'climate change'. It's more a tome on how to silence voices, get the narrative on one page and redouble efforts to push the agenda.
Personally, I don't even read the Post or Times because their writers are predictable, boring, partisan hacks.
In other words, it's fake news.
Hopefully Sandman's lawyers don't give up despite the judge dismissing it with prejudice. Which essentially tells them 'end of the road'.
The Post should face some kind of consequence for what they did in treating those boys the way they did. Therein lies my final point that needs to be said. Sandman was a minor and not only did The Washington Post (and other outlets) engage in what I think is public child abuse, the judge basically said 'open season' on the kids!
We hear the terms 'for the children' and the need to 'protect our children' a lot. In this case, the Post couldn't care less about minors because they were in the way of a narrative and that's the simple, hard truth.
If you notice, more and more kids are being used as pawns in political games.
Which spawned a new term, 'leave the kids alone!'
Unfortunately, they won't and I wouldn't hold my breath media will be held accountable.
Obviously I'm not legal expert let alone a Kentucky legal expert (I play one on the Internet!) but nevertheless his explanation seemed like a stretch to me.
That the Post didn't specifically name Sandman in their article (s) is a technicality because they clearly were aiming to single him out. The whole 'smirk' thing and kids 'swarming' pretty much shows the Post was looking to sheep a narrative to any reasonable person.
Plus the judge shut this down before all evidence could be adduced. Worse, the judge seems to be using the article (s) itself as evidence!
It's like you suing a company for a faulty product and the judge using the company's handbook about the product as evidence it wasn't faulty. Or something like that.
Bizarre.
In my view, the Post were unprofessional and irresponsible with their reporting as they not only did libel a person but got the facts wrong. It doesn't take a genius to see what they were doing but the law is the law and sounds as though Sandman's lawyers (erroneously it turns out) thought they had enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
And there was enough to be concerned about their strategy.
As for the judge himself?
"William Odis Bertelsman (born 1936) is a Democrat and Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky."
A Democrat. Just saying.
Continuing on.
How pathetic are you that an established paper that goes around throwing its weight around about 'democracy' can't even do its job right? Still more, the Post pulled a 'I'm just a comedian' stunt. Whenever a comedian was forced to substantiate a specious claim to score a cheap political point, they'd answer 'I'm just a comedian!". Until they're not and they want to be take seriously.
The Post wrote a 'news' piece like it was an opinion. Sold it as news but then sleazed ball their way back into 'it's an opinion' position.
My advice? If you read legacy media, go in eyes wide open and understand their feeding you a narrative on events. They know how to manipulate words, form phrases and paint imagery so as to sculpt an answer before you arrive at it yourself.
They're linguistic alchemists. Narrative constructing troubadours and you're their target.
Don't be a target. Be the arrow if you get my drift. Seek out second and third opinions on whatever is reported in the mainstream press. You think they want the truth? Think again. Read this article in the Colombia Journal Review about how to report on 'climate change'. It's more a tome on how to silence voices, get the narrative on one page and redouble efforts to push the agenda.
Personally, I don't even read the Post or Times because their writers are predictable, boring, partisan hacks.
In other words, it's fake news.
Hopefully Sandman's lawyers don't give up despite the judge dismissing it with prejudice. Which essentially tells them 'end of the road'.
The Post should face some kind of consequence for what they did in treating those boys the way they did. Therein lies my final point that needs to be said. Sandman was a minor and not only did The Washington Post (and other outlets) engage in what I think is public child abuse, the judge basically said 'open season' on the kids!
We hear the terms 'for the children' and the need to 'protect our children' a lot. In this case, the Post couldn't care less about minors because they were in the way of a narrative and that's the simple, hard truth.
If you notice, more and more kids are being used as pawns in political games.
Which spawned a new term, 'leave the kids alone!'
Unfortunately, they won't and I wouldn't hold my breath media will be held accountable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.