AP, HBO, NBC could be next outlets sued over coverage of Covington Catholic student: co-counsel
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Associated Press and television networks NBC and HBO could be the next three entities sued over their handling of the viral video featuring Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, his co-counsel told Fox News on Tuesday.
Todd McMurtry revealed the potential upcoming legal targets during an interview with Fox News just one day after a massive $275 million suit was filed against CNN due to its coverage of the January confrontation between Sandmann -- wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat -- and Native American activist, Nathan Phillips .
“Our plan is to come out with an additional lawsuit every few weeks or months. We have to issue opportunities for these news organizations to provide retractions,” McMurtry told the " Todd Starnes Radio Show ." "But right now we're looking very carefully at NBC, AP, HBO. And again, HBO is primarily because they carry Bill Maher's disgusting comments about Nicholas Sandmann. So those probably are the next three defendants."
Maher referred to Sandmann as a “little pr---” during the Jan. 27 episode of his show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.”
"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid," Maher said. "I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little pr---. Smirk face, like that's not a d--- move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man.”
Maher then made a crude joke about the abuse of children that has taken place in the Catholic Church, saying: “You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”
In addition to the CNN suit , Sandmann’s legal team also launched legal action against the Washington Post.
The suit against CNN charges that the network "elevated false, heinous accusations of racist conduct" against Sandmann and failed to adhere to "well-established journalistic standards and ethics."
Tags
Who is online
174 visitors
I hope they win but I don't know enough about CNN's rights to push a false narrative. FFS you got people that believe Anderson "FAKE NEWS" Cooper didn't fake something when there is video evidence he did.
Now that the leftwing media pushed a false narrative about Sandmann you still have sheep that believe he accosted and approached the honor thief Nathan Phillips.
Good. Keep suing. This need to destroy ordinary people should have consequences.
When his family has made it clear it's actually a vendetta against any outlet that tells the truth about Trump, no decent judge would uphold it.
Do you think Fox should have had to pay the family of Seth Rich hundreds of millions of dollars when they sued?
How is that a load of BS? Do you think conservative media shouldn't be held to the same standards?
And his family's own statements make it clear that these lawsuits are intended to punish media who publish negative things about Trump.
Do you really think any judge will ignore their comment that they're deliberately suing the WaPo for exactly the same amount Bezos paid for it?
Projection!..The suit is being filed because the left wing media was willing to destroy the reputation of a young boy to attack the President.
I say this lawsuit will be another staggering defeat for CNN and the Washington Post and justice has never been better served!
People destroy people. Who made the anonymous video? Are they culpable for what millions of foolish "too quick to judge" people assumed was represented by the video?
Are the media guilty by the quick rush to judgement by the public?
The defamation lawsuit by Seth Rich's family against Fox was dismissed for not meeting legal standards.
Sandman's suing and announcing they will continue to sue one media outlet after another doesn't help Sandman, it makes the family look greedy, not injured.
The media tell the public what to think of the video they show them. That's why the media is being sued.
I think it makes them look angry, and I think that's understandable.
Last I heard, the original video cannot be traced and was from an anonymous source. Very convenient.
Agree. The family is just looking for a cash payout.
Really?
You honestly think that way about yourself as well as some of the rest of us?
When the headline gives an erroneous and biased report, the public hasn't made the judgment...the media has.
That is how defamation works. That is how reputation works. Obviously at the level of the individual, some people will think for themselves, reserve judgment, investigate facts, and ultimately form their own opinion. But that's not what we're talking about.
Go back and look and look at the discussions we had here on NT about that story. Look at all the members who characterized the behavior of a 16 year-old kid who was standing still, saying nothing as disgusting, disrespectful, and racist.
Funny how you like some to have the right to sue, others, not so much. Don't you want to stop medical malpractice lawsuits to lower the costs? That is a conservative position, brought up every time as a way to protect malfeasance in the name of $$$. What about stopping consumers from suing large corps? Gop always wants to limit consumer rights to protect the elite. How about the NRA, making it unlawful to sue gun manufacturers? Are there ANY standards you have for everyone?
THEY PAY TO HAVE THEM PASSED!!!!!!
If true, then the following do the same with the Left:
What made up fantasy is this? When did I ever say someone didn't have the right to sue someone else? Stop making shit up about me.
I'm on the record for getting money out of politics. Are you?
I posted my examples, and are you saying you are against the gop positions limiting the right to sue said industries or companies? The NRA, medical malpractice, consumer class action suits.......
You didn't post any examples of me saying that someone didn't have a right to sue someone.
I'm saying you made shit up about me.
Money = power and has been influential in politics for thousands of years.
My opinion, and yours, are irrelevant to the topic of this seed. (Read ... hint: off-topic)
Oh, snap! So, in 19 years (1998-2017), the NRA gave a measly $3.5M to Congress members.
During almost the same time period, the NEA gave over $92M to mostly Democrat (97%) campaigns.
Just an FYI, it's been shown not to save any $$$ anyway.
The only reason to sue a gun manufacturer is if either the gun fails to fire when needed or it fires on it's own, it's not the manufacturers fault if someone uses the gun to kill someone. The manufacturers aren't misrepresenting their products, they're called weapons for a reason. Should Ford get sued because a drunk driver killed someone with his Ford Truck ? If I got stabbed with a Buck Knife should I sue Buck Knives, hell no I should sue the guy who stabbed me. If somebody poisoned someone with Rat Poison should the manufacturer be liable because they sold a poisonous compound that was misused ? how about if it was antifreeze ?
You are either for or against everybody have the right to sue. Republicans are ON THE RECORD trying to limit certain types of lawsuits, from medical malpractice to suing gun manufacturers, to consumer class action suits to individuals. Why do you think you have the right to stop all lawsuits against gun manufacturers unless they comply with your narrow confines? Why did the gop pass a specific law denying Americans the right to sue them, and only them?
Because the left wants to try to bankrupt the gun industry with lawsuits. The gun manufacturers aren't breaking the law they haven't done anything Illegal, it's not their fault when someone uses their product in an Illegal way. If a Murderer smothers someone with a pillow is the pillow manufacturer at fault ? Of course not, then why would a gun manufacturer who's product works properly and has no defects be at fault just because a criminal uses that product in an Illegal way. The law doesn't stop all lawsuits against gun manufacturers just the ones that try to make them liable for the crimes committed with guns by criminals, if the gun tends to go off by itself and causes injury, property damage, or death you can still sue them for making a faulty product.
Maybe so, but they spend 10 million a year lobbying.
Whether they win or not to me is not so important as that the media needs to be put on notice that they went way too far with this and need to be brought down a few notches.
Exactly. The news media is supposed to be informing, not piling on a teenager who didn't seek the spotlight.
Especially CNN, because it prides itself on "Facts First".
So republicans have gone from...Tort reform! Tort reform!...to...Sue, Sue, Sue!...
3/14/2019, 3:35PM (DST) ...
In order to keep my seed on topic, I'm issuing the following warning to everyone:
This seed is not about David Hogg or Parkland. Further comments about them as well as other derails will be flagged OFF TOPIC.
oops sorry
No worries. I started the clock at 3:35PM today. Very tired of certain folks derailing my seeds instead of taking the effort to comment on the topic.
My recommendation to the young man and his family is to wait until one of his two suits gets settled prior to going after more rabbits. If he wins either/both of them, all of the others will quickly become fair game.
Maybe that's why one of the lawyers said:
Nice! I hope they win. This way Fox News (and every alt+right "news" site online) could be sued into insolvency. We all know it's not going to happen. It's just a ploy to keep MAGA parents and their lawyer on TV and Fox's way to perpetuate victimhood. But I really, really, truly hope they win. The line to file suite against Fox News, Breitbart and others would be soooo long - that in itself would make news.
Fox hasn't gone after minors the way CNN did. I don't recall any Fox commentators calling any kids "asswipes" like the classy people at CNN did.
Oh yeah. Fox is a bastion of journalistic integrity.
Journalism ethics and standards.
Not saying that CNN is perfect or awesome (see my original comment). Perhaps you shouldn't put up a company with "News" in their title that argued in a court of law that they are NOT a "news organization" as a group with any kind of integrity.
The difference between Fox and CNN is that Fox makes a clear distinction between straight news and opinion shows. CNN editorialized all day while pretending to be balanced.
The audience of CNN knows it's editorializing all day while Fox's audience believes everything they say as gospel truth.
"The audience of CNN knows it's editorializing all day while Fox's audience believes everything they say as gospel truth."
The audience of CNN is tuning in just to get their TDS fix. CNN and the facts haven't been on speaking terms in a long time.
Yeah... Okay. I'm done reading you repeat yourself. I don't watch CNN so I don't give two fucks what happens to them. Actually I don't give two fucks if they all get sued to oblivion.
Is it? You mean the whole one time that Sandmann has been on TV?
Now if you are referring to the honor thief Nathan Phillips he has hit every left wing media "NEWS" station. I'm pretty sure Sandmann never even appeared on FOX
You actually watch every left wing media "NEWS" station or is this just something you heard on Fox "NEWS"?
Actually I couldn't give a shit less. I'm still hoping the kid's lawyer wins - it will be fun to watch the aftermath.
Why yes I do. I take in all news sources not just the ones that appeal to me.
And you could even use google to see what news stations he appeared on, I know shocker right?
I've heard of the face that launched a thousand ships. Now we have the smirk that launched a thousand lawsuits.
Good one, Rmando. Funny thing is that no matter how hard I try to understand that Nick was "smirking", I just don't see a smirk. He was smiling, albeit nervously.
Just using the language of the left to make a point... They do love their face crimes.
Some won't understand the Marlowe reference.
While we could argue "degrees of smiling, this is Nick smiling .
Completely different from whatever was going on between him & Phillips.
It's silly to nitpick "degrees of smiling", because a photo is merely a photographic moment captured in time. Some called the most famous photograph "a smirk", and others called it "a smile".
Here's another one with NBC's Savannah Guthrie. Is he smirking or smiling? Is she smirking or smiling? Does it matter? IMO, no. What matters is the extent to which left-wing media went to vilify this young man for something he did not do. Hence, the lawsuits.
This seed is now locked - I'm having dinner and then spending time with my family. No other reason.