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
348 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.
I guess the attorney for this family will throw the shit against a lot of walls and see what sticks.
I bet it doesn't go anywhere.
Lets see if it works for the crying snowflakes because Hillaryious Hillary lost. Mueller report due out soon.
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.
BINGO!
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.
How was he 'destroyed'?
While I'm not so much in favor of the law suits, we don't know what impact this will have on his life moving forward. He's only 16 and as we know what gets put out on the internet never really goes away. Nobody knows if some future employer will see the initial video and pass on hiring him, or if some college down the road will reject his application as they are worried about what drama may come with him because of this.
To be honest, I don't know how successful the lawsuits will be against news organizations, against regular people I don't know. But it will play out in the courts.
His reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged. There are people in the world now who think this young man is racist, or that he hates native Americans, or that he is just rude to old people. This will impact his prospects for getting into college and getting a job.
And none of those assessments of him are accurate or fair. This kid was standing, minding his own business, waiting for a bus, when an activist walked up to him to harass him. Not knowing what else to do, he made no move, said nothing, and tried to keep a pleasant expression. All of this was unjustifiably used to smear his character without a single bit of journalistic investigation. The media outlets that advanced that unfair narrative should be punished for it.
I disagree. If he and his family would just shut up about it, it would fade away quickly.
Instead they keep bringing it up, appearing on fox and trying to sue every news outlet under the sun.
Very opportunistic of them.
David what's his name from the Parkland HS shooting was vilified by opposite factions of the media for 10 months, not days or weeks.
He's supposedly going to Harvard and hasn't been mentioned for 3 months.
Sandman hasn't faced a fraction of that level of scrutiny.
Agreed.
With the internet, nothing fades away. Every time someone applies for a job these days, employers jump on the internet to do a search. This is going to come up for the rest of his life.
Not as harmful as one thinks.
I am sure there are people that would give him a job right now, just because of the bruha.
and what about all of the media outlets that called the Parkland kids "crisis actors" which was not true?
The Parkland HS tragedy and it's survivors of both the shootings and the following months and months of defamation have faded from view,
still going to that school or graduated and entering college, no nationally advertised lawsuits that I can see.
No evident damage to their reputations.
Without looking it up on the internet can you name five of the Parkland survivors who became activists for or against gun control.
I can't.
What you're saying is that parents should sit down and shut up when children are repeatedly ridiculed, smeared, and bullied by mainstream media. WOW!!
Do you see Hogg's parents bringing lawsuit to 20 different media outlets? I don't.
The are only using this for financial gain.
I also find it odd that the person who originally posted the video is nowhere to be found.
Which media outlets defamed Hogg?
Which media outlets called them crisis actors?
Did CNN the Washington Post, etc.etc..?
Oh please.
The only reason some people are backing him is the impression that it makes. Poor little innocent maga kid is treated so bad by the big bad news outlets.
I know if the tables were turned, conservative people would not support this for one second.
Just because we haven't heard about this person yet doesn't mean that investigators and lawyers haven't been searching or haven't identified him/her. Not everything is immediately exposed in legal cases. Time will tell.
None of the major ones.
I hope so as that is what started it all to begin with.
True, but that was just a post on either FB or Twitter (can't remember which) by one person. What made this story a fiery inferno was that WaPo,CNN, MSNBC, and other left-wing media used yellow journalism to run with an unconfirmed story based on an anonymous, incomplete video and published it all over the world.
All news outlets post a story on what is popular at the time.
I don't blame them for reporting on what was known at the time.
So you admit your comparison holds no water. Okay.
Lets just say that they even came out with a website called Hoggwatch.
ALL do? That's news to me!
Oh, please. Left-wing media perpetuated their lies for days after the complete video was available. There's no excuse for what left-wing media did.
I dont' think you understand defamation or your own comparison.
"hoggwatch" whatever it is, is not defamatory unless the content is defamatory. But I'll bet it's about Hogg's actions after he made himself a gun activist.
The Covington kid was not a public figure when he was defamed. He was just a kid at a national monument when the media attacked him.
Your comparison would at least make sense if Hogg was called a "crises actor" as he walked out of Parkland on the day of the shooting. So, for your comparison to hold water, you'd have to show evidence of the media attacking Hogg before he put himself forward as an activist.The criticism of Hogg began after he turned himself into a political figure.
Understand the difference?
I'm going to give you a friendly warning, Ender ... David Hogg is not the topic so don't derail my seed. Please read the notice I posted in comment 8 .
Yep. The boy is all of 16 ... supermarkets are going to be pounding on his door begging him to be a grocery bagger. Oh, wait ... McDonalds wants to hire him to sling burgers! At his age, those are among the best jobs he can get. All part-time, minimum wage, and good experience - but I highly doubt that a Fortune 500 company will be calling him any time soon.
Then give that warning to Sean as well.
No worries though, I am out of here.
Most of Sean's comment discussed the Sandmann case. Yours didn't. Move on.
He has moved on. LOL
Sorry if you can't see the difference.
David Hogg pursued the limelight and hit every talk show that would have him and even had his own press releases. Did you see Sandmann doing this?
Hogg put himself out as a public figure. Besides he was just ridiculed for his statements he wasn't falsely accused of anything.
File suit. Make the case. But that's not what this seed is about. Making a case for this particular law suit doesn't make a case against any other kind of law suit. Your comment sounds more like an attempt at deflection and makes one wonder why you think that's necessary.
The thing about that is that Hogg pursued media attention. He put himself into the media spotlight. He asked for attention. He went on CNN and Dr. Phil. He did a Town Hall. When you do that, you make yourself a public figure and the standards for media coverage and defamation actions change. It basically gives the media more freedom to talk about you. Nick Sandmann didn't do anything to invite that public spotlight.
There are basically three legal standards for proving defamation and they vary based on the circumstances. If we're just talking about a private person, the standard for the publisher of the defamation can just be negligence. If we're talking about a public figure, like Trump or a celebrity, you have to prove "actual malice." In between is a gray area of limited public figures or matters of public interest.
Notwithstanding that someone recorded the event on video, Sandmann is probably going to be a lot closer to the status of a private individual and this event - on its own - probably doesn't rise to the level of something for which the public would have an independent interest. Plus, he's a minor.
He may only have to prove simple negligence and damages. On it's own, that wouldn't likely be a huge award, but if he proves malice, then a large punitive damage would be appropriate.
If by "they" you mean David Hogg and his family, then yes. They have experienced enormous financial gain from the media coverage he's received.
Death.
Threats.
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.