I love The Bulwark because your politics mostly align with mine. I love it even more because you strive to get facts right, even when they don't help your arguments. The news about ABC's settlement with Trump is fading from our consciousness, but I still hear it mentioned on various Bulwark podcasts, and I think you are getting it wrong …
I love The Bulwark because your politics mostly align with mine. I love it even more because you strive to get facts right, even when they don't help your arguments. The news about ABC's settlement with Trump is fading from our consciousness, but I still hear it mentioned on various Bulwark podcasts, and I think you are getting it wrong - and in a way that really hurts the anti-Trump movement.
As I'm writing this, I must acknowledge that while there is some room for opinion, there are some stubborn facts about this story. One fact - perhaps the most important/stubborn of them all, is that Stephanopoulos lied - many times - when he said that Trump was found liable for rape by a jury. This is demonstrably true. And while it is not known with certainty whether Stephanopoulos knew of its falsity, it would be interesting to hear the cross-examination of him if he denied knowing this - a well-respected journalist who is undoubtedly required to abide by ABC's standards. There is also, of course, a good argument that he acted with reckless disregard of its falsity, at a minimum.
And I've heard the argument that Trump could not prove harm, given his reputation, etc. I think this too is probably short-sighted. A decent attorney, it seems to me, should have an easy time getting a jury to believe that a false accusation of rape, by a well-respected journalist, during a presedential campaign, did inflict at least some harm.
In case you've read this far, here is my point: This is not a story about ABC capitulating to Trump, or an ominous story about how the media is going to think twice about reporting negative stories about Trump. Perhaps, if the media keeps reporting the story this way, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the media will be reluctant to post unfavorable stories about Trump.
But what if the news reported that for some unknown reason, George Stephanopolous lied about Trump on the air, and because of that, they were likely to lose at trial, and they wisely decided that 15 million was a pretty cheap way to avoid all the negative publicity of a trial when they were likely to lose anyway. THIS, it seems to me, is the real story. Perhaps more importantly, if it were told this way - honestly, from my perspective - it would not seem as ominous and would not advance the perception that Trump has more power than he has. Further, what most people would take from it, is that the rule of law matters, and it is a very bad idea to defame anyone - even someone as broadly reviled as Trump.
I don't understand why it has not been reported this way. It makes me cringe a bit that those I go to that help me understand what is going on in the world are misreporting this story. Or - and I acknowledge this is possible - maybe my take is wrong. That could be - but I've yet to hear anyone address the issues I raised about in a manner that made me rethink my position.
"... for some unknown reason, George Stephanopolous lied about Trump on the air, and because of that, they were likely to lose at trial"
It was almost impossible for them to lose. Long ago I got a degree in journalism. The part you're missing is the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times vs. Sullivan.
I don't have time here and now to explain it all in detail but, in a nutshell, as a result of that decision public figures* have almost no chance of winning a libel case against a media outlet, unless they can prove actual malice, which is practically impossible (unless you're Fox News encouraging their "journalists" and on-air guests to lie about Dominion Voting Systems, which is why they settled. It's also not clear that Dominion was a "public figure".)
That's at least part of the reason ABC paying off Trump is capitulation, at least in my view.
* Being a public figure is the key here. The rules are different for regular people like us.
Trump was found liable - guilty - of sexual assault by a jury. That is true, even if the charge was not rape. It was however adjudicated to be rape by the judge. It seems to me you're splitting hairs here. Trump is a well known serial sexual assaulter, by his own admission. There is evidence he's guilty of statutory rape at Jeffrey Epstein's private island enclave.
What is the objective of your comment? To tear down and discredit Stephanopoulos? Sure seems that way. It also seems you're attempting to absolve Trump in some way. And here is another unassailable fact; Trump and his minions are targeting the press, journalists and independent media, to silence them and censor all critical reportage and criticism they don't like, as all authoritarian regimes do. To silence dissent. Frankly, you sound like an apologist for that project, which is substantiated by your assertion regarding ABC's capitulation.
Is there a distinction in the legal system between sexual assault and rape? Language has been degraded to such an extent that we miscommunicate regularly. Precise use of words and terms lend clarity to communication, everyday speech and the media.
I love The Bulwark because your politics mostly align with mine. I love it even more because you strive to get facts right, even when they don't help your arguments. The news about ABC's settlement with Trump is fading from our consciousness, but I still hear it mentioned on various Bulwark podcasts, and I think you are getting it wrong - and in a way that really hurts the anti-Trump movement.
As I'm writing this, I must acknowledge that while there is some room for opinion, there are some stubborn facts about this story. One fact - perhaps the most important/stubborn of them all, is that Stephanopoulos lied - many times - when he said that Trump was found liable for rape by a jury. This is demonstrably true. And while it is not known with certainty whether Stephanopoulos knew of its falsity, it would be interesting to hear the cross-examination of him if he denied knowing this - a well-respected journalist who is undoubtedly required to abide by ABC's standards. There is also, of course, a good argument that he acted with reckless disregard of its falsity, at a minimum.
And I've heard the argument that Trump could not prove harm, given his reputation, etc. I think this too is probably short-sighted. A decent attorney, it seems to me, should have an easy time getting a jury to believe that a false accusation of rape, by a well-respected journalist, during a presedential campaign, did inflict at least some harm.
In case you've read this far, here is my point: This is not a story about ABC capitulating to Trump, or an ominous story about how the media is going to think twice about reporting negative stories about Trump. Perhaps, if the media keeps reporting the story this way, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the media will be reluctant to post unfavorable stories about Trump.
But what if the news reported that for some unknown reason, George Stephanopolous lied about Trump on the air, and because of that, they were likely to lose at trial, and they wisely decided that 15 million was a pretty cheap way to avoid all the negative publicity of a trial when they were likely to lose anyway. THIS, it seems to me, is the real story. Perhaps more importantly, if it were told this way - honestly, from my perspective - it would not seem as ominous and would not advance the perception that Trump has more power than he has. Further, what most people would take from it, is that the rule of law matters, and it is a very bad idea to defame anyone - even someone as broadly reviled as Trump.
I don't understand why it has not been reported this way. It makes me cringe a bit that those I go to that help me understand what is going on in the world are misreporting this story. Or - and I acknowledge this is possible - maybe my take is wrong. That could be - but I've yet to hear anyone address the issues I raised about in a manner that made me rethink my position.
A HUGE fan,
Phillip in Sacramento
"... for some unknown reason, George Stephanopolous lied about Trump on the air, and because of that, they were likely to lose at trial"
It was almost impossible for them to lose. Long ago I got a degree in journalism. The part you're missing is the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times vs. Sullivan.
I don't have time here and now to explain it all in detail but, in a nutshell, as a result of that decision public figures* have almost no chance of winning a libel case against a media outlet, unless they can prove actual malice, which is practically impossible (unless you're Fox News encouraging their "journalists" and on-air guests to lie about Dominion Voting Systems, which is why they settled. It's also not clear that Dominion was a "public figure".)
That's at least part of the reason ABC paying off Trump is capitulation, at least in my view.
* Being a public figure is the key here. The rules are different for regular people like us.
Trump was found liable - guilty - of sexual assault by a jury. That is true, even if the charge was not rape. It was however adjudicated to be rape by the judge. It seems to me you're splitting hairs here. Trump is a well known serial sexual assaulter, by his own admission. There is evidence he's guilty of statutory rape at Jeffrey Epstein's private island enclave.
What is the objective of your comment? To tear down and discredit Stephanopoulos? Sure seems that way. It also seems you're attempting to absolve Trump in some way. And here is another unassailable fact; Trump and his minions are targeting the press, journalists and independent media, to silence them and censor all critical reportage and criticism they don't like, as all authoritarian regimes do. To silence dissent. Frankly, you sound like an apologist for that project, which is substantiated by your assertion regarding ABC's capitulation.
Is there a distinction in the legal system between sexual assault and rape? Language has been degraded to such an extent that we miscommunicate regularly. Precise use of words and terms lend clarity to communication, everyday speech and the media.