|
Vegetable posted:Adding to the list of opinion pieces above, a video criticizing the babe.net piece has been popping up all over. It's by a contributor to HLN, which I now know is a part of CNN rather than a cheap YouTube knockoff of cable news channels. The writer of the article actually emailed Banfield and uh... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjRYbR_-Dhw
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
sponges posted:lol It's like something i'd read from a youtube comment. The writer is a hack lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
This seems pretty irresponsible: https://twitter.com/itsamandaross/status/952609177402335233 Less than 6 hours to respond?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Timby posted:It's been ... Jesus, 12 years since I graduated from J-school but without digging out my ethics textbooks I seem to recall that the standard for a story like this, to give the other party an opportunity for comment, is at least twelve hours. The exception is breaking hard news, and even then you give a few hours and include a "so and so did not respond to requests for comment as of press time." Kinda makes sense now that i think about it. Aziz just won a golden globe so they wanted to get that story out asap and generate a ton of clicks, which they successfully did.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Again, its pretty clear Grace's story is true and Ansari effectively confirmed all of it with his account. Anyone who seeks to dismiss her story because of Babe.net's clear flaws is a piece of poo poo. That's a huge strawman, i don't think i've read any opinion pieces that said the story was false. People are disputing the story's claim that this constituted assault.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Fair, and I apologize if I unintentionally mischaracterized anything in my haste. Rolling Stone didn't interview the fraternity brothers for the rape story (babe's attempt to contact aziz is just one step above that). It's pretty important to get the other side. Aziz wasn't allowed opportunity. I'm sure most of the story is accurate, but human recollection is pretty fallible even if you're not intentionally being malicious. How do we know every single point in that article is accurate? Because of Aziz's public statement (which i'm pretty sure was vetted by a PR firm)? I don't even know how people can justifiably say Aziz confirmed the whole story based on that statement alone, especially given the circumstances. How do we know he wouldn't have made corrections to the story, if given enough time?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 18:45
|
|