There are plenty of ways to authenticate notes. And as I mentioned, the standard for criminal justice isn't the only one relevant here. There are plenty of other relevant processes both for us and companies.
They're not released, and the reporting quotes from it. You're imposing a standard of burden that almost no story will meet. Again, your evidentiary bar is absurd since this story is more well vetted than Bob Woodward's reporting during Watergate. You're also missing the tree for the forest here as you try to nitpick each allegation despite there being a half dozen at this point.
We don't just have therapist notes, we have one of the allegers going to a rape clinic the day Brand is apologizing to her. At a minimum, they suggest a sincere belief and kind of blows up the idea that this is some MSM fabrication against Brand.
It's on the Times to authenticate given they stand to lose the most out of anyone here.
We're talking about a newspaper that would have gone to its lawyers before publishing knowing that they would have to be able to survive a defamation case if Brand wanted to sue.
And the other 5 or so women who've alleged abuse or sexual assault?
This is why I think theres something to this. I read the texts too, which seem to indicate that he knows he forced something in the situation. I haven't read a worthy defense of his behavior in that regard. I guess the argument will be what exactly happened there
Except it's not normal parameters for proof. Do you ask for photographs and police reports every time your local news channel reports there is a car accident or burglary? Something tells me you do not. You never answered my question I think. Do you consider most of the reporting for Watergate trustworthy given it was based mostly on anonymous sources at the time?
It's a pretty valid argument when you weigh what's on the line and the evidence we've been presented by various sources.
Ah yes, the mainstream media is only honest when it publishes stories I like, but not when it publishes stories I don't. As demonstrated repeatedly in this thread by people convinced that the NY Post was not mainstream media when it published the Biden laptop story and therefore trustworthy but now when their sister paper publishes a story, the MSM is lying.
Do they have a history of lying or something? Getting sued for libel?
What smoking gun do you, and untrained citizen, need? Is it a medical report where you can see the doctor signed it? Security camera footage? A time machine to confirm the allegations? Again, I get the inkling that your standards would move as the story develops.
You think the Times devoted thousands of man hours and quite a bit of money pursuing a story that could get them sued badly and didn't check it? Is that your argument?
I see you've never worked in media and don't understand how an investigation like this works, versus just reporting someone else's story a la Johnny Depp.
It's much less ludicrous then arguing that the Times has some vendetta against Brand and somehow got dozens of people to fabricate allegations going back a decade.
What major stories did they run that were defamatory? Any of them original investigations?
Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal justice standard, I'm not sure why you keep trying to shoehorn it into the world when people constantly use less stringent standards in their lives. You guys act like Brand is about to be burned at the stake or something.
You're entitled to believe what you want. But notice how you didn't deny that you apparently hold rape or sexual assault allegations to much higher evidentiary burdens than any other crimes that are reported. Even though I'm willing to bet people lie and committed insurance fraud related to car accidents far more often than false rape allegations.
So you're point isn't centered around Brand even though we're in a thread about said individual and the allegations against him?
No media is perfect, it never has been. There will always be mistakes, institutional biases, personal biases, etc. Fact of the matter is though, the media these days is about as accurate as it's ever been, if not more so.
Yes, from the Times. You keep ascribing industry wide failures to an individual publication, which is strange. The Sandmann case is apples and oranges to Brand's, and it involves a completely different publication operating in a vastly different legal system.
Yeah thats terrible logic. If you got that opinion, more power to ya.
This is all happening because of Russell Brand's political speech. If he isn't disruptive to the establishment, the TNI never targets him and he doesn't get demonetized.
