TFATK - Schaub and Callen clarify Browne/Rousey comments

[soulsstealer]

Rhonda's influence is strong.

 

[rjmbrd]

Editing it and then talking about editing it are both good PR bumps.

Sonnen is one of the few guys to understand controversy (even invented, contrived controversy) nets attention. It's a small niche sport that doesn't have a lot of detailed coverage and there are some long lulls between big fights.

MMA fans will jump on anything there is to talk about.

 

[method115]

I listened to schaub cuz I thought he was real

but now that I know its all about money

I wont be listening any longer

another sheep mma podcast that I have no time for

I actually thought the stuff he said about Rhonda was really messed up and the opposite of "real". Judging Rhonda for some rumors you read online is BS. They're supposed to be friends or were at some point and then he says that about her without even knowing one way or other? Save that shit for TMZ.

 

[The Todd]

schaub likes kanye west.

 

[BAZ Rutten]

At first I like it but Bryan's brown nosing is fucking unbearable!

I wonder what TFATK shelf life will be?
It seems to be doing really well.

 

[eon001]

Like he said, my problem was Schaub stated his opinions as fact. And he could for sure get sued. Browne and Ronda are not even confirmed as a couple.

 

[jamiehunter]

Schaub and Callen backtrack on comments regarding Browne and Rousey in the newest TFATK. Starting at 9:50 - 18:30



Main points...

-Browne abuse situation is just allegations based upon rumor and hearsay. They don't actually know anything

-comments regarding Rousey were edited out because the accusations of Rousey and Travis being involved were alleged (ie, not factual or based upon their own information) and he was informed by his producers that unless he specifically says that they are alleged he is opening Fox and the show to potential legal liability

-Schaub wishes them both the best and if they are involved he hopes that they're happy

-claims that they're not intentionally trying to gather media attention with Rousey comments

-Callen notes that sometimes they should just say that they don't know enough to make a judgement. Schaub says that he should have an opinion regardless or they shouldn't be on radio/have a podcast.

I noticed Brendan still maintained Ronda and Travis are togetber. Subtle Schaub. Subtle.

 

[jamiehunter]

Like he said, my problem was Schaub stated his opinions as fact. And he could for sure get sued. Browne and Ronda are not even confirmed as a couple.

I was thinking about this. Brendan said the comments were edited to avoid a lawsuit. However someone within the podcast had already made the edited comments publicly available so isn't Brendan and Fox still at risk for a lawsuit?

 

[MilesAbove]

Hey guys... war the FatK, aight?

 

[Malthian]

I was thinking about this. Brendan said the comments were edited to avoid a lawsuit. However someone within the podcast had already made the edited comments publicly available so isn't Brendan and Fox still at risk for a lawsuit?

The threat of a lawsuit disappears if you rapidly retract your comments and state that it was in error. All you have to do is say that it was an error and you misspoke.

That's why newspapers print retractions. Unfortunately, the retractions rarely get the same press as the initial erroneous stories/statements.

 

[Buff]

Now that he's not fighting anymore, what's he gonna call his show?

 

[jamiehunter]

The threat of a lawsuit disappears if you rapidly retract your comments and state that it was in error. All you have to do is say that it was an error and you misspoke.

That's why newspapers print retractions. Unfortunately, the retractions rarely get the same press as the initial erroneous stories/statements.

That doesn't sound right. If a person's comments harm another person to the point it meets the definition of slander/defamation and continues to harm the other person after a retraction it doesn't make sense they would be off the hook. Once something is out there it's out.

Newspapers normally print retractions for errors not after making slanderous comments.

 

[Malthian]

That doesn't sound right. If a person's comments harm another person to the point it meets the definition of slander/defamation and continues to harm the other person after a retraction it doesn't make sense they would be off the hook. Once something is out there it's out.

Newspapers normally print retractions for errors not after making slanderous comments.

That's because errors happen more commonly than slanderous/libelous comments. Journalists are generally trained to know where to draw the line, and those that don't are quickly reminded by their legal departments that they've overstepped the line.

Damage is directly related to time. The longer misinformation remains in circulation, the greater the damage. That's why a quick retraction removes much/most of the damage and makes it harder to successfully sue.

 

[jamiehunter]

That's because errors happen more commonly than slanderous/libelous comments. Journalists are generally trained to know where to draw the line, and those that don't are quickly reminded by their legal departments that they've overstepped the line.

Damage is directly related to time. The longer misinformation remains in circulation, the greater the damage. That's why a quick retraction removes much/most of the damage and makes it harder to successfully sue.

Misinformation never leaves circulation once put on the Internet. In this specific case I don't think Brendan would lose a lawsuit because I don't think his comments and the results meet the standard for slander. However in a case where the misinformation does and continue to cause damage after a retraction it doesn't make sense that person is not on the hook for his comments. Maybe you're right but just doesn't make any sense.