#nick sandmann

[n0thingiscool]

In case anyone was wondering about the Catholic teen in his sporty MAGA hat....

[gwendolynlerman]

Thank you for tagging me, @fluencylevelfrench!

Last read: The Memory Keeper’s Daughter by Kim Edwards

Current read: An Atlas of Countries That Don’t Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States by Nick Middleton and A Room of One’s Own by Virginia Woolf

Next read: Der Sandmann by E. T. A. Hoffmann

I tag @guillemelgat, @pawprintedpages, and @tealingual.

[bettinawerner]

DER SANDMANN

E.T.A. Hoffmann

Thalia Theater, Januar 2023

Regie: Charlotte Sprenger, Bühne: Aleksandra Pavlović, Dramaturgie: Julia Lochte, Licht: Christiane Petschat, Musik: Philipp Plessmann & Nick McCarthy nach Anna Calvi

mit: Merlin Sandmeyer, Toini Ruhnke, Pascal Houdus, Gabriele Schmeide, André Szymanski, Clara Marie Pinter / Josephine Weber, Liam Adamsberger / Jonathan Happe, BO Thun / Emil Rustige / Valerio Asteri Murat

Live-Musik: Nick McCarthy, Philipp Plessmann, Theresa Stark/ Lisa Wilhelm

Fotos: Emma Szabó

[bllsbailey]

EXCLUSIVE: Details Emerge About CNN Defamation Case

“Dispute,” Jake Tapper said, with a twist of his head, the derision he delivered obvious to viewers. 

Tapper was hosting his CNN show “The Lead” and reading Fox News' statement following the network's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems. Tapper’s mockery was on display as much as it was heard in his delivery of the prepared words. “We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute…,” and he repeated the word with a chuckle, “…with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.” His theatrics continued.

“‘This settlement reflects’…I’m sorry, this is going to be difficult to say with a straight face. ‘This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our dec--’”

Then, the professional host lapsed into mockery with a forced laugh.

“‘We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.'”

This was Jake putting on a show, looking to be heard above the chorus of other news outlets scorching Fox News, condemning the rival network with condescension. The delivery implying that Fox could no longer be considered a news network was evident. It was also delusional, as we were to believe that CNN was above such issues, as it is a reputable outlet that adheres to rigid journalistic standards. 

We just needed to bypass the fact that his network had previously been embroiled in a defamation case of its own, settling with high school student Nick Sandmann. 

FLASHBACK: Student Provides Video, Says Classmate Did Not Mock Native American Vietnam-Era Veteran

Now, RedState has exclusive new details regarding how CNN is dealing with another defamation case, one involving a report that was seen on none other than “The Lead: With Jake Tapper.”

There's scant coverage of this potentially massive case across those previously hectoring outlets that were so critical of Fox, despite the fact that it could carry a judgment figure eclipsing the $787 million settlement Fox News reached with Dominion. The compensatory and punitive damages may very well approach the $1 billion level.

As we previously covered, a Florida appellate court recently ruled that Zachary Young, a private contractor who worked to evacuate U.S. citizens from Afghanistan during the disastrous 2021 withdrawal, had presented sufficient evidence to pursue punitive damages in his defamation suit against CNN related to a report filed by CNN's Alex Marquardt.

A Defamation Case Against CNN Moves Forward; Network Accused of Actions It Slammed Fox News for Taking

During the disaster-ridden expulsion of American troops from Afghanistan, Young was a contractor-for-hire who offered to evacuate U.S. citizens from the country. Marquardt’s report framed Young as reckless and opportunistic, and Young seeks to show in his defamation suit that aspects of Marquardt's report were not only deeply factually flawed but malicious. These details were found by the court to be sufficient enough to move forward to a trial.

In an exclusive interview with Young and his attorney, more specifics about the case came to light, tending to show that Tapper's condescension may have involved a severe case of projection. Young explained:

“When they first approached me, they led me to believe it was to have me provide background on my line of work. It turned out that I was the main focus, but they allowed me little input.”

This indicates how the CNN production was engaged in what is a too-common practice in journalism: spending time to build a story about a subject, and then only contacting that subject (or person) very late in the process. 

Young’s lawyer explained this in the presentation to the court, stipulating how once Young was finally contacted — for the story about him and his work — he was only given hours before a deadline.

As we previously reported, there are two glaring realities concerning CNN. Internal communications at the network, obtained by Young’s team, showed there were concerns with Marquardt’s report lacking factual substance, and yet it was pushed onto the airwaves. Then there are the instances where it appears that voices in the production, including Marquardt, sought to negatively impact Young’s work. 

Young stated that at one point, he sought out Marquardt to correct a number of portions of his reporting, but he was rebuffed. The internal communications showed a number of those inside CNN questioned the veracity of the report and even called to delay it for broadcast until more could be fleshed out. Instead, it appears to have been rushed onto the air. Some of the voices questioning the story even declared there was not sufficient content for the report to run on the CNN digital side.

With the complaint of malicious intent, the court activity shows some revealing components. Of particular concern was the use of the term “black market” to describe Young’s business operations. Despite having a legitimate operational business at the time — Nemex Enterprises Inc. — Young’s argument in the summary judgment is that CNN presented him as working in the black market to imply directly he was an illegal operator. This is where CNN lawyers were focused in their defense.

In their argument (heard in the video above) the CNN legal team insisted the use of “black market” was to suggest Young’s work was unregulated, not illegal. This was countered by the submission of not just numerous dictionary terms but also those in judicial records, which also uniformly recognized the term as an indication of illegal activity. This argument by CNN was so roundly dismissed that one member of the appellate panel asked of the editorial vetting at the network, “So these are lawyers and professional writers that — you know — are used to dealing with words and have dictionaries, and know how precise, what words mean?”

Then things turned desperate, as the CNN lawyer stated how “black market” was not actually used during the discussions within the editorial teams, attempting to say that, in the context of punitive damages, it was the “plaintiff’s burden” to show the intended meaning behind the use of the term. Making this an odd defense is that editorially discussed or not, the fact is the various reports concerning Young and his business described him as a black market worker, with on-screen graphics under his image also stating this to be the case. The CNN lawyer ultimately had to admit to it being “a poor choice of words” on their behalf.

This mischaracterization also falls in line with the various communications unearthed in the discovery phase, where Marquardt and his producers shared exchanges where they were targeting Zachary Young. He is referred to in vulgar terms, and the intent appears to be to bring him down professionally. These are much like the very activities Jake Tapper was noting about Fox News to denigrate that network as not a legitimate news outlet. Here, we appear to have evidence of virtually the same activity taking place not only on his network but on his own program.

All of this points to a case with enough validity to move forward toward a trial for both compensatory and punitive damages. The fact that the sum involved could reach such a stratospheric level would indicate a possible motivation for CNN to reach a settlement with Young before going to trial. This would be done to both stem the exorbitant penalty and to avoid widespread exposure of defamatory practices.

But this does not sound like an option. “We have no desire to settle with them," Young said to me. “We intend to follow this all the way through the punitive process.”

[carlosrmunoz]

Social Media Policy

The social media industry is facing several challenges, writes Karen Freberg in “Social Media for Strategic Communication.” Among them, she says that social media users are losing control over personal accounts to their employers due to influential presence, sharing too much, going rogue, and the big one, misinformation, Freberg writes.

One of the most notable cases of misinformation came in 2019 when a video featuring a high school student named Nick Sandmann “supposedly confronting a Native American peace activist” went viral and sparked global attention, Freberg writes. However, the video was misinterpreted and Sandmann later sued media outlets for $800 million using the footage without telling the full story. 

CNN, NBC Universal, and the Washington Post settled with Sandmann in 2020, according to multiple media outlets. His classmates also sued but failed.

In another lawsuit, Freberg writes that A-list actor Johnny Depp was forced to resign from Warner Bros after he lost a civil action against The Sun.

Journalists abide by a Code of Conduct that was adopted in 1926 — before that newspapers ran amuck of journalistic standards. They were weaponized by business owners and politicians to influence the public. However, some of that information would not meet standards for journalists today. Colonial-era headlines are still some of the most creative writing of the last 200 years due to their poignant nature.

If you were to join the New York Times today, in addition to agreeing to the Social Media Code of Conduct that its writers are expected to follow, you would be required on social media to avoid harassment, during business and personal hours, be “mindful” of taking sides” in topics that could undercut the newspaper's reputation, avoid joining private groups, do not accept gifts from sources, and more.

Among those who do follow strong ethical behavior on social media, I think organizations like the Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, and BBC are trustworthy groups. On the flip side, I think that Cable TV networks, which must play to their audience, tend to parade analysts and commentators as journalists when they are opinion columnists. Some of these are flagship organizations (Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, CBS) whose coverage trickles down to local TV markets and media outlets that are not influenced by this type of coverage, such as WPRI-TV or WJAR-TV. Journalists who work in local media — not including citizen journalists and activist journalists — are newsgathering organizations whose organic stories guide their audience's interests. For example, Washington Bridge's accountability reporting surrounding RIDOT’s handling of the bridge crisis has put many politicians and leaders under scrutiny. 

In the case of Fox News and CNN, you see the difference in their coverage of politics — one is more liberal and the other is more conservative — both sometimes completely ignoring stories and facts.

With this in mind, some takeaways are that journalists should continue to be observers who lay out their findings and let the readers decide on the merits of a story. Often this process is muddled by social media users who interject information into the media stream, jump to conclusions, or make statements without having all the facts. Sometimes this is to “beat” the media and often it leads to a change in the narrative that must be corrected later. Journalists are held accountable — they can be fired or sued — for improper reporting, while many self-proclaimed journalists, or activists, spread misinformation without consequences.

To adhere to my conduct online, I have chosen to keep my personal social media accounts closed and refrain from making polarizing statements online. My social media feed contains animal pictures, family updates, and limited chat about community happenings. Simplifying social media is a way to keep your sanity and your job.

I feel strongly that people should be able to share their thoughts regardless but understand that not everyone will agree. This requires restraint in your response. Social media is a place where reckless posts can easily be misinterpreted and feelings hurt. Be patient and listen to people.

These are some core concepts I would follow as a social media professional:

Take the time to research information I find online from a source I am not familiar with

Do not allow my personal feelings to cloud my judgment. Listen to people

Use clean and fair language

Report threats and cyberbullying to administrators

If I see surprising news, but can’t verify it, don’t post it

Do not use content I haven’t created myself, like photos or video clips

Ask for permission to use content from another source

[jessicap498]

Visual Reporting in the Viral Case of Covington Boys School

On January 18, 2019, a group of students from the all-male Covington Catholic High School became national news in a matter of hours. Although they simply came to Washington D.C. to attend the annual March for Life rally, they got caught in the middle of an Indigenous Peoples March, were videographed and came back to Kentucky with the whole world paying attention to them. This attention included death threats, doxxing attempts, ridicule and more, but it also included support and praise from a certain group of people and even former President Donald Trump (because many of the students were wearing Make America Great Again hats).

Stories like this occur more often that they should, but this instance in particular is significant because of all of the backlash that came from the way mainstream media covered the situation. Major news outlets such as CNN, the Associated Press, the Washington Post and NBC were quick to write about the Covington boys and their controversial reactions to Omaha tribe elder Nathan Phillips, painting a picture (that included real video footage) of the boys mocking Phillips and chanting inappropriate language to his face. In the days following the incident, one boy from the school, Nick Sandmann, who was front-and-center in the viral videos, defended his actions and released an official statement to the public about his experience at the Lincoln Memorial that day. Sandmann then sued many of the national news publications that wrote about him, perhaps inaccurately, and we are still hearing about whether or not he is winning his lawsuits even after 4 years. 

The mainstream media that Sandmann sued definitely had a few things in common, one being they are all seemingly "politically left-leaning." Of course every publication has the right to write about a huge news story like this one, and a right versus left-leaning news source will portray the Covington kids in a different light. As the Vox article states: "The left, which sees white supremacy as one of its fundamental enemies, was quick — in some cases, too quick — to identify Sandmann and his classmates as villains. The right’s reaction, in turn, revealed several of its core animating assumptions that white Christians are persecuted minorities, that overzealous social justice warriors represent an existential threat to a free society, and that the media is on their enemies’ sides."

Personally, I don't feel comfortable saying I "side" with anyone in this story. From Sandmann's statement, he explained how misconstrued the video was and claims that he and his classmates never did or said anything racist or offensive to Phillips. On the other hand, Phillips states in a video by Reuters that the boys were shouting racist phrases like "build that wall" at him. Even with the video footage, it is hard to determine what's true and what's made up, so I feel like I have no say in deciding the truth about what happened. However, I can firmly say that I support Sandmann's decision to sue for defamation of his character. I'm definitely not saying that I support Sandmann himself, though -- I am just sating that as a journalist, I believe that news stories should always be fact-checked and thoroughly researched, especially if there is visual material (such as a viral video) like in the case of the Covington boys. 

[brandon-balayan]

Have Viral Videos & Photos Changed How We View The World --Visual Reporting Blog

On January 18, 2019, three separate protests were held in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. The Black Hebrew Israelites, Native Americans and a group of students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky. During the protests the three groups happen to converge and a confrontation between Native American protester and Vietnam Veteran Nathan Philips and one of the Catholic school students Nick Sandmann ensued. Phillips was beating his drum while Sandmann was staring at him with a grin. The clip went viral and the optics of the video were not favoring Sandmann. If one were to just base their judgment of the event on this clip then it would look like a white kid with a “Make America Great Again” hat is smirking in the face of a Native American elder. Some left wing media was defending the initial coverage that framed Sandmann as being the instigator. Right wing media was saying that the students only got riled up after the Black Hebrew Israelites started spewing slurs at them – which were documented on video, and that Sandmann was not taunting the Native American man. Phillips said he approached the students to try and ease the tension by drumming and chanting a prayer, and then as he was walking through the crowd Sandmann was not moving out of his way. The teens claimed that they were not being provocative, however Vox correspondent Zach Beauchamp suggested that the teens outnumbering and wearing “Make America Great Again” hats and other Trump merchandise was provocative in itself. After the initial coverage, Sandmann filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post and won. He also filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN. This was also a multimillion dollar lawsuit but the amount was not disclosed to the public. Sandmann claimed that these news outlets were framing him to be racist but if one were to watch the video, no explicit racism was expressed towards the Black Hebrew Israelites or the Native American protesters – other than some of Sandmann’s classmates making a “tomahawk” gesture towards Phillips. The framing also caused Sandmann and his family to receive many threats. In an interview with Today, the reporter asked Sandmann if he felt like he owed anybody an apology and he said that he does not think he needs to apologize for just standing there, but that in hindsight he wishes that the group could have left the scene. Both sides have a point of view on this topic. Phillips was doing no harm by drumming in front of Sandmann and his classmates, who were outnumbering them, and the media should have seen the entire video of the protests before making claims that Sandmann is racist. However, to say that the students were not being provocative is also a lie. They were at an anti-abortion protest wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats and other Trump merchandise. Given how polarizing and controversial Trump is, just wearing merchandise with his catchphrases and motifs is provocative.

[trekwiz]

I just read an opinion piece with a revisionist take on the Nick Sandmann story, basically saying people jumped to conclusions and called a victim, racist.

My first reaction was, "that's a PR firm's narrative, that's not what actually happened. Why are you talking about it like that spin is fact?"

Didn't take long on Google to find out the writer is a fascist.

So instead of sharing that story, I'll just post a reminder about what a scumbag this racist is:

[myseniorproject]

Was this Kentucky High School Student Provoking Native American Protestor? Or Are We Seeing it How We Chose to?

Many outlets and people on Twitter are taking their own stance on this viral video that is taken near Lincoln Memorial at an anti-abortion protest. Catholic student, Nick Sandmann is face to face with a Native American in silence while an Omaha Tribe member, Nathan Phillips drums.

According to Reuters, it seems Sandmann was condemned by his high school and Phillips is claiming that those involved were chanting “Build that wall” towards him and in a separate video after you catch Phillip in tears. Phillips was saddened to hear those chants because he thinks the kids can use their mass and energy for unity like how to solve hunger.

The Root apologizes to “the White Boys” who were dressed in MAGA gear at this protest. In a prior article, the reporter was accusing the kids of being racist and acting violently toward Phillips. After watching the extended video they claim to realize that they were in the wrong as the kids acted appropriately during the protest and in fact, did not say a single word toward Phillips. They also claim that they were reenacting something from history but also don't go into detail about what exact moment in history they are referring to. This claimed “reenactment” was also admired by the reporter as the school educated them enough on black history.

An Article from Vox wrote a detailed point-of-view of this story that to me, stayed neutral. Vox also poses different scenarios to validate why and how this story could've got this viral. For example, poses the question if the kids weren't wearing MAGA hats, would this have gotten the same attention as it originally did?

A statement directly from Sandmann said that he wasn't sure why this had happened either. He claims Phillips chose to go up to him and engage in an eye-to-eye standoff. This left Sandmann to stay there as he was targeted.

So what is the truth? and How do we know what to believe? Truth is, we weren't there so there is a possible chance we might be lacking some missing information. According to what the video looks like, I think Phillips was there to protest but I don't think he directly chose Sandmann to have a standoff with. I think Sandmann saw Phillips and chose to engage and continued for a discomforting amount of time. Although he remained silent, I think another route he could've chosen was to turn around or lose eye contact.  I think the rest of the protestors were also confused as this was unplanned. You can hear people say “ I have no idea what's going on”. I think that stems from Sandmann's silence.

[theworldchangedwithoutme]

And remember how Brandon was a private citizen when he said all the same stuff to a watching national audience? Don’t forget to sue him too 🤞🏼

[sapphicconservative]

Some good news for 2020! You all remember the teen, Nick Sandmann, who a lot of left-leaning people hated simply because he wore a MAGA hat and smiled at a native American drumming in his face? This happened last year over the summer, I believe. Apparently he's been winning all of his defamation lawsuits against major news outlets who deliberately botched their coverage on this incident. You can read about it here.

He has 4 more major news outlets to fight over their botched coverage of what happened and can likely win up to $800 million from all 6 lawsuits. He's already settled with CNN and Washington Post! :)

[breakingfirst]

BOOM... Good For Him!