Tag: media

Clay Travis follows Owen Benjamin’s lead in dealing with a Daily Beast hitpiece:

“OutKick recently added Dr. David Chao as a staff writer. Did you ask about the medical lawsuits and six-figure settlements, probations, accusations of “gross negligence” and malpractice, and/or the DUIs prior to hiring him? In the blog post announcing his arrival, why is this information omitted? Did Dr. Chao or someone representing him ask you or anyone at OutKick to exclude that information? Do you feel it’s relevant for your readers to have this information when reading his content?”

Dr. Chao is a licensed doctor in California. Given that he’s licensed to operate on people in this country, I felt comfortable with him writing for an opinion website.

Furthermore, he’s been profiled as an NFL injury expert in the New York Times recently, written for the San Diego Tribune for years prior to joining Outkick, and is cited as an NFL injury expert, thanks to his tenure as team physician of the San Diego Chargers, throughout the Internet.

He’s not remotely controversial.

We believe in the first amendment on this site, writers don’t tell other writers what they can and can’t say. And writers certainly don’t tell the owners of this site what we can and can’t say either.

“Jason Whitlock wrote a column describing Jaden McNeil as a “martyr” who was targeted for tweeting “politically incorrect” jokes about George Floyd. Jaden McNeil is a member of the openly racist “Groyper” movement. He also promotes, works with and praises white nationalists. How and why was this information left out and did you personally edit the column? Are all of the articles on OutKick edited or are staffers allowed to post stories on the site without review?”

I asked Whitlock to respond to this question since the writer didn’t email him directly, but asked me to comment on his column. Enjoy his response.

“Karen, I honestly find this line of questioning racist and emblematic of the systemic racism practiced by busybodies in the white alt-left movement. Let me translate what you just did: “Clay, Mr. White Folks, your negro writer is out of control and published an opinion that upstanding white people disagree with. Discipline and control your negro or we will.”

Karen, I’m a PARTNER at Outkick. Clay is not my overseer. He is my partner. All due respect to Clay, but I am the most accomplished journalist at Outkick. You could argue I’m the most accomplished sports journalist in America.

I’m offended you reached out to Clay and Dr. Chao directly with questions about their work, but in typical Karen fashion chose to report me to Mr. White Folks. Did you question Kansas State president Richard Myers for not mentioning Jaden McNeil’s alleged affiliation to white nationalists in Mr. Myers’ public critique of McNeil? Like 99.99 percent of America, I’ve never heard of the Groyper movement. When I was in college I was attracted to and attended events put on by the Nation of Islam, an organized and well-known black nationalist group.

Kids experiment with dumb shit. Karen, I am the wrong negro for you to be f–king with. Go sit down.”

Of course, this preemptive exposure response is only recommended for those with sizeable audiences. What is different about this sort of hit piece than the usual media inquiry is that it is usually going to be written whether you respond to the individual writing it or not, so preemptive exposure is an opportunity to both undermine the hit piece in advance as well as highlight the elements that the hit piece’s author obviously intends to omit.

It will be interesting to see if the Outkick piece, like the Big Bear piece, fails to run after being preemptively exposed.

The very best strategy, of course, is to refer the inquiry to my media relations expert, Pax Dickonson.

It’s really fascinating to see how all these armchair lawyers are crawling out of the woodwork to denounce Owen Benjamin and the Bears for fighting back against deplatforming.

How That Worked Out.

Whatever Owen Benjamin and his fans thought would happen, Patreon’s actual response was to sue 72 of those fanboys. According to that Daily Dot article:

“This lawsuit is about keeping hate speech off of Patreon,” the company told the Daily Dot via email. “We won’t allow former users to extort Patreon, and are moving these frivolous claims to court where they belong.”

Hmm, they don’t sound in the slightest bit nervous about anything. Maybe that’s because they instituted two rules in January to “both [prohibit] users from filing claims based on the platform kicking off someone else and [require] any who do so to pay the company’s attorney’s fees and costs.”

And the fanboys’ claims were filed a solid month later, in February.

Oops!

So it seems unlikely that the fanboys will come anywhere close to success here — and may be on the hook for a lot of money if/when they lose.

And it’s even more remarkable to see how they don’t let their absolute ignorance of both the facts and the law get in the way of their opinions.

First, Owen never filed a lawsuit. Second, none of the Bears ever filed a lawsuit. This blithering cretin doesn’t even know the difference between arbitration and court, despite the quote from Patreon which specifically refers to that difference. Third, Patreon has never once claimed that Owen or any of the Bears ever put any hate speech on their platform, so it’s fascinating to be informed that their lawsuit is about a nonexistent event that never happened.

Fourth, two rules weren’t instituted in January, they were instituted on December 20, 2019. Fifth, the Bears’ claims weren’t filed in February, they were filed on January 3, 2020. Of course, the significance of that latter date escapes her, because she clearly knows nothing about 1281.97, otherwise known as Material breach for failure to pay fees before arbitration can proceed, which came into effect on January 1, 2020, and states:

If the fees or costs to initiate an arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration.

Due to its failure to pay the fees within the statute-required time limit, Patreon is currently in material breach of the arbitration agreement and is in default of all 91 of the backer arbitrations. Not only that, but the two rules they applied by deceptively changing the Terms of Use will not allow them to escape their defaulted arbitrations in court because the second rule directly violates 1284.3 (a):

No neutral arbitrator or private arbitration company shall administer a consumer arbitration under any agreement or rule requiring that a consumer who is a party to the arbitration pay the fees and costs incurred by an opposing party if the consumer does not prevail in the arbitration, including, but not limited to, the fees and costs of the arbitrator, provider organization, attorney, or witnesses.

There are other reasons as well, but that’s the easiest one for the ignorant to grasp. Perhaps the funniest thing about the article is the way in which it inadvertently demonstrates how Patreon’s lawyers simply ignore both California law and the arbitration rules.

“The Parties will not offer as evidence, and the Arbitrator shall neither admit into the record nor consider, prior settlement offers by the Parties.”

Anyhow, everyone will know quite a bit more tomorrow, after the judge rules on Patreon’s request.

I was informed some of Big Bear’s gamma haters were theorizing that I simply invented The Daily Beast interview with Owen Benjamin because they couldn’t find it there or anywhere else. They clearly don’t understand the way the media works, which is to bury an article or an interview if it doesn’t happen to support the narrative they were seeking to push by publishing the piece.

These forwarded emails should suffice to demonstrate that the interview actually took place. And yes, I absolutely advise never talking to the media. The thing is, big bears aren’t VFM and they don’t obey me, they do whatever they want to do. Furthermore, Owen wasn’t the only person The Daily Beast reporter, William Sommer, contacted in connection with the piece.

As to why Mr. Sommer never ran the interview or sent questions to Messrs. Mann and Randazza, you would have to ask him. Perhaps he only published it for his newsletter, although why he would have a deadline for his own newsletter, I do not know.

Subject: Media request – Owen Benjamin / Patreon lawsuit
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 20:10:43 +0000
From: William Sommer

Hi Phil, 

My name’s Will Sommer, I”m a reporter with The Daily Beast. I’m writing an item for my newsletter on how Owen Benjamin’s fight with Patreon appears to have backfired on his fans, who, as I’m sure you know, are now being sued themselves by Patreon. 

Wanted to reach out in case you, Owen, or the other lawyer on the case are interested in commenting. Looking at an end of day Thursday deadline. 

Thanks for your time

Will Sommer
Reporter, The Daily Beast 

william.sommer@thedailybeast.com

@willsommer

From: William Sommer
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Hi it’s Owen Benjamin.

Thanks Owen, will write me up and send them over.

From: William Sommer
Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hi it’s Owen Benjamin.

Hi Owen, 

Thanks for getting back to me. Forgive the late email but I wanted to get this over once I had it ready– like I said, my deadline isn’t until Thursday, June 24, close of business, so no rush on this. 

In terms of the lawsuit: 

-Patreon says you urged your fans to file claims against Patreon to punish the site, through arbitration costs, for ending your account? Do you think that’s a fair account of what happened? 

-Did your fans realize, when they filed the arbitration complaints, that they could potentially get sued? It strikes me that some of these people might not have realized their names and locations would be outed. In that way, do you think this plan backfired? 

-Do you have plans to cover your fans’ legal fees or expenses? 

In terms of your background: 

-You’ve been described as “alt right” and engaging in “Holocaust denial” in articles, including Bethany Mandel’s in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Do you think those are accurate descriptions? 

Feel free to add anything else on the case you’d like to share. 

Thanks!

Will Sommer
Reporter, The Daily Beast 

william.sommer@thedailybeast.com

@willsommer

The Daily Beast interviewed Owen Benjamin about the Patreon lawsuit filed against 72 of its users who backed him. The piece was originally supposed to run on June 24, but apparently never appeared on the site. So, Owen sent me the interview to post for your reading pleasure here.

DB: Patreon says you urged your fans to file claims against Patreon to punish the site, through arbitration costs, for ending your account? Do you think that’s a fair account of what happened?

OB: Not at all. Patreon violated their rights just as it violated my rights when it tortiously interfered with the separate legal contract between me and them. They are exercising their right to legal redress, which Patreon mandated be done through arbitration, just as I am. It’s not their fault, or my fault, that Patreon’s lawyers were dumb enough to impose a legal structure on its users that literally guarantees its own bankruptcy.

Did your fans realize, when they filed the arbitration complaints, that they could potentially get sued? It strikes me that some of these people might not have realized their names and locations would be outed. In that way, do you think this plan backfired?

No. Nor did I, because they shouldn’t be getting sued in the first place, much less sued in a group action. The only reason Patreon brought the lawsuit now is to try to dox and harass them into withdrawing, because it has been losing every decision related to my arbitration and their arbitrations for the last six months. But I guess if you’re going bankrupt, you might as well go down swinging.

Do you have plans to cover your fans’ legal fees or expenses?

Of course. And we’ll set up a legal defense fund if that turns out to be necessary, which it probably won’t. Remember, the Patreon Terms of Use specifically bar group actions, and what Patreon filed is a group action.

Feel free to add anything else on the case you’d like to share.

Your readers may not be fans of mine, but they should be aware that Patreon has repeatedly attempted to strip the California consumer protections from ALL of its creators and is also trying to strip legal rights from all four million of its users. The lawsuit isn’t the first time they’ve doxxed people either; they sent me the complete account information for 2,700 complete strangers – someone else’s patrons – as a result of a data breach.

The real story here is that there probably won’t be a Patreon by the time this is over.  Their CEO openly admits that their business model isn’t sustainable, their numbers reported on Graphtreon suggest they’re losing something like $1.5 million every month, and I’ve been told they have already received hundreds of notices of arbitrations unrelated to my situation. I think this lawsuit is mostly their outside counsel trying to keep the checks coming in for a little while longer.

You’ve been described as “alt right” and engaging in “Holocaust denial” in articles, including Bethany Mandel’s in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Do you think those are accurate descriptions?

I raise goats, I tell jokes, and I voted for Obama. I don’t know who Bethany Mandel is, but since I am a history major, I’ll bet I know a lot more about World War II history than she does. You know perfectly well those are not accurate descriptions.

For a considerably less-informed take on the situation, read the Daily Dot article, which manages to get everything wrong from the very start and commits two egregious errors in the first seven words of the headline.

I once asked a reporter known for writing hit pieces why journalists always write “X, real name Y,” when writing about people they don’t like while simply using the pen and stage names of those of whom they approve. She explained that it was for the same reason every statement by the target of the hit piece “claims” something even when it is a statement confirmed to be factual, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the targeted individual.

Apparently the New York Times is now taking a similarly one-sided approach to the anonymity of sources:

A prominent pseudonymous blogger has shut down his site after a New York Times reporter refused to conceal his identity in a forthcoming piece, putting his livelihood and life in danger.

Psychiatrist Scott Alexander (his first and middle, but not last, name) has worked for years to cultivate a small but thriving intellectual community through his blog Slate Star Codex. That came to a halt Monday evening, however, when Alexander deleted the blog, replacing it with a post entitled “NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name, So I Am Deleting The Blog.”

The deletion was the culmination of a week of buzz that a Times reporter, Cade Metz, was reporting a story on Alexander’s site and the community it spawned, prompting widespread fears that Alexander would be the next figure “canceled” by a media exposé, possibly as retribution for his criticisms of modern progressivism.

Neither Metz nor his editor Pui-Wing Tam responded to a request for comment. Times vice president for communications Danielle Rhoades Ha told the Washington Free Beacon, “we do not comment on what we may or may not publish in the future. But when we report on newsworthy or influential figures, our goal is always to give readers all the accurate and relevant information we can.”

Alexander and others interviewed by Metz told the Free Beacon that they do not believe Metz wanted to write a “hit piece.” But Metz did insist that Times guidelines compelled him to disclose Alexander’s real name, derailing an interview with the blogger.

There is little evidence that such a policy exists at the Times, which has granted anonymity or pseudonymity to an Apple news executive, a left-wing podcaster, and even other subjects of Metz’s story.

The media is now wholly weaponized against America and against Western civilization, the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. And there is no excuse for still falling for the same lies reporters have been telling people for decades.

When Metz reached out, Alexander says, he wanted to discuss not these controversies, but the community SSC had built, in a largely positive way.

Sure he did. They use the same set of tricks every time. “I just want to let you tell you side of the story. I just want to understand this new thing that you’re the expert on. I just want to discuss this success that you’ve had.” First the bait, then the switch.

Most people are like toddlers being offered candy when it comes to the prospect of media attention. Perhaps it may help to keep this in mind: if it was going to benefit you, they would charge you for it.

The BBC has removed a famous episode of Fawlty Towers:

An episode of Fawlty Towers from which the N-word and other offensive terms had previously been cut has been taken down from the BBC’s UKTV player.

The 1975 episode titled The Germans – fondly remembered for the repeated line ‘don’t mention the war’ – is the latest in a series of British programmes to be culled from streaming sites.

Controversial Little Britain has been removed from Netflix, BBC iPlayer and BritBox.

I expect Monty Python is next. The Big Bear is right. This SJW cultural revolution is the death of comedy.

It’s also extremely informative to see who is allowed to get away with “a sincere apology” and who isn’t, as the SJWs begin to devour themselves. It won’t be long before the only SJW-free content will be found on independent sites like UATV.

Even high-ranking liberals who are in the media are discovering that decades of dutifully parroting the Narrative will not suffice to save them when they fail to keep up with the instantaneous twists and turns of the rest of the SJW school:

Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, has announced his resignation, days after discontent among the newspaper’s staff erupted over a headline on a column about the impact of the civil unrest following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Wischnowski, 58, led the paper over two turbulent periods in recent years, driving it; its sister paper, the Daily News; and its website, Inquirer.com, to reshape themselves as the digital age transformed the news business. He was key in the creation of Spotlight PA, a new multireporter team to provide news outlets across Pennsylvania with investigative coverage of state government. He also was in charge in 2011 when The Inquirer investigated violence within Philadelphia schools, a series awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

It was the placement of an insensitive headline over Inga Saffron’s column in the Tuesday newspaper that may have set the stage for Wischnowski’s departure. He joined the two other top editors in signing an apology to readers and staff, characterizing the headline, “Buildings Matter, Too,” as “deeply offensive” and apologizing for it. The column had explored the destruction of buildings amid the looting that accompanied some of the nationwide protests over police violence.

The editor of The New York Times editorial page has also been canceled and forced to resign over a single op/ed:

The editor of The New York Times’ editorial page, James Bennet, has resigned, publisher A.G. Sulzberger announced Sunday. Bennet’s resignation comes after the publication of a controversial op-ed from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton earlier in the week drew significant criticism, including from dozens of the newspaper’s staffers.

Sulzberger also said that Jim Dao, a deputy editorial page editor who had publicly taken responsibility as overseeing the editing of the piece, would be stepping off the masthead and reassigned to the newsroom. Katie Kingsbury, another deputy editorial page editor, will oversee the editorial page through the 2020 election.

Our enemies are devouring themselves because that which has already dead to them cannot be killed, but rises again, stronger and harder.

White privilege is civilization. We are the inevitable.

President Trump signs the executive order to stop the abusive behavior of the social media giants:

Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

Section 230(c) is the key to the publisher/not publisher dance behind which the social media giants hide.

The former president of CBS News encourages the mainstream media to give up its pretense of balance and impartiality:

There’s in all probability no technique to seal the hole between the media and a big phase of the general public. The media likes what it’s doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There isn’t any private, skilled or monetary cause to vary. If something, the hole will develop. In the end, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.

Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founding father of the web site Mediaite, has a novel however helpful concept for the media—candor. Chatting with the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Pageant, Mr. Abrams mentioned “I feel the very first thing that may assist . . . is to confess . . . that the individuals within the media are left of heart.”

It might be pleasant if a writer, an editor, a reporter, would simply say: Sure, I’m left of heart! I’m pleased with it. I feel our reporting is correct. It finest serves the general public. And the credibility of the media. So there!

Publications open about their bias would possibly really feel freer to give attention to the specifics: story choice, presentation, info, equity, stability. Not devoid of subtlety for certain, however manageable.

Honesty about their obvious political leanings would be preferable, without question. I doubt it will make all that much difference, however, since they’re not fooling anyone except perhaps Baby Boomers who haven’t been paying any attention since 1978.

Just thought I’d put these out there for future reference:

The Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.
January 14, 2020, World Health Organization

There is no evidence that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory.
April 20, 2020, The Conversation

The World Health Organization reiterated that the coronavirus which causes COVID-19 is “natural in origin.” Scientists who are examining the genetic sequences of the virus have assured “again and again that this virus is natural in origin.”
May 1, 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a renowned U.S. infectious disease expert, has said that there is no scientific evidence to back the theory that the coronavirus was made in a Chinese laboratory. “If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, the scientific evidence is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated,” he said.
May 4, 2020, National Geographic

WHO says it has no evidence to support ‘speculative’ Covid-19 lab theory
May 5, 2020, The Guardian

The British government has not seen any evidence to suggest that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 was man-made.
May 9, 2020, UK Health Minister Matt Hancock

Scientists: ‘Exactly zero’ evidence COVID-19 came from a lab.
May 12, 2020, Center for Infections Disease Research and Policy

Evidence of COVID’s natural origin mounts even as conspiracy theory about Chinese lab refuses to die
May 13, 2020, Cornell Alliance for Science