I work in news so I have to reserve judgement until more information comes forth, I can't just blindly take everything I see online as fact, it's just the nature of the business. Not saying this person is lying, but I'm going to need to see more information before I can take this as fact. There are certain journalistic standards that I feel have to be upheld, starting with simply confirming that the person who is making the accusations is actually who they say they are. Until now, I have not seen any confirmation that this person is actually the person in the photos that they are claiming they are. I think it has to start there.
Your Fave is Problematic
- Thread starter gouis
- Start date
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
Touché.
When I read, "I need to hear it more than from some rando website," that reads to me like someone who is not reserving judgment.
When you write, "Until now, I have not seen any confirmation," that leads me to a very obvious response. And that response is, "have you tried?" Because if not, it doesn't sound like you are reserving judgment.
With only one place reporting this, there is no where else to look for info. I've looked around and cannot find anything beyond the initial postings mentioned on that website. There is a big difference between not believing someone, and reserving judgement either way until even the most basic of information can be confirmed.
Also, I find it disconcerting that your response appears to be correlating of right wing talking points and working in the news.
I mean, I understand why that matters as a response to me here. I just wish it didn't matter as a response. In fact it kinda goes back to your original post and trust of sources.
Anyway, if you're waiting for a front page newspaper article or a conviction in order to believe that someone was sexually assaulted then it's unlikely that you would believe anyone. And that's sort of the point of why this thread exists in the first place. At least a piece of it.
I'm not sure what "right wing talking points" you're referring to. I don't read or watch any right wing anything, especially US right wing anything so you'll have to explain that part.
In terms of "trust of sources", my point is that a "source" needs to have a base level of verifiable info to be called "a source". Are they who they say they are, were they where they said they were. I mean that's pretty much the bottom rung of the ladder in terms of at least identifying that this person has conceivably verifiable info. There's simply too much EVERYTHING on the internet to blindly and without any identifiable facts carte blanche believe every single thing you read. It's not conspiratorial, it's just the way you have to operate in order to not go insane. This could very well be true, but I can't say without more than just a couple of anonymous internet posts.
It just seems odd that you haven't posted this on like, most of the posts in this thread then.
I broke it down in my first post. And you and I know we both see so much right wing BS in our day to day world. Without having to seek out US based right wing media. I mean you said it yourself, you work in news.
I'll see if I can explain it in a slightly different way than before:
News media don't want to get sued. That's why me too, speaking out, etc became as big of a cultural movement as they've become. Because no one was taking victims seriously. You know this. You work in news.
What's the best way to make a story like this go away? Dont even argue it on its merits. Laugh at the source. Say, yah I'm gonna need more than that- while knowing full well that our global society makes it almost impossible to get a conviction, and without a conviction it's almost impossible to get a larger media org to write about it.
The point is not to say you are a right winger. I have no reason to believe that.
The point is to say that if you find yourself parroting right wing talking points, or standing on their side, that it's a good time to have a think.
The problem with the internet is that it's just a giant fire hose of information that never turns off. 24/7 it's just full blast non stop EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. In terms of my job there needs to be some discretion in terms of what information needs further looking into, and doesn't. I think this definitely needs further looking into. But I'm not a journalist and I, like most other people, have to rely on the information that's uncovered by journalists or organizations. That's just the nature of news and information for the most part. So until someone speaks to this accuser, or they provide more info, I just have to wait and see.
I guess I just simply don't really understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that I should, carte blanche with no information whatsoever, believe every single thing I read on the internet? Because I feel like in that direction lies madness. You must surly have some place at which you personally start the process of belief in what you read? No?
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
Even if we all reach consensus that sportskeeda is a real website, the only stories on the site about this subject are by a person in Bangalore with no otherwise significant web presence. I don't think anybody's saying this is enough to automatically dismiss the story, but it's also not really actionable if the only reporting it contains is a synopsis of what some people have said on an internet forum or in a TikTok. That's not journalism; at best it's aggregation.
No. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. And I'm not gonna speak for everyone here, but I'd say I don't believe that's the argument anyone is making.
"The point is to say that if you find yourself parroting right wing talking points, or standing on their side, that it's a good time to have a think." That's it.
Your apparent first reaction to reading the story was to take a shot at the source(in a public forum no less).
That's literally all I'm saying.
Last edited:
I think that all non paid news sources are aggregation. And even some of the paid ones. That's just the current nature of the internet beast.
Melt Face Molly Drop
Well-Known Member
I think both sides of the winged coin jump to conclusions about believing a source if it fits their narrative.
If this article said that a prominent transgender swimmer wants to go back to being a man, should we believe it? This is what has been actually going around about Lia Thomas, which of course is being picked up by republicans even though it doesn’t extend beyond one publication.
So whether we choose to believe the article may not matter as much as what the contents are and how we can weaponize them.
I mean I still fail to understand where you're drawing these ideas of my "parroting right wing talking points" from in literally anything I've written. I apologize if my initial post came off as flippant regarding the website, I have never heard of that website and I literally work in sports news. But anyhow, okay answer me this. When you read those posts on Sportskeeda, those posts were enough for you to be 100% sure that Robert Smith is guilty of this. You do not require any more info other than that one post which contains no actionable info of any kind? The moment you read that post, with the information contained within, you were 100% certain he did this, yes?
Last edited:
No. I'm not certain. I really hope it didn't happen for everyone involved in the story.
I'd read about it previously, but, like you, I'm not a superfan or anything so I definitely didn't dig any deeper. But I did see at least part of its spread online. Then, fast forward a few days, when the article was published and posted in here I read it.
Okay well I'm in the exact same boat. I hope we find out one way or another. I hate not knowing either way.
Last edited:
Yah I think you're a good dude. Written communication is just often flawed.
Right back at ya
TrainFan73
Frothy
By this time if the Sportskeeda article had merit, a “big” news outlet would have picked it up. There’s something wrong there or it would be a bigger story.