Aaron Wilson Fired From Houston Chronicle After Comments On Watson Accusers

[Starkiller]

18 minutes ago, Righteous said:

Wow...you have not been watching much news or reading newspapers  if you believe reporters are neutral.  I dare you to show my a national news story that is neutral these days.  Molly Querim came out basically condemning Watson with no facts.  Is they neutral reporting?  Or are reporters being censored and punished for thinking and not being a part of this faux woke movement???

She isn’t a reporter

[Righteous]

Just now, Starkiller said:

She isn’t a reporter

Of course she isn’t.  There are very, very few of them left anymore.  

[big2033]

1 hour ago, Righteous said:

Wow...you have not been watching much news or reading newspapers  if you believe reporters are neutral.  I dare you to show my a national news story that is neutral these days.  Molly Querim came out basically condemning Watson with no facts.  Is they neutral reporting?  Or are reporters being censored and punished for thinking and not being a part of this faux woke movement???

“Given the seriousness and quantity of these allegations, we are talking fourteen lawsuits and twenty-four total claims, and we are only ten days in,” Qerim said. “I personally, as a woman, would like to hear more from the NFL. ‘The matter is under review’ is just simply not enough.”

 

“If I am the NFL, I am putting Deshaun Watson on the Commissioner’s Exempt List. I look at it this way. He is getting protected and getting paid. He needs to lay low, and they need to deal with this,” Molly Qerim added. “And when, and if, his name is cleared, then he can return.”

 

“But when I am saying twenty-four total claims against him. You can’t have this man on the football field right now. Address it. He can continue to get paid, and he can return when he clears his name.”

 

*NOTE: In the statement above from Qerim, please tell me where she says Watson is guilty or innocent?

 

 You guys really need to understand news/information and not listen to a bunch of morons telling you "ALL NEWS IS BIASED/WOKE NOW" so they can get your clicks. 

 

There's a difference between inferring something and saying something. But to be honest with you, I'm not sure where you think Querim is condemning Watson at all.

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by big2033

[2ToneTerror]

12 minutes ago, big2033 said:

“And when, and if, his name is cleared, then he can return.”

 

...he can return when he clears his name.”

 

*NOTE: In the statement above from Qerim, please tell me where she says Watson is guilty or innocent?

 

 

When she demand punishment before  one even has a trial or defense.

That’s where.

Edited April 11, 2021 by 2ToneTerror

[big2033]

14 minutes ago, 2ToneTerror said:

When she demand punishment before  one even has a trial or defense.

That’s where.

 

She said put him on the exempt list with pay. She didn't say he was guilty or innocent. And the NFL is not the one who is going to put him in jail.

 

She's saying, due the sensitivity and quantity of these allegations, to take him out of the spotlight. With pay.

 

I'm not saying I agree, but nothing there is claiming he is guilty of anything. She's talking about what the NFL should do with this as they've struggled with this perception in the past.

 

And by the way, the NFL has been very specific in saying that they can suspend you for simply causing a negative perception of the "shield" regardless of your guilt or innocents.

Edited April 11, 2021 by big2033

[abenjami]

Speaking of inferences, Wilson didn't call anyone a terrorist.  What he said was drawing an analogy and one that has been frequently used in our society for decades.

 

Do you guys realize that Wilson made these statements almost a month ago, long before a lot of the stuff we now know was made public?

 

Here is part of what he said too:

 

“I’m skeptical,” said Wilson. “Let’s put it like that…I wanna be careful. I’m not dismissing that it could be true, in that, I wasn’t there. The people that know what happened are him and those alleged women, who haven’t put their name on it. It’s all Jane Doe…There’s no way to vet it. There’s no way to really look into it…just because someone is accused of something that doesn’t mean they did it.”

 

When pushed on the assumption that it sounds like he is pro-Watson, Wilson made it clear that he is.

 

“I’m not saying I’m not. I’m telling you…I don’t know them, I know him,” said Wilson. “I’m not gonna throw this guy under the bus before I have some proof. I don’t feel like I have the proof. They’re allegations.”

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by abenjami

[big2033]

5 minutes ago, abenjami said:

Speaking of inferences, Wilson didn't call anyone a terrorist.  What he said was drawing an analogy and one that has been frequently used in our society for decades.

 

Do you guys realize that Wilson made these statements almost a month ago, long before a lot of the stuff we now know was made public?

 

Here is part of what he said too:

 

“I’m skeptical,” said Wilson. “Let’s put it like that…I wanna be careful. I’m not dismissing that it could be true, in that, I wasn’t there. The people that know what happened are him and those alleged women, who haven’t put their name on it. It’s all Jane Doe…There’s no way to vet it. There’s no way to really look into it…just because someone is accused of something that doesn’t mean they did it.”

 

When pushed on the assumption that it sounds like he is pro-Watson, Wilson made it clear that he is.

 

“I’m not saying I’m not. I’m telling you…I don’t know them, I know him,” said Wilson. “I’m not gonna throw this guy under the bus before I have some proof. I don’t feel like I have the proof. They’re allegations.”

 

 

 

 

This statement seems fine. The other statement, unfortunately is not. Seems like he tried to be careful then he went off on a tangent. It's not the terrorist part, it's also the "money grab" part.

 

He knows how careful you have to be with this info. But you also can't just say, "I don't have all the info, but what I'm seeing is a money grab." Sorry, you're going to get in a lot of trouble. 

[Righteous]

1 hour ago, big2033 said:

 

She said put him on the exempt list with pay. She didn't say he was guilty or innocent. And the NFL is not the one who is going to put him in jail.

 

She's saying, due the sensitivity and quantity of these allegations, to take him out of the spotlight. With pay.

 

I'm not saying I agree, but nothing there is claiming he is guilty of anything. She's talking about what the NFL should do with this as they've struggled with this perception in the past.

 

And by the way, the NFL has been very specific in saying that they can suspend you for simply causing a negative perception of the "shield" regardless of your guilt or innocents.

But haven’t  the terrorists won by taking away the game that he loves?  Querim clearly says this should be done to protect women.  What about protecting men from these fucking terrorists?  

[big2033]

I'm not saying I'm an expert on this stuff. But I have worked in a newsroom before.

 

1. Terms like "sources" etc that people like Trump have made a dumpster fire are actually taken seriously. If you don't have 2 or more sources on a story an editor generally won't let you print that story. This ensures the story is legitimate. A reporters is always required to contact the accused if an accuser is the source.

 

2. Reporters should NEVER give up their inside sources as that will kill any chance of getting sources in the future. Reporters have gone to jail to protect their sources.

 

3. Newspapers and news shows are VERY scared of libel and defamation so you are asked when you, as a reporter, make a statement that is not a fact, make sure your sprinkle in "allegedly" or "reports suggest," or "according to a police report" etc.

 

4. People like Tucker Carlson are still very adept at avoiding libel or defamation. HOWEVER, they still get sued quite a bit and likely settle out of court. If all else fails, they'll have their lawyers make up BS and say, 'oh he's just an entertainer.'

[abenjami]

16 minutes ago, big2033 said:

 

This statement seems fine. The other statement, unfortunately is not. Seems like he tried to be careful then he went off on a tangent. It's not the terrorist part, it's also the "money grab" part.

 

He knows how careful you have to be with this info. But you also can't just say, "I don't have all the info, but what I'm seeing is a money grab." Sorry, you're going to get in a lot of trouble. 

 

Well yes, because that is offering your opinion.  And when new information comes out 2-3 weeks later and your employer decides after the fact that your opinion now looks bad in hindsight, you're going to get in trouble.

Edited April 11, 2021 by abenjami

[big2033]

5 minutes ago, Righteous said:

But haven’t  the terrorists won by taking away the game that he loves?  Querim clearly says this should be done to protect women.  What about protecting men from these fucking terrorists?  

 

The NFL has a history of protecting the men in the past do they not? From domestic violence etc. You and I both know that in the past the NFL swept a lot of bad behavior under the rug. And THEY have said they want to prove those days are gone.

 

So ... I'm sure they've told these players, keep your nose clean. Because, "we can't protect you."

 

There's a difference between having one accuser and having 20. Obviously, Watson was doing some BS in massage parlors ... which is illegal. So he put himself in position to tarnish the image of the NFL. 

 

Let me put it in a way that maybe you might understand:

 

If 30 people military officers come out and say, "Watson is directly funding the Taliban with millions to buy weapons in Afghanistan ..." and he denies it ... do you want him on the field representing the NFL during his hearing? Even if you did, do you understand how the NFL wouldn't want him on the field as there are A LOT of people that would find this reprehensible?

 

 

[big2033]

5 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

Well yes, because that is offering your opinion.  And when new information comes out 2-3 weeks later and your employer decides after the fact that your opinion now looks bad in hindsight, you're going to get in trouble.

 

Careful. What. You. Say.

 

I'm not saying the newspaper is righteous. In the end it's about money. The newspaper probably only has so much money to dish out if they get sued by lawyers in a HUGE case. So they fired him before they could get sued. They're just protecting themselves.

 

If this were Fox News and Sean Hannity they might have gone different. They have the millions to dish out.

Edited April 11, 2021 by big2033

[Righteous]

3 minutes ago, big2033 said:

I'm not saying I'm an expert on this stuff. But I have worked in a newsroom before.

 

1. Terms like "sources" etc that people like Trump have made a dumpster fire are actually taken seriously. If you don't have 2 or more sources on a story an editor generally won't let you print that story. This ensures the story is legitimate. A reporters is always required to contact the accused if an accuser is the source.

 

2. Reporters should NEVER give up their inside sources as that will kill any chance of getting sources in the future. Reporters have gone to jail to protect their sources.

 

3. Newspapers and news shows are VERY scared of libel and defamation so you are asked when you, as a reporter, make a statement that is not a fact, make sure your sprinkle in "allegedly" or "reports suggest," or "according to a police report" etc.

 

4. People like Tucker Carlson are still very adept at avoiding libel or defamation. HOWEVER, they still get sued quite a bit and likely settle out of court. If all else fails, they'll have their lawyers make up BS and say, 'oh he's just an entertainer.'

All of this is bullshit.  The WP, Times have been writing stories constantly with unnamed sources, references each other as sources, only to later retract the story because it was all bullshit.   Example.  Every “woke” outlet printed this story and it was absolutely false.  How does that happen?   This has become the norm.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.amp.html

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-story-was-a-hoax-donald-trump-hits-out-after-stunning-washington-post-retraction/news-story/4316de0c552800a040bc59332cd79964

[big2033]

3 minutes ago, Righteous said:

All of this is bullshit.  The WP, Times have been writing stories constantly with unnamed sources, references each other as sources, only to later retract the story because it was all bullshit.   Example.  Every “woke” outlet printed this story and it was absolutely false.  How does that happen?   This has become the norm.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.amp.html

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-story-was-a-hoax-donald-trump-hits-out-after-stunning-washington-post-retraction/news-story/4316de0c552800a040bc59332cd79964

 

You don't have to name sources. You just need more than one. 

 

You build trust from unnamed sources by those sources being right. Anyone can say they have sources, but nobody will take you seriously if you haven't built trust.

 

Believe it or not, the Washington Post or New York Times have readers that trust their sources because they have been getting more stories right than wrong for decades. Reporters, for the most part, are considered of high standard.

 

Do you know how Nixon was taken down? Unnamed sources ... and only recently was 1 source revealed because he outed himself. 

 

Trump cast negativity on unnamed sources but it's common practice and the heart of journalism lol.

 

And, ahem, morons who don't know better now believe unnamed sources is shady journalism. When it's actually what proper journalism in politics is built on.

Edited April 11, 2021 by big2033

[big2033]

9 minutes ago, Righteous said:

All of this is bullshit.  The WP, Times have been writing stories constantly with unnamed sources, references each other as sources, only to later retract the story because it was all bullshit.   Example.  Every “woke” outlet printed this story and it was absolutely false.  How does that happen?   This has become the norm.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.amp.html

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-story-was-a-hoax-donald-trump-hits-out-after-stunning-washington-post-retraction/news-story/4316de0c552800a040bc59332cd79964

 

And to answer your question regarding the mis-information here.

 

The source of their info was incorrect, not their reporting:

 

"In a report about the newly published audio, The Washington Post revealed that the false quotes came from Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, who was briefed on the conversation by Ms Watson. The false quotes were included in House Democrats’ impeachment brief."

 

Fuchs and Watson gave false information that the WP published.