Chiefs Fan Accused Of Racism Files Lawsuit…

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ingomike

    Top Hand
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,993
    113
    North Central
    No, they have always had a slant.
    But now they are incentivized to crank out click bait. Before it wasnt as prolific because people paid them for their paper, which was printed for all to read. They could tweak readership a bit by doing better. But unless they sucked hard, they would retain those subscriptions.

    Today if they dont tweak via clickbait, they dont earn.
    You don’t think the headlines that paperboys yelled out was “clickbait”? That the previews of the upcoming news at 11 were not “clickbait”? That those sales of papers or numbers of viewers were a direct payoff of what we now call “clickbait”. Which is nothing more than a new word reflective of modern news delivery in a hyper sensationalized headline or promo.

    This is not anything new, just a new name for despicable actions, with few real consequences…

     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,918
    113
    You don’t think the headlines that paperboys yelled out was “clickbait”? That the previews of the upcoming news at 11 were not “clickbait”? That those sales of papers or numbers of viewers were a direct payoff of what we now call “clickbait”. Which is nothing more than a new word reflective of modern news delivery in a hyper sensationalized headline or promo.

    This is not anything new, just a new name for despicable actions, with few real consequences…


    Short version: You scuffing your new bass boat against the dock is a boating accident. So was the Titantic. Neither are new, people have been having boating accidents since they figured out how to float on wooden doo-dickies. But there's certainly a difference in scale.

    Longer version: It's not new, but it's much more prolific and really got started with the cable 24 hour news cycle, IMO. It's fairly easy to find 30 minutes worth of real news globally every 8 hours or so, including weather and a local puff piece for your broadcast tv and to fill a daily paper or monthly magazine.

    Then cable...then you need 24 hours of news every 24 hours, and there just isn't enough interesting stuff happening every hour of every day, so you have to start manufacturing it. So you take things that were completely innocuous, put some sex or controversy on it, and create your own news. Or create false patterns and panics. Shark attacks may actually be down, but if we run one a week we can make it seem scarier by overrepresenting it and get some more views...

    Then news conglomerates...then you need 24 hours of news for multiple outlets every 24 hours, so you have to manufacture more. More tenuous patterns, more fear driven messaging, more creating controversy by intentionally misleading...like we have here.

    Then, the internet is ubiquitous and anybody with a keyboard can reach a potential audience. Then you have near infinite outlets available across multiple medias. It's not enough just to find 'it bleeds/it leads' stories, there's just too much pipeline to fill. And it's profitable. Any media that did what we say we want is apparently not economically viable as it certainly doesn't exist. Also not a new problem, just one with a lot more money up for grabs by a much more widespread group of grasping hands.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,994
    113
    Avon
    “Deadspin did not take down the photo and add an editor's note until the family threatened legal action. The note claimed the outlet was unaware of the full photo – that proves the fan was not wearing blackface – until it received a legal threat.“

    “That is not true.”

    “OutKick sent Deadspin and Phillips the full photo of the boy's face three hours after it published the original article on Nov. 27. Phillips acknowledged our email that day with a now-deleted tweet saying that "Red and black face paint is just as offensive
    ."

    Should be a slam-dunk case, especially with the inherent mea culpa of the deleted tweet.

    I hope he owns them when it's all said and done.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,306
    113
    Texas


    With the sale, the 11-person staff of Deadspin was pink-slipped. “Deadspin’s new owners have made the decision to not carry over any of the site’s existing staff and instead build a new team more in line with their editorial vision for the brand,” Spanfeller wrote in the memo. “While the new owners plan to be reverential to Deadpin’s unique voice, they plan to take a different content approach regarding the site’s overall sports coverage. This unfortunately means that we will be parting ways with those impacted staff members, who were notified earlier today.”

     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    32,048
    77
    Camby area
    My only question to the legal eagles here:

    In a situation like this where a company screws the pooch and gets sued, does the acquiring company also acquire the lawsuit liability as part of the company, or does it go away? I'm pretty sure that all assets and liabilities are typically included when a company is sold, but a lawsuit isnt exactly the same as a past due bill or some other liability.
    Just curious how this will work since the current owner nor any employees are the ones responsible for the cause of the lawsuit. (thanks to the layoffs)

    @HoughMade @Kirk Freeman
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    32,048
    77
    Camby area
    When Dow Chemical bought out Union Carbide, they also acquired the Bhopal lawsuit. You buy the bitch, you also buy her luggage.
    That was my assumption. I've always wondered why somebody would acquire a company with potential baggage like that. Especially when I dont see a clear money maker given Deadspin's history. But I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. :dunno:
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    18,078
    113
    Lafayette
    That was my assumption. I've always wondered why somebody would acquire a company with potential baggage like that. Especially when I dont see a clear money maker given Deadspin's history. But I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. :dunno:
    Sharper than that "journalist" from Deadspin!
     

    rbhargan

    Sharpshooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 30, 2012
    632
    93
    Carmel/Liberty
    That was my assumption. I've always wondered why somebody would acquire a company with potential baggage like that. Especially when I dont see a clear money maker given Deadspin's history. But I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. :dunno:
    There is probably a reason that made sense to someone. Or it could be that they were on a four day meth and coke bender. "Hey Hunter said this is a GREAT deal!"
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,792
    149
    Valparaiso
    My only question to the legal eagles here:

    In a situation like this where a company screws the pooch and gets sued, does the acquiring company also acquire the lawsuit liability as part of the company, or does it go away? I'm pretty sure that all assets and liabilities are typically included when a company is sold, but a lawsuit isnt exactly the same as a past due bill or some other liability.
    Just curious how this will work since the current owner nor any employees are the ones responsible for the cause of the lawsuit. (thanks to the layoffs)

    @HoughMade @Kirk Freeman
    I don't know how they structured (or will structure) the sale here, but there is such a thing as an "asset-only" sale where you sell the business's assets, including the name if they want to, to a buyer and all of the liabilities, including lawsuits, are left behind in some sort of "leftover" corporation. The "leftover" corp. often has insurance and any coverage that may afford would be available for lawsuits even if that corp. files bankruptcy.

    That being said, there are way of "clawing back" assets in certain situations, but I would guess that they had little to no assets and no big bank accounts.

    The new owner will not be liable (barring something really bizarre). However, individuals who personally engaged in the defamation are stuck with their liability, but again, probably few assets.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom