”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
The judge ruled that it was just an "opinion" that Phillips was "blocked". What a pile of crap. Blocking is not an opinion. It is a fact that should be determined at trial. Blocking isn't just standing. Philips approached the boys and could have left at any time, in fact he eventually did.
Bertelsman also noted that Phillips’s assertions that Sandmann “blocked” him and “wouldn’t allow [him] to retreat” are “objectively unverifiable and thus unactionable opinions.”
“Instead, a reasonable reader would understand that Phillips was simply conveying his view of the situation,” Bertelsman wrote.
“And because the reader knew from the articles that this encounter occurred at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, he or she would know that the confrontation occurred in the expansive area such that it would be difficult to know what might constitute ‘blocking’ another person in that setting.”
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
No disagreement from me that the press obsesses over sideshows. But that’s as true at OAN as it is at CNN.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
No disagreement from me that the press obsesses over sideshows. But that’s as true at OAN as it is at CNN.
Missed the point entirely. Right wing niche sites are what they are. NYTimes, CNN, etc are completely biased and pretend that they are not. Peaceful but fiery protests.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
No disagreement from me that the press obsesses over sideshows. But that’s as true at OAN as it is at CNN.
Missed the point entirely. Right wing niche sites are what they are. NYTimes, CNN, etc are completely biased and pretend that they are not. Peaceful but fiery protests.
CNN definitely. It’s not remotely in the same class as the NYT. I understand your need to lump them together. But that’s a psychological issue. Yours.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
No disagreement from me that the press obsesses over sideshows. But that’s as true at OAN as it is at CNN.
Missed the point entirely. Right wing niche sites are what they are. NYTimes, CNN, etc are completely biased and pretend that they are not. Peaceful but fiery protests.
CNN definitely. It’s not remotely in the same class as the NYT. I understand your need to lump them together. But that’s a psychological issue. Yours.
Lol. I understand the need for you to cope, but there's plenty of receipts to show NY Times descent into woke audience capture and TDS. You can pretend it didn't happen. That would be your psychological issue.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
No disagreement from me that the press obsesses over sideshows. But that’s as true at OAN as it is at CNN.
Missed the point entirely. Right wing niche sites are what they are. NYTimes, CNN, etc are completely biased and pretend that they are not. Peaceful but fiery protests.
CNN definitely. It’s not remotely in the same class as the NYT. I understand your need to lump them together. But that’s a psychological issue. Yours.
Lol. I understand the need for you to cope, but there's plenty of receipts to show NY Times descent into woke audience capture and TDS. You can pretend it didn't happen. That would be your psychological issue.
Don’t be confused about why The Washington Post changed its tune this week, admitting that the Hunter Biden laptop is the real deal, or why The New York Times ’fessed up last month: Reality forced their hand, and they can’t downplay the scandal’s impact on President Joe Biden without acknowledging the facts.
Eighteen months ago, both papers (Mottos: “All the news that’s fit to print” and “Democracy dies in darkness”) joined in the drive to suppress The Post’s reporting off the laptop, playing up bogus, clearly partisan claims that it was somehow “Russian disinformation.”
Never mind that we had not only authenticated the info and produced confirming sources like former Hunter business partner Tony Bobulinski, but also openly reported how we got it — unlike both the other papers’ endless, anonymously sourced reporting on the Trump Russiagate “scandal,” which eventually proved to be utterly fake, the product of Clinton-campaign disinformation.
And where Big Tech gleefully promoted the Russiagate nonsense, it censored The Post’s scoops.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Your “minimum” is more likely the maximum. Especially with something like 30 of his 33 claims dismissed and the remainder on life support. He may have netted 6 figures, but not high 6 figures.
We'll always have you around for your lazy and disingenuous narrative takes. No one really believes he got $250 million, but some estimates are it was $25 million. I can understand you wanting and hoping it to be low because it upsets your side somehow. My side is holding the increasingly shitty media accountable for lying.
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
Nobody was paying seven figures just to save on discovery costs.
So what's your take then? Sure, hawt takes from right wing talking heads might make it seem like he got $250 million. And hawt takes from the other side can say people are 'dreaming if they think he got more than peanuts'. Still seems like shitty wishcasting. Have you ever 'settled' a defamation case?
I haven't settled a defamation case. But you aren't settling any case very high when you merely hope to find evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment, with no indication that that evidence even exists.
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
I give you some points for acknowledging that the only reason things are where they are is a group of adult activists were triggered by a teenager wearing a maga hat. CNN and other shitlib media sites piled on. It's pathetic that the supposedly free press and a group of adults are so ideologically challenged. I have no idea what the figure was, and I doubt it was generational wealth.
No disagreement from me that the press obsesses over sideshows. But that’s as true at OAN as it is at CNN.
Missed the point entirely. Right wing niche sites are what they are. NYTimes, CNN, etc are completely biased and pretend that they are not. Peaceful but fiery protests.
CNN definitely. It’s not remotely in the same class as the NYT. I understand your need to lump them together. But that’s a psychological issue. Yours.
You're confusing the 2009 NY Slimes with the 2022 NYT. It might have slightly more credibility than CNN, but it's still full of woketard Millennials who lose it over Tom Cotton and try to get their own reporter fired.
It's also full of young woketard millenials terrified of lefty jewish lesbians--
Dear A.G.,
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Long read, but the article has a series of analyses as to why it’s nowhere near either of these amounts.
”If you believe this kid got anything more than a nuisance fee settlement, you’re dreaming,” said national security law attorney Bradley P. Moss.
Ok.
Around $200-$250k for each settlement he got minimum. That's the cost to defend, and that's the minimum he'd get. Insurance adjusters do that all the time. Even in borderline frivolous lawsuits, insurance companies will settle for the cost to defend at minimum. If there is even a slight chance they could lose, they may add a multiple to that. If he settled with three media companies, I'd bet he got at least $600-$750k. Given that there was an outlier chance he'd win in court, he probably got close to $2 million in total. So yeah, that's pretty rich for a kid his age. Lawyers take 30%, and the kid keeps $1.4m tax free.
Long read, but the article has a series of analyses as to why it’s nowhere near either of these amounts.
Comments
Pretty sure that if this were fox news being sued and someone had this take, you'd be ridiculing it. Own your hypocrisy.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nick-sandmann-defamation-lawsuits-against-media-dismissed-federal-judge
Bertelsman also noted that Phillips’s assertions that Sandmann “blocked” him and “wouldn’t allow [him] to retreat” are “objectively unverifiable and thus unactionable opinions.”
“Instead, a reasonable reader would understand that Phillips was simply conveying his view of the situation,” Bertelsman wrote.
“And because the reader knew from the articles that this encounter occurred at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, he or she would know that the confrontation occurred in the expansive area such that it would be difficult to know what might constitute ‘blocking’ another person in that setting.”
My take? There was no good or obvious reason to fear a hearing on the merits. Sandmann probably benefitted from the fear that discovery would prove embarrassing more than the fear of the costs involved, and he may have netted 6 figures rather than 5 figures as a result. I'm sure newsroom chatter was less than charitable toward a Kentucky Catholic contingent in Washington to protest abortion rights. But at 7 figures, I suspect the news organizations involved would have chosen to live with the embarrassment. Liability was always a stretch.
Eighteen months ago, both papers (Mottos: “All the news that’s fit to print” and “Democracy dies in darkness”) joined in the drive to suppress The Post’s reporting off the laptop, playing up bogus, clearly partisan claims that it was somehow “Russian disinformation.”
Never mind that we had not only authenticated the info and produced confirming sources like former Hunter business partner Tony Bobulinski, but also openly reported how we got it — unlike both the other papers’ endless, anonymously sourced reporting on the Trump Russiagate “scandal,” which eventually proved to be utterly fake, the product of Clinton-campaign disinformation.
And where Big Tech gleefully promoted the Russiagate nonsense, it censored The Post’s scoops.
Dear A.G.,
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
Sincerely,
Bari
Labor Force Participation still not recovered and headlong into recession with 9% inflation.
BUT DANDMAN ONLY IS A MILLIONAIRE!?#
let's hope his financial advisor isn't a retard like Adolph.
#buythedip
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276