America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record
-
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
I don't think what the NYT said was defamatory, at least based on what is written above. They are a right-leaning site. I guess the statement about misinformation under the guise of satire is worth complaining about. Not sure it's worth a legal letter or retraction demand. Laughing it off might be smarter.
I was only joking
-
Ian Hislop, editor of the British satirical magazine 'Private Eye', says he's the most sued editor in the UK.
Personally, I don't think satirists are really being satirists any more if they start suing people for being rude about them. There's also a real danger they'll end up sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
-
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
I don't think what the NYT said was defamatory, at least based on what is written above. They are a right-leaning site. I guess the statement about misinformation under the guise of satire is worth complaining about. Not sure it's worth a legal letter or retraction demand. Laughing it off might be smarter.
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
-
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
-
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
I am sure they take themselves seriously as a business. It's not as if they spend their time shit-posting on random internet forums. They have employees and 401ks and everything.
-
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
I am sure they take themselves seriously as a business. It's not as if they spend their time shit-posting on random internet forums. They have employees and 401ks and everything.
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
I am sure they take themselves seriously as a business. It's not as if they spend their time shit-posting on random internet forums. They have employees and 401ks and everything.
Well, let's see how it plays out. Getting a reputation for being litigious might not sit well with a reputation for being a bunch of funny guys poking a finger at the idiocy of the liberal elites. They could easily end up only being read by a bunch of old right-wing folks, which would be enormously and fabulously ironic, considering what the NYT said.
-
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
I am sure they take themselves seriously as a business. It's not as if they spend their time shit-posting on random internet forums. They have employees and 401ks and everything.
Well, let's see how it plays out. Getting a reputation for being litigious might not sit well with a reputation for being a bunch of funny guys poking a finger at the idiocy of the liberal elites. They could easily end up only being read by a bunch of old right-wing folks, which would be enormously and fabulously ironic, considering what the NYT said.
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
The Bee said they'd been described as a 'far-right' sight, but the NYT wording describes them as a 'right-leaning' sight.
Literally that is true, but the wording was obviously crafted to lump them in with far-right disinformation sites.
And I do not fault the Bee for wanting no part of being lumped in with cancelable organizations.
Yeah, but they make all kinds of nasty comments about other people in a satirical way, and then they hint at legal action over this?
Laughing it off would be more in keeping with what they do. Unless of course they're starting to take themselves a little too seriously.
I am sure they take themselves seriously as a business. It's not as if they spend their time shit-posting on random internet forums. They have employees and 401ks and everything.
Well, let's see how it plays out. Getting a reputation for being litigious might not sit well with a reputation for being a bunch of funny guys poking a finger at the idiocy of the liberal elites. They could easily end up only being read by a bunch of old right-wing folks, which would be enormously and fabulously ironic, considering what the NYT said.
As long as they're still funny, they'll be ok regarding the readership. They are probably worried about advertisers and whether they are sensitive to the stink of advertising on a known 'far right disinformation site'.
-
If the way the Babylon bee mischaracterized the NYT piece is any indication then maybe they are a misinformation site after all.
@jon-nyc said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If the way the Babylon bee mischaracterized the NYT piece is any indication then maybe they are a misinformation site after all.
I think the Bee's position is that that paragraph mentions "far-right sites" (without actually naming any) and in the next sentence talks about The Bee. It even says, "for example".
-
@jon-nyc said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If the way the Babylon bee mischaracterized the NYT piece is any indication then maybe they are a misinformation site after all.
I think the Bee's position is that that paragraph mentions "far-right sites" (without actually naming any) and in the next sentence talks about The Bee. It even says, "for example".
@george-k said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@jon-nyc said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If the way the Babylon bee mischaracterized the NYT piece is any indication then maybe they are a misinformation site after all.
I think the Bee's position is that that paragraph mentions "far-right sites" (without actually naming any) and in the next sentence talks about The Bee. It even says, "for example".
Yes, the implication is clear and obvious.
...Facebook often dealt with far-right misinformation sites that used "satire" claims to protect their presence on the platform, Mr Brooking said. For example, The Babylon Bee, ...
The Bee's characterization of this is accurate. You have to ask yourself why anybody would attempt to claim otherwise.
-
@george-k said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@jon-nyc said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If the way the Babylon bee mischaracterized the NYT piece is any indication then maybe they are a misinformation site after all.
I think the Bee's position is that that paragraph mentions "far-right sites" (without actually naming any) and in the next sentence talks about The Bee. It even says, "for example".
Yes, the implication is clear and obvious.
...Facebook often dealt with far-right misinformation sites that used "satire" claims to protect their presence on the platform, Mr Brooking said. For example, The Babylon Bee, ...
The Bee's characterization of this is accurate. You have to ask yourself why anybody would attempt to claim otherwise.
TNCR is populated by a bunch of stupid people. For example, @Horace is kind of slow, and we have to deal with it.
-
TNCR is populated by a bunch of stupid people. For example, @Horace is kind of slow, and we have to deal with it.
@george-k said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
TNCR is populated by a bunch of stupid people. For example, @Horace is kind of slow, and we have to deal with it.
I'll need to hire a right-leaning lawyer for my defamation suit over this. Apparently, left-leaning people see no implication of stupidity here.
-
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
-
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
Not if the accusation was for stuff that gets people or media outlets banned from all social media, or that advertisers run screaming from.
You want to equate this to fair play ribbing, but the point of a defamation suit is in the potential for economic damage. There's an obvious connection between this particular accusation and potential economic damage.
-
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
Not if the accusation was for stuff that gets people or media outlets banned from all social media, or that advertisers run screaming from.
You want to equate this to fair play ribbing, but the point of a defamation suit is in the potential for economic damage. There's an obvious connection between this particular accusation and potential economic damage.
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
Not if the accusation was for stuff that gets people or media outlets banned from all social media, or that advertisers run screaming from.
You want to equate this to fair play ribbing, but the point of a defamation suit is in the potential for economic damage. There's an obvious connection between this particular accusation and potential economic damage.
Well, I think it's a bloody shame that they've resorted to this.
If you want to be treated as an edgy, down-with-the-hip-folks, comedy website, your first reaction when somebody says something you don't like should not be to threaten a lawsuit. That's the action of a fat old bastard who isn't funny.
Monty Python didn't threaten to sue when people accused them of blasphemy. They laughed it off, and challenged the people who said it.
One of the things a lot of people dislike about America is how quickly people resort to law suits when people say something they don't like.
By doing this, the Babylon Bee is revealing themselves. They're not edgy and funny. They're a bunch of guys who resort to lawyers because they're worried it might affect their stock value.
And good luck when somebody sues you right back for making jokes about smelling hair essentially making you a pedophile, or something.
-
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
Not if the accusation was for stuff that gets people or media outlets banned from all social media, or that advertisers run screaming from.
You want to equate this to fair play ribbing, but the point of a defamation suit is in the potential for economic damage. There's an obvious connection between this particular accusation and potential economic damage.
Well, I think it's a bloody shame that they've resorted to this.
If you want to be treated as an edgy, down-with-the-hip-folks, comedy website, your first reaction when somebody says something you don't like should not be to threaten a lawsuit. That's the action of a fat old bastard who isn't funny.
Monty Python didn't threaten to sue when people accused them of blasphemy. They laughed it off, and challenged the people who said it.
One of the things a lot of people dislike about America is how quickly people resort to law suits when people say something they don't like.
By doing this, the Babylon Bee is revealing themselves. They're not edgy and funny. They're a bunch of guys who resort to lawyers because they're worried it might affect their stock value.
And good luck when somebody sues you right back for making jokes about smelling hair essentially making you a pedophile, or something.
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@horace said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
@doctor-phibes said in America's Paper of Record v America's Paper of Record:
If a leftie comedy sight did this you guys would be posting pictures of fainting couches before I could say 'How dare you!'
Not if the accusation was for stuff that gets people or media outlets banned from all social media, or that advertisers run screaming from.
You want to equate this to fair play ribbing, but the point of a defamation suit is in the potential for economic damage. There's an obvious connection between this particular accusation and potential economic damage.
Well, I think it's a bloody shame that they've resorted to this.
If you want to be treated as an edgy, down-with-the-hip-folks, comedy website, your first reaction when somebody says something you don't like should not be to threaten a lawsuit. That's the action of a fat old bastard who isn't funny.
By doing this, the Babylon Bee is revealing themselves. They're not edgy and funny. They're a bunch of guys who resort to lawyers because they're worried it might affect their stock value.
Let the world be notified. If you want Phibes to think you're funny, you can not use legal avenues to defend against defamation by hugely influential media sources.
Meanwhile, they're definitely funny, and edgy enough at least to be falsely accused by the Paper of Record of being a hard right disinformation site.
And good luck when somebody sues you right back for making jokes about smelling hair essentially making you a pedophile, or something.
I'm sure they'd have good luck with such a frivolous lawsuit brought against them. I hope they have good luck with this one they're bringing against the NYT, which is not frivolous within the context of the cancel culture of the left.
