Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 05:12:44 AM
537970 Posts in 40727 Topics by 5128 Members
Latest Member: hfraschilgreg
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  How Low Can You Go: Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: How Low Can You Go: Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories  (Read 1693 times)
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1551
Posts: 10891


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2013, 12:59:14 PM »

Quote
Man who helped Sandy Hook kids is harassed by conspiracy theorists
The problem I have with this is that I cannot find any reference to it from any "reputable" news source.  Every story I've seen reference back to "salon.com reported."

I'd think this would be pretty big news if it were confirmed.  Right now, the harassment has some of the halmarks of a hoax.  Don't know if it's true or not, but I do question the fact that every story I've seen on it is worded pretty much exactly the same, and not one source has elaborated beyond what "salon.com reported."  Why would anyone with a serious story to tell like this harassment in this case go to salon.com, rather than someone like THEIR LOCAL POLICE or the AP or some such.

The original article says he plans to talk to a RETIRED police office and plans to talk to the FBI.  Okay, so let me understand this.  You are being threatened by high profile agitators in a very high profile and emotional case and your first impulse is to go to salon.com and you later plan some vague talking to people perhaps no longer even in Law Enforcement?

Sorry, guys, but I would not characterize salon.com as trustworthy AT ALL on anything they report.  It just smacks of salon.com putting the screws to the "truthers" and everyone else jumping on that bandwagon.

Doesn't pass the smell test to me, and I've been involved in a few "filing false report" investigations.
The link I posted was from a Yahoo newsstory, which isn't saying much except it's not Salon.com. 
This link is from NBC.com:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529522-grandfather-who-comforted-sandy-hook-elementary-kids-says-truthers-are-targeting-him?lite
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2013, 01:12:32 PM »

Quote

The link I posted was from a Yahoo newsstory


That simply regurgitates what was reported on salon.com; it's not yahoo's original reporting.  The wording of pretty much every 'repeat' of this story is close to  the same, that yahoo story included.  This nearly identical wording includes the phrase, "salon.com reported," as does your yahoo linked story.

Yahoo did not vet this story at all, at least there is no evidence of the vetting in their own article.

"The Today Show" stuff may be new...have to look at that (later, when I have a bit more time).

Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
El Misfit
The bullsh*t meter is up high ಠ__ಠ
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 740
Posts: 10624


Listen here you little s**t.


« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2013, 02:42:15 PM »

There's a***oles everywhere, sometimes they will get into the news, but it all comes down to is bulls**t.
Logged

yeah no.
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1551
Posts: 10891


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2013, 10:05:22 PM »

Quote
The link I posted was from a Yahoo newsstory
That simply regurgitates what was reported on salon.com; it's not yahoo's original reporting.  The wording of pretty much every 'repeat' of this story is close to  the same, that yahoo story included.  This nearly identical wording includes the phrase, "salon.com reported," as does your yahoo linked story.
Yahoo did not vet this story at all, at least there is no evidence of the vetting in their own article.
"The Today Show" stuff may be new...have to look at that (later, when I have a bit more time).
Yahoo news stories certainly are wretched, but I expect they might at least do a bit of checking.  As dubious as their stories are, Yahoo is in the mainstream (I see them 'cause I go there for my email).  I don't know that the story is "big news" but it's sad news. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2013, 10:32:44 PM »


Yahoo news stories certainly are wretched, but I expect they might at least do a bit of checking.  As dubious as their stories are, Yahoo is in the mainstream (I see them 'cause I go there for my email).  I don't know that the story is "big news" but it's sad news. 


I'm not sure Yahoo does any checking.  There's no evidence of that in this story when all they did was report "salon.com reports."

The problem is the number of "copies" of this story that are out there.  I did a Google search earlier today, and of all the hits on the front page, most of them (all but one, if memory serves) was the exact same text

So, here's what it looks like:  salon.com "reported" (they are FAR from reputable in my observation) some munchy little tidbit in the larger scheme of the shooting story and the "truthers," Yahoo and a bunch of others picked it up, repeated it and as it gained traction, the idea "went viral." 

Here's one of the things about Yahoo's "reporting" of this that gives me great pause (about them, not really the story itself).  There's not one single line in there about "we contacted {the man}" or "we tried to contact him" or "we contacted the police to verify salon.com's claims."

Just because salon.com (or any other) site publishes something juicy does not make it true.  Yahoo's responsibility is to vet their own publication, as it is for every other web site that repeated this "article" verbatim (or very nearly so...did you happen to look at the repeat copies?).

They are claiming a crime has been committed and the victim has not contacted the police.  They are trying the offenders in the court of the media - not a whole lot different than the Elmo guy, really - and if you think about this for a second, it's really, really dangerous. 

The "proper" procedure for this sort of thing:

Step 1: Victim of a crime calls the police
Step 2: Police Investigate to try to determine if the facts are as reported by the victim; in principle, they have no dog in the fight and should be able to be objective in this analysis.
Step 3: While an active investigation, coverage in the media is VERY circumspect, if at all.  There MAY be a story "there is a police investigation under way into allegations regarding harassment of {victim} by {suspect}."  Even that is morally questionable, in my personal opinion.
Step 4: The police can verify that there is an investigation, and they may even choose to state what the victim reported to them and what they have or have not found so far.

NONE of this has occurred.  No.  The victim when to salon.com and told his story BEFORE reporting a crime to the police.  There is NO WAY to verify the veracity of his claim...salon.com does not have the legal authority to check phone records, take a suspect into custody if probably cause is met, etc.

NOTHING of the other side is being told.  There's no plea of guilty or not guilty...just an assumption of guilt, and time and time again "the media," through crap reporting like this whole example, gets away with it.

I hold no love for the truthers and what they are doing in general.  But it's equally reprehensible that salon.com is exploiting the larger story and all the emotion associated with it to seek to harm the truthers via unverified reporting, and Yahoo, by repeating it, shares in that culpability.

Just like "Freedom of Speech" does not give one the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, "Freedom of the Press" does not give THEM the right to publish whatever the hell they want that suits them.  salon.com (and by extension Yahoo and all the others) SHOULD have said to that guy, "call us back when you've filed a report to the police ... a police report that is verifiable and a matter of public record."

Nope...can't do that.  That's the "right" thing to do.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Chainsaw midget
Just Another Guy
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 256
Posts: 1872



« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2013, 12:26:38 AM »

Quote
Now look at the comments:
I won't and you can't make me! 

See, this is your first problem.  You were reading Youtube comments.  Why would anybody ever do such a thing?  Nothing good ever comes from them. 
Logged

Terms & Conditions:  By reading this signature, you, the reader willfully acknowledge that you owe me a dollar.
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1551
Posts: 10891


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2013, 01:40:21 PM »

Yahoo news stories certainly are wretched, but I expect they might at least do a bit of checking.  As dubious as their stories are, Yahoo is in the mainstream (I see them 'cause I go there for my email).  I don't know that the story is "big news" but it's sad news. 
I'm not sure Yahoo does any checking.  There's no evidence of that in this story when all they did was report "salon.com reports."
The problem is the number of "copies" of this story that are out there.  I did a Google search earlier today, and of all the hits on the front page, most of them (all but one, if memory serves) was the exact same text
So, here's what it looks like:  salon.com "reported" (they are FAR from reputable in my observation) some munchy little tidbit in the larger scheme of the shooting story and the "truthers," Yahoo and a bunch of others picked it up, repeated it and as it gained traction, the idea "went viral." 
Here's one of the things about Yahoo's "reporting" of this that gives me great pause (about them, not really the story itself).  There's not one single line in there about "we contacted {the man}" or "we tried to contact him" or "we contacted the police to verify salon.com's claims."
Just because salon.com (or any other) site publishes something juicy does not make it true.  Yahoo's responsibility is to vet their own publication, as it is for every other web site that repeated this "article" verbatim (or very nearly so...did you happen to look at the repeat copies?).
They are claiming a crime has been committed and the victim has not contacted the police.  They are trying the offenders in the court of the media - not a whole lot different than the Elmo guy, really - and if you think about this for a second, it's really, really dangerous. 
The "proper" procedure for this sort of thing:
Step 1: Victim of a crime calls the police
Step 2: Police Investigate to try to determine if the facts are as reported by the victim; in principle, they have no dog in the fight and should be able to be objective in this analysis.
Step 3: While an active investigation, coverage in the media is VERY circumspect, if at all.  There MAY be a story "there is a police investigation under way into allegations regarding harassment of {victim} by {suspect}."  Even that is morally questionable, in my personal opinion.
Step 4: The police can verify that there is an investigation, and they may even choose to state what the victim reported to them and what they have or have not found so far.
NONE of this has occurred.  No.  The victim when to salon.com and told his story BEFORE reporting a crime to the police.  There is NO WAY to verify the veracity of his claim...salon.com does not have the legal authority to check phone records, take a suspect into custody if probably cause is met, etc.
NOTHING of the other side is being told.  There's no plea of guilty or not guilty...just an assumption of guilt, and time and time again "the media," through crap reporting like this whole example, gets away with it.
I hold no love for the truthers and what they are doing in general.  But it's equally reprehensible that salon.com is exploiting the larger story and all the emotion associated with it to seek to harm the truthers via unverified reporting, and Yahoo, by repeating it, shares in that culpability.
Just like "Freedom of Speech" does not give one the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, "Freedom of the Press" does not give THEM the right to publish whatever the hell they want that suits them.  salon.com (and by extension Yahoo and all the others) SHOULD have said to that guy, "call us back when you've filed a report to the police ... a police report that is verifiable and a matter of public record."
Nope...can't do that.  That's the "right" thing to do.
Did you check the NBC story? 

How 'bout this one:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/massacre-deniers-harass-sandy-hook-grandfather-comforted-survivors-article-1.1241181

I guess I should be flattered to have engaged you, but I didn't write these stories and I won't defend them.  I don't visit Salon.com and not interested in their agenda, but I will say that I don't think it's "equally reprehensible" if Salon exploited and failed to verify a story than to harass a person or hurl obscenities and accusations of falsehoods, particularly in the wake of this hideous tragedy. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2013, 04:33:26 PM »


Did you check the NBC story?


No, because at this point in the discussion I don't care if the story turned out to be true.  As is often the case in this discussions, I'm talking about something much, much bigger than that.  

Quote

I guess I should be flattered to have engaged you, but I didn't write these stories and I won't defend them.


And of course, my "beef" is not with you; it's just that your linking to that story, written and promulgated as it was, has sparked a discussion topic.  Again, it's bigger than this story and this particular instance of salon.com, et al publishing what they did.

Quote

 I will say that I don't think it's "equally reprehensible" if Salon exploited and failed to verify a story than to harass a person or hurl obscenities and accusations of falsehoods, particularly in the wake of this hideous tragedy.  


This I find very sad, because what I am talking about is the free rein salon.com, yahoo.com and a whole bunch of other 'media outlets' apparently have in reporting only one side of a story in a manner in which their reporting can, and does, destroy people's livelihood, relationships, reputations, and the like.

How is that less heinous than someone harassing a man with the telephone?

Remove it from the context of the CT school shooting.  Drop that 'emotion' from the discussion and think about this logically.  

Some low life calls a man on the telephone and harasses him.  This is a crime.  In our criminal system, an accused has a presumption of innocent and certain protections from the government that are designed to protect reputation and other aspects of their life.  There is a due process that is so fundamental it is codified into our national charter.

The point that has to be grasped is that this due process is part of a larger social order than merely the construction of the legal system.  It's not a set of rules that tell courts how to go about prosecuting criminals.  Due process is socially valuable, and the legal system is merely the implementation of that process.

But that due process, on the social level, the MUCH deeper level than just the legal system, is being completely circumvented.

salon.com did not vet their story and it was soon all over the Internet, and due precisely to the emotional nature of the background of the story (that it has to do with a school shooting is completely immaterial...if some dude randomly called salon.com and reported phone harassment, would it have been thus reported?  If not...that's a violation of the principles of due process and "blind lady justice").

As I said, salon.com's proper response in the arena of the larger social responsibility would have been to tell the guy to call the cops, THEN call them.

Truth or hoax, only proper investigation will tell that tale, this case immediately reminded me of the cases we had when a woman falsely reported rape.  The "pop" approach would be to say, "well, due to the emotions involved, no woman would falsely report a rape," but it did happen and more often than might generally be appreciated.

This is serious business, this accusing people of crimes and NOT giving them any day in court (under our rules of due process, such as to FACE THEIR ACCUSER and cross examine him) before they are assumed guilty and their lives are vastly negatively impacted.

Sorry you don't think this is heinous behavior on the part of "the media."  {Warning: Rhetorical Statement Follows, rhetorical "you" in use; I absolutely do not want this to happen}.  Maybe someone will tell salon.com a juicy story about someone you know (no, I don't know any of the truthers involved in this mess...not my point so don't read into this statement that I support the harassment or the 'truth' movement) and you can witness how heinous what they do really is from that perspective.

The bad part is that it's so unnecessary to even be at the point we are having this discussion.  There is a proper course of action that is socially sanctioned and legal.  The guy got harassing calls?  He should call the police.  Why on earth his first impulse was to call salon.com is beyond me, but I can guess.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 06:27:38 PM by ulthar » Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
bob
I survived Bucky Larson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 206
Posts: 3631


Torgo watches you masterbate!


« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2013, 10:14:08 PM »

So, you've probably seen that "SANDY HOOK EXPOSED!" conspiracy video on your timeline over the past few days. It's a conspiracy video that's gotten something along the lines of ten million views that claims the Sandy Hook Shooting was set up by the government.


Snopes just debunked the entire video. I think it's one of the best jobs Snopes has done.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp#hoax
Logged

track the movies you watch in 2014
http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,142132.0.html

Kubrick, Nolan, Hitchcock, Tarantino, Wan - the elite



I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
El Misfit
The bullsh*t meter is up high ಠ__ಠ
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 740
Posts: 10624


Listen here you little s**t.


« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2013, 12:38:55 PM »

a***oles getting attention, and unfortunately you people feel for it. This is why I stay away from this, I am not getting suckered in the bulls**t, because the bulls**t will lead to this kind of s**t, and this kind of s**t is what is driving people apart and cutting throats.
Logged

yeah no.
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1412
Posts: 8333


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2013, 08:20:14 PM »

Bb - thanks for sharing that link.  I may use it to straighten out some people!
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Pages: 1 [2]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  How Low Can You Go: Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.