I’m going to share this link for those that are interested in reading it:

Hey Hack, you forgot to mention that these filmmakers intentionally and misleadingly edited Winston’s Wikipedia page for the sole purpose of using it as a “source” for this hatchet-job of a documentary. You also forgot to mention that these same people said concerning the content of the film “we do not need to tell…

“Not only is on-campus sexual assault widespread—according to a study, 1 in 4 college women will be a victim of a sexual assault—but it’s consistently ignored by college administrations.”

You know that 25% number includes women who had a sexual encounter they regret. The number of women actually raped on campus is between 2-5% which is still way to high.

So instead of dissecting a complicated case and analyzing the truths and inaccuracies of the film (i.e. journalism), you decided to post an article portraying Winston as a rapist who is trying to silence this “documentary with an apt title.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-continuing…

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-hunting-gr…

It’s not that complicated. They are presenting an almost-certainly-false allegation as fact. There’s not really any sane justification for that.

It is defamatory...considering the story the accuser tells in the documentary has been proven wrong by the physical evidence. I’m all for more awareness on this issue, but don’t muddle it up by including one about a person who has been cleared in 3 separate investigations.

Don’t confuse “documentary” with “fact”. This is very far from a factual and complete reporting of the story regarding Winston. Just one example they’ve resorted to bogus editing of Wikipedia, and got caught.

So why not write about that instead of a meaningless lawsuit? We need to deal with the actual complicated stuff instead of rehashing the same tired talking points on both sides.

“failed to adhere to any accepted journalistic standards.”

Patrick Redford can’t even push Deadspin’s false narrative correctly. At least ignore the Harvard professors entirely if you’re going to write bullshit

You mean other than its a ‘documentary’ that basically rehashes things that have already had the opportunity to be resolved in court but weren’t. Basically they readjudicating something using their very large amount of influence without any input from the accused.

You’re indicting a person for stealing crabs legs? Or a lack of self awareness? Why didn’t Ray rice go to jail? Adrian Petersen? Certain people don’t get prosecuted, that’s the real story.

Those professors are saying exactly what Jameis is saying. It’s hardly a documentary and more like propaganda than anything else. It’s one sided and the producer has even come out and pretty much admitted it. Don’t know if a lawsuit will do anything about it being one sided though.