delmontefashionpeas
DelMonteFashionPeas
delmontefashionpeas

tl;dr: If Tynes can prove that the Bucs were the factual cause of his MRSA infection, he’d probably secure a jury verdict in his favor at trial.

I'm no expert, but having an 8 year old devote his entire life to soccer seems rather unhealthy.

Video game coverage isn’t garbage. I love Kotaku!

I laughed when you called video game Youtubers “creatives”.

lol god this comment is 10x more stupid now

If not for Bradly/Soave's articles this injustice might not have been revealed. You have just made the case that we need more of this "incredibly dismissive and elitist tone". Again, the rapid spread of genocidal Communism was a "very real problem" in the 1950s but that does not justify the excesses of McCarthyism. It

are you people delusional? RS wouldn't have retracted if they weren't being forced to by legal teams and by evidence that jackie is a fraud... stuff goes on behind the scenes that you don't know about... tmw or the next day you will see a full retraction, jackie will be forced to admit her guilt and you'll go on to

I'd have to disagree. At least in the case of the Bradley story, he was absolutely spot-on. Experienced editors and journalists will I think agree that you kind of develop a feel for quotes and stories that are too-good-to-be-true. I remember the first time I read a Stephen Glass story (in Harper's magazine), and it

Except of course, that their "it couldn't possibly have gone like that" tone turns out to be, you know, warranted.

It was incredibly foreseeable. Rapes are among the most controversial topics in America. Did RS really think they'd publish this story and everybody at UVA would just agree that the source was raped exactly where and how and when she alleged? If so, that's incredibly naive.

it's amazing how vehemently dismissive and condescending Anna was to Bradly/Soave. Incredible hypocrisy, but at least she 'apologized' for it - sort of. But she went to Columbia so her convictions and journalistic instinct are clearly greater than reasonable, justifiable questions from the disgusting cis-patriarch.

You should ask Columbia for a refund.

"The incorrect thing you said was warranted more than the correct thing they said, because your tone was better"

Party dates and who is employed where are easy things for an investigative journalist to verify. Check it out. If it doesn't match, return to your source and get clarification. If the source's version of events doesn't match verifiable fact, scrap the story.

So even though the story is clearly false, you're still outraged; now not because they questioned it even though that was cause of the first round of outrage, but because of how they questioned it.

Not one single detail reported of several was correct at all, including very prominent details like location. At what point do you admit something may not be real? Is it possible for you to admit that?

I find it pretty funny that you have an issue with their tone when it turns out they were, ya know, actually right. Anyhow, if you want to see something dismissive & elitist (with a healthy dose of condescension) reread all of the comments Anna's made directly to Bradley & Soave in the comments section of that other

They did believe her. Which was a problem when basic facts wouldn't have checked out if they did a modicum of investigating — like the fact that UVa holds fraternity rush in the spring, not in the fall. Like the fact that there was no party at Phi Psi on the date that Jackie claimed to be raped. Like the fact that

Her response was juvenile and insulting. She jumped quickly and loudly on the bandwagon of incredibly shoddy reporting that is now revealed to be fiction. The Bradly/Soave articles were respectful and cautions (as were the many, many other articles questioning this story).

They were right. "Dismissive" was the correct tone to strike.