Community Chat

[Catitude]

I am really glad she told her story. She is very credible and doesn't need money or publicity.

[NoelSeven]

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

I'm surprised the press is putting out stories like this from 45 years ago. I tend to believe there's a problem because all these women aren't likely to be lying. However, how do they know that any given story is completely the truth? Reporters and editors are duty bound to ask for solid proof before publishing accusations such as this. It's unethical for the media to all just jump on the bandwagon of this story and print accusations without solid proof just because others have come forward.

It's not unethical at all. It would be unethical for them to NOT report it. Hiding the allegations would empower others to attempt to get away with the same thing, in fact, that was the pattern for years.

Reporters have to be careful HOW they present at story, which is why they clearly point out these reports are allegations, not verifiable fact.

That's not so, NoelSeven. They should not report something from decades ago for which no proof exists. It's not the press's job to make sure others don't try to get away with the same thing. It's their job to require proof before they print even allegations. What seems to have happened is that someone brought this out on social media (am I remembering this correctly?) and the floodgates opened. That others make charges does not make a particular unsubstantiated story more credible, it seems to me. The basic standard is that some proof of the allegations is required before publication.

You're talking about your opinion and "should".

I'm talking about professional journalism and journalistic ethics, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've been in professional journalism.

[SydneyH]

This did not start on social media and if we want to go way, way back the stores about the good Dr settling cases of 'alledged' assault, two that I can recall, were reported in the media. The media has every right to be all over this imho, they can call it an opinion piece for those who have concerns.

[Ms X]

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

I'm surprised the press is putting out stories like this from 45 years ago. I tend to believe there's a problem because all these women aren't likely to be lying. However, how do they know that any given story is completely the truth? Reporters and editors are duty bound to ask for solid proof before publishing accusations such as this. It's unethical for the media to all just jump on the bandwagon of this story and print accusations without solid proof just because others have come forward.

It's not unethical at all. It would be unethical for them to NOT report it. Hiding the allegations would empower others to attempt to get away with the same thing, in fact, that was the pattern for years.

Reporters have to be careful HOW they present at story, which is why they clearly point out these reports are allegations, not verifiable fact.

That's not so, NoelSeven. They should not report something from decades ago for which no proof exists. It's not the press's job to make sure others don't try to get away with the same thing. It's their job to require proof before they print even allegations. What seems to have happened is that someone brought this out on social media (am I remembering this correctly?) and the floodgates opened. That others make charges does not make a particular unsubstantiated story more credible, it seems to me. The basic standard is that some proof of the allegations is required before publication.

You're talking about your opinion and "should".

I'm talking about professional journalism and journalistic ethics, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've been in professional journalism.

I graduated from a master's program and also have been in "professional journalism." I put out a couple of small publications on my own and would never print allegations without a shred of proof. I'd just tell them to get back in touch with me if they had anything solid to prove what they were saying. In one case, a company told me they were going to sue another company. I knew they lacked money and just told them to call me back when they filed. They never did.

[Cakers1]

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 Cakers1 said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 Ilikeshade said:

On 1/27/2015 Cakers1 said:

Neither side can win anything. The women are speaking out and I give them credit for doing so - just look here how some feel the women are lying and looking for $$$. It isn't easy for any woman to step up and speak the truth.

As far as Cosby, he can't prove he did/didn't do this anymore than the woman can prove he did at this late stage. Just because he isn't suing for defamation doesn't make him still guilty, although imo he is.

I think he's just letting it all slide right by him and not rattling any cages. Besides, what would he even be awarded even if he did sue them and/or win? Nothing.

Cakers....I was under the impression that if a publication or news outlet reports something that is false and it impacts their livelihood, which it definitely has, he could sue and win.

You are correct, ILikeShade. The publication would have had to know it was false or show a reckless disregard for the truth.

I think we are crossing two issues. My post was meant to address as to why Cosby isn't suing for defamation and therefore he must be guilty. I understand the responsibilities of the media.

Yes, Cakers. I agree with your points about the practicalities of this case. You are spot on. I am disturbed that the media prints 45-year-old allegations without presenting any proof. I read the article, and it's all just her story. As I said, I don't think all these women are just making it up. At the same time, it's all being reported in the absence of any proof in many cases. That's not right.

Ms X: It's story that we all see because it's Cosby. Locally I'm sure some of us have come across something similiar in our lifetime - an allegation with years on it suddenly being brought up. I can think of one back home right now.

It gets reported but the media isn't saying he's guilty? That would be a different issue. Honestly I'm not following this closely for the very reasons I stated; but I think Cosby is savvy enough to stay quiet and stay closer to his attorney for now.

My concern is for the women; names are out there and I can only imagine how difficult this must be for them. While I don't think Cosby will ever see a trial, I hope that at least part of the burden of carrying such a secret will diminish for those who have come forward.

Difficult issue all around.

[NoelSeven]

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

I'm surprised the press is putting out stories like this from 45 years ago. I tend to believe there's a problem because all these women aren't likely to be lying. However, how do they know that any given story is completely the truth? Reporters and editors are duty bound to ask for solid proof before publishing accusations such as this. It's unethical for the media to all just jump on the bandwagon of this story and print accusations without solid proof just because others have come forward.

It's not unethical at all. It would be unethical for them to NOT report it. Hiding the allegations would empower others to attempt to get away with the same thing, in fact, that was the pattern for years.

Reporters have to be careful HOW they present at story, which is why they clearly point out these reports are allegations, not verifiable fact.

That's not so, NoelSeven. They should not report something from decades ago for which no proof exists. It's not the press's job to make sure others don't try to get away with the same thing. It's their job to require proof before they print even allegations. What seems to have happened is that someone brought this out on social media (am I remembering this correctly?) and the floodgates opened. That others make charges does not make a particular unsubstantiated story more credible, it seems to me. The basic standard is that some proof of the allegations is required before publication.

You're talking about your opinion and "should".

I'm talking about professional journalism and journalistic ethics, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've been in professional journalism.

I graduated from a master's program and also have been in "professional journalism." I put out a couple of small publications on my own and would never print allegations without a shred of proof. I'd just tell them to get back in touch with me if they had anything solid to prove what they were saying. In one case, a company told me they were going to sue another company. I knew they lacked money and just told them to call me back when they filed. They never did.

Apparently you missed the journalism ethics classes. There is nothing unethical about the reporting in this case, and if there were, Cosby could be suing or at least threatening to sue.

What you do with your own publications is your business.

[Ms X]

Yes, Cakers, it is difficult, and your analysis of this is spot on once again. I agree that if he did all this he deserves every bit of suffering. I think you're right about the strategy of him and his attorneys. I do feel for the women, but, as I've said, it bothers me that they run stories with absolutely no proof. I don't know whether all the stories rely solely on the woman's statements, but it seems most do. I'm not calling them liars, but there are standards, and without proof I just don't think it meets the standards.

[Ms X]

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

I'm surprised the press is putting out stories like this from 45 years ago. I tend to believe there's a problem because all these women aren't likely to be lying. However, how do they know that any given story is completely the truth? Reporters and editors are duty bound to ask for solid proof before publishing accusations such as this. It's unethical for the media to all just jump on the bandwagon of this story and print accusations without solid proof just because others have come forward.

It's not unethical at all. It would be unethical for them to NOT report it. Hiding the allegations would empower others to attempt to get away with the same thing, in fact, that was the pattern for years.

Reporters have to be careful HOW they present at story, which is why they clearly point out these reports are allegations, not verifiable fact.

That's not so, NoelSeven. They should not report something from decades ago for which no proof exists. It's not the press's job to make sure others don't try to get away with the same thing. It's their job to require proof before they print even allegations. What seems to have happened is that someone brought this out on social media (am I remembering this correctly?) and the floodgates opened. That others make charges does not make a particular unsubstantiated story more credible, it seems to me. The basic standard is that some proof of the allegations is required before publication.

You're talking about your opinion and "should".

I'm talking about professional journalism and journalistic ethics, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've been in professional journalism.

I graduated from a master's program and also have been in "professional journalism." I put out a couple of small publications on my own and would never print allegations without a shred of proof. I'd just tell them to get back in touch with me if they had anything solid to prove what they were saying. In one case, a company told me they were going to sue another company. I knew they lacked money and just told them to call me back when they filed. They never did.

Apparently you missed the journalism ethics classes. There is nothing unethical about the reporting in this case, and if there were, Cosby could be suing or at least threatening to sue.

What you do with your own publications is your business.

Why such nastiness? I suppose I could have said the same to you, but I won't. Again, whether the subject of accusations will sue is a separate issue from the issue of standards, i.e., requiring some solid proof before running a story such as this.

[NoelSeven]

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

I'm surprised the press is putting out stories like this from 45 years ago. I tend to believe there's a problem because all these women aren't likely to be lying. However, how do they know that any given story is completely the truth? Reporters and editors are duty bound to ask for solid proof before publishing accusations such as this. It's unethical for the media to all just jump on the bandwagon of this story and print accusations without solid proof just because others have come forward.

It's not unethical at all. It would be unethical for them to NOT report it. Hiding the allegations would empower others to attempt to get away with the same thing, in fact, that was the pattern for years.

Reporters have to be careful HOW they present at story, which is why they clearly point out these reports are allegations, not verifiable fact.

That's not so, NoelSeven. They should not report something from decades ago for which no proof exists. It's not the press's job to make sure others don't try to get away with the same thing. It's their job to require proof before they print even allegations. What seems to have happened is that someone brought this out on social media (am I remembering this correctly?) and the floodgates opened. That others make charges does not make a particular unsubstantiated story more credible, it seems to me. The basic standard is that some proof of the allegations is required before publication.

You're talking about your opinion and "should".

I'm talking about professional journalism and journalistic ethics, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've been in professional journalism.

I graduated from a master's program and also have been in "professional journalism." I put out a couple of small publications on my own and would never print allegations without a shred of proof. I'd just tell them to get back in touch with me if they had anything solid to prove what they were saying. In one case, a company told me they were going to sue another company. I knew they lacked money and just told them to call me back when they filed. They never did.

Apparently you missed the journalism ethics classes. There is nothing unethical about the reporting in this case, and if there were, Cosby could be suing or at least threatening to sue.

What you do with your own publications is your business.

Why such nastiness? I suppose I could have said the same to you, but I won't. Again, whether the subject of accusations will sue is a separate issue from the issue of standards, i.e., requiring some solid proof before running a story such as this.

I'm not being nasty. You seem not to know the first thing about journalistic standards. Not everyone does.

No, proof is not needed in order to bring a story to light. We see that every day in crime reporting.

[Ms X]

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

On 1/27/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 1/27/2015 Ms X said:

I'm surprised the press is putting out stories like this from 45 years ago. I tend to believe there's a problem because all these women aren't likely to be lying. However, how do they know that any given story is completely the truth? Reporters and editors are duty bound to ask for solid proof before publishing accusations such as this. It's unethical for the media to all just jump on the bandwagon of this story and print accusations without solid proof just because others have come forward.

It's not unethical at all. It would be unethical for them to NOT report it. Hiding the allegations would empower others to attempt to get away with the same thing, in fact, that was the pattern for years.

Reporters have to be careful HOW they present at story, which is why they clearly point out these reports are allegations, not verifiable fact.

That's not so, NoelSeven. They should not report something from decades ago for which no proof exists. It's not the press's job to make sure others don't try to get away with the same thing. It's their job to require proof before they print even allegations. What seems to have happened is that someone brought this out on social media (am I remembering this correctly?) and the floodgates opened. That others make charges does not make a particular unsubstantiated story more credible, it seems to me. The basic standard is that some proof of the allegations is required before publication.

You're talking about your opinion and "should".

I'm talking about professional journalism and journalistic ethics, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've been in professional journalism.

I graduated from a master's program and also have been in "professional journalism." I put out a couple of small publications on my own and would never print allegations without a shred of proof. I'd just tell them to get back in touch with me if they had anything solid to prove what they were saying. In one case, a company told me they were going to sue another company. I knew they lacked money and just told them to call me back when they filed. They never did.

Apparently you missed the journalism ethics classes. There is nothing unethical about the reporting in this case, and if there were, Cosby could be suing or at least threatening to sue.

What you do with your own publications is your business.

Why such nastiness? I suppose I could have said the same to you, but I won't. Again, whether the subject of accusations will sue is a separate issue from the issue of standards, i.e., requiring some solid proof before running a story such as this.

I'm not being nasty. You seem not to know the first thing about journalistic standards. Not everyone does.

No, proof is not needed in order to bring a story to light. We see that every day in crime reporting.

That is entirely different. Crime reporting relies on public records such as police reports and court proceedings. That is a totally different thing that someone who says she was raped 45 years ago but never went to the police and offers nothing but her story. I'm not saying she's lying. If they filed a lawsuit or Cosby filed one, it would certainly be newsworthy.