OT - Gottlieb being Gottlieb

[BigErnMcCracken]

Gottlieb was, is, and always will be a piece of human garbage. I feel dumber just for having to take the time to type out his name. Can't believe anyone would show up here to defend him, this should have been the easiest thread to get unanimous agreement on

Businesslawyer's actually making a pretty uncontroversial point.

 

[Get a Job]

Not to be a lawyer on this, didn't see where he said "unknowingly". That is lot different than saying "the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms." after the fact in response to the law suit.

Also, he never said that he didn't know at the time of the tweet that it was false or didn't recklessly disregard information (or easily accessed information like calling up to confirm with the people involved) that would show it was false.

Fair enough. I take back that he "categorically" stated that he "unknowingly" passed on false information. I maintain, however, just like @businesslawyer and @fleudslipcon are saying, that Gottlieb is clearly implying that he didn't know it was false when he tweeted it.

"Upon further vetting of my sources, a review of the lawsuit filed against me in this matter and a direct conversation with Casey himself, I have learned that the conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did," Gottlieb wrote. "My ultimate investigation into this matter confirms that Casey Close did, in fact, communicate all offers to Freddie Freeman and the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms."

If the bolded text does not unequivocally indicate that he now knows something he didn't know before, I don't know what does.

Now, to repeat, I am not defending Gottlieb. He might be completely lying. I don't really care. I am just defending my reading comprehension.

 

[navery12]

Businesslawyer's actually making a pretty uncontroversial point.

Strong disagree there. I don't find Doug Gottlieb being a slimeball and Doug Gottlieb knowingly or unknowingly reporting a false story to be mutually exclusive. I think that's just another bullet point on the growing list of issues with Doug Gottlieb and is a perfect representation of who he is

 

[Get a Job]

The level of irrationality and people misrepresenting other people's words on this thread is approaching that of the infamous Diarra Brothers thread.

 

[Skiblets]

I thought he fired Close?

Not according to the article

‘Gottlieb also tweeted on June 29 that Freeman had fired Close. However, Excel remains Freeman's listed agency, according to the players' association’

 

[Skiblets]

Fair enough. I take back that he "categorically" stated that he "unknowingly" passed on false information. I maintain, however, just like @businesslawyer and @fleudslipcon are saying, that Gottlieb is clearly implying that he didn't know it was false when he tweeted it.

"Upon further vetting of my sources, a review of the lawsuit filed against me in this matter and a direct conversation with Casey himself, I have learned that the conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did," Gottlieb wrote. "My ultimate investigation into this matter confirms that Casey Close did, in fact, communicate all offers to Freddie Freeman and the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms."

If the bolded text does not unequivocally indicate that he now knows something he didn't know before, I don't know what does.

Now, to repeat, I am not defending Gottlieb. He might be completely lying. I don't really care. I am just defending my reading comprehension.

Gottlieb had the chance to check with his sources after the tweets but before the lawsuit was filed. He did nothing. That statement is garbage written by lawyers to cover his az

 

[navery12]

I thought he fired Close?

Not according to the article

‘Gottlieb also tweeted on June 29 that Freeman had fired Close. However, Excel remains Freeman's listed agency, according to the players' association’

Freeman is listed as self represented in the database

MLB Player Agency Database

www.mlbtraderumors.com

 

[superjohn]

I have said repeatedly that he may or may not be a slimeball. My only point is that he was called a slimeball based on a story that did not support that conclusion. You have made my point exactly, though, so thank you very much. You don't like the guy, so it's o.k. to assume that anything negative said about him is true. Well done.

A lot of people who are taking umbrage with what you've said are making your point.

I dislike the guy but from what's said in the article he isn't admitting he's a Stephen Glass or Jayson Blair. If we're going to go after everyone in media for getting stories wrong there won't be anyone left from the most prestigious publications down to the ones with no reputation...they get things wrong all the time. Much of it has to do with the changed landscape, it's all about being first now instead of taking your time and doing real journalism.

 

[Get a Job]

Gottlieb had the chance to check with his sources after the tweets but before the lawsuit was filed. He did nothing. That statement is garbage written by lawyers to cover his az

That's fine. Remember this all started with @NJHusky's contention that the quotes in the article can ONLY be interpreted to be an admission that Gottlieb KNOWINGLY tweeted a falsehood. I believe I and others have clearly shown NJHusky's contention to be wrong. The actual facts of what happened are irrelevant. The only things pertinent to my argument are the words from NJHusky's post and the words from the ESPN article.

 

[Skiblets]

Freeman is listed as self represented in the database

MLB Player Agency Database

www.mlbtraderumors.com

Than I stand corrected. Was quoting the ESPN article

 

[Husky68]

Fair enough. I take back that he "categorically" stated that he "unknowingly" passed on false information. I maintain, however, just like @businesslawyer and @fleudslipcon are saying, that Gottlieb is clearly implying that he didn't know it was false when he tweeted it.

"Upon further vetting of my sources, a review of the lawsuit filed against me in this matter and a direct conversation with Casey himself, I have learned that the conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did," Gottlieb wrote. "My ultimate investigation into this matter confirms that Casey Close did, in fact, communicate all offers to Freddie Freeman and the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms."

If the bolded text does not unequivocally indicate that he now knows something he didn't know before, I don't know what does.

Now, to repeat, I am not defending Gottlieb. He might be completely lying. I don't really care. I am just defending my reading comprehension.

Of course he now knows something he didn't know before, he knows his butt is getting sued, he got to talk to the horses mouth; even a crazy acting guy like him would not say something that would imply he knew it was false at the time he tweeted it.

As BL would say "his comments talk to after getting sued 'further vetting' and 'I have learned' but not what he originally based his allegations on.

Glad I'm not a lawyer, I'd never get past "what does that phrase mean".

 

[ctchamps]

Gottlieb was, is, and always will be a piece of human garbage. I feel dumber just for having to take the time to type out his name. Can't believe anyone would show up here to defend him, this should have been the easiest thread to get unanimous agreement on

Who is defending him? @businesslawyer is making a point that one article as written is not adequate to come to a conclusion about Gottlieb. It’s a good argument to make even if Gottlieb is a poor example to apply that argument. The examples you and others are making about Gottlieb are the basis for @Skiblets conclusion in the first post. But it’s important to realize that Gottlieb and his behavior is not universally known even by Boneyarders.

@Get a Job and I are taking issue with @NJHusky for resorting to a tactic to choose a part of a quote and selectively omit the remainder of the quote which would undermine his conclusion. It’s the type of sleazy methods many of us don’t like about Gottlieb.

 

[navery12]

Who is defending him? @businesslawyer is making a point that one article as written is not adequate to come to a conclusion about Gottlieb. It’s a good argument to make even if Gottlieb is a poor example to apply that argument. The examples you and others are making about Gottlieb are the basis for @Skiblets conclusion in the first post. But it’s important to realize that Gottlieb and his behavior is not universally known even by Boneyarders.

@Get a Job and I are taking issue with @NJHusky for resorting to a tactic to choose a part of a quote and selectively omit the remainder of the quote which would undermine his conclusion. It’s the type of sleazy methods many of us don’t like about Gottlieb.

Fair enough, maybe defending him wasn't the right way to phrase it. And you make a good point that not everyone may be familiar with Gottlieb and the background to why he elicits this reaction. I just thought this would be a time where everyone could universally call out what was clearly bad journalism on his part.

On its own I can see where you and businesslawyer are coming from, I just don't view this as a one off instance when he's built his whole media career off doing similar things

 

[CallMeBruce]

Are we allowed to be fair? I know nothing about this story other than what Skiblets linked, but is a broadcaster/reporter a slimeball because they get a story wrong? Wouldn't we need to know whether he believed that what he said was true, and whether it was reasonable to have such a belief based on where he got the story from, to speak badly of him? Because if the standard for reporters was "be right 100% of the time," no one would ever break a story.

He made it up. Gottlieb is an absolute scumbag and always has been.

 

[Rico444]

Who is defending him? @businesslawyer is making a point that one article as written is not adequate to come to a conclusion about Gottlieb. It’s a good argument to make even if Gottlieb is a poor example to apply that argument.

Yes, but those of us bashing Gottlieb are not making the determination off of this one article.

 

[ctchamps]

Fair enough, maybe defending him wasn't the right way to phrase it. And you make a good point that not everyone may be familiar with Gottlieb and the background to why he elicits this reaction. I just thought this would be a time where everyone could universally call out what was clearly bad journalism on his part

If anything businesslawyer’s generalized concern created a reaction that did more to allow people to become familiar with the negatives of Gottlieb than otherwise would have happened if Skiblets wasn’t challenged.

 

[Get a Job]

This will be my last post on the topic, because, really, this is getting silly. I just want to clarify one last time that I don't disagree with (or at least I'm not taking a position on) a single word in this thread other than post #7. The poster said that there can only be one interpretation about a quote, and, not only are there clearly at least two interpretations, but his interpretation is wrong.

 

[Skiblets]

This will be my last post on the topic, because, really, this is getting silly. I just want to clarify one last time that I don't disagree with (or at least I'm not taking a position on) a single word in this thread other than post #7. The poster said that there can only be one interpretation about a quote, and, not only are there clearly at least two interpretations, but his interpretation is wrong.

 

[uconngb]

I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that he unknowingly reported false info.

i just dislike Gottlieb. BLawyer got me there. But it does appear that he didn't distinguish himself here. Which is his track record (factually)

 

[ctchamps]

Yes, but those of us bashing Gottlieb are not making the determination off of this one article.

Never said you you were. Read my first post in this thread. My primary issue has been with the method one poster has chosen to support your position.

My secondary issue was supporting a poster who was being misunderstood about his position. Businesslawyer was never defending Gottlieb. No one in this thread is.

 

[navery12]

If anything businesslawyer’s generalized concern created a reaction that did more to allow people to become familiar with the negatives of Gottlieb than otherwise would have happened if Skiblets wasn’t challenged.

Fair enough, if that's the case I'm glad he did it. More people need to be aware

 

[businesslawyer]

He either made up what he tweeted or passed along what he was told without doing any kind of digging to see if it's true. At the absolute best he showed laziness and slopiness, but like @huskyjawz said he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt due to his long past of doing incredibly shady things, like when he stole his roommate's credit card back in college.

That's just not true as a matter of what reporting is. Sometimes even good reporters dig, and get evidence that they know is less than metaphysical proof but is enough to convince them it probably is true and the story is worth reporting, and then they turn out to be wrong. Stuff happens. If you only want reporters to report what is metaphysically true, all they will do is report what public actors tell them happened in press releases and is o.k. to report. We wouldn't have ever gotten to the bottom of Watergate, as just one example.

 

[businesslawyer]

Not to be a lawyer on this, didn't see where he said "unknowingly". That is lot different than saying "the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms." after the fact in response to the law suit.

Also, he never said that he didn't know at the time of the tweet that it was false or didn't recklessly disregard information (or easily accessed information like calling up to confirm with the people involved) that would show it was false.

So if I break that down into its Carrolian logical components, you have concluded that because he didn't make the statement you would have liked to see if he didn't do anything wrong, therefore he did something wrong. Logic doesn't work that way.

 

[businesslawyer]

Problem is in this age of social media is that being first is more important than being right when reporting things.

This. And this is the case because it's what the consumers of news -- the American public -- want.

 

[businesslawyer]

Gottlieb was, is, and always will be a piece of human garbage. I feel dumber just for having to take the time to type out his name. Can't believe anyone would show up here to defend him, this should have been the easiest thread to get unanimous agreement on

Seriously, what is wrong with some of you? You really can't understand the difference between defending someone and pointing out that the accuser drew a conclusion from an article that didn't support it? The only reason it's difficult is it gets back to the only reason I posted in the first place -- America seems to have decided that if you don't like someone any attack on him is valid, and if you do like someone no attack on him is valid. Truth then stops being important. Keep it up my friends, but don't be surprised when it takes our country over a cliff one day.