- Joined
- Aug 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,962
- Reaction Score
- 18,588
What a slime ball Radio host admits false claim on Freeman talks
Not when it comes to GottliebAre 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.
America in 2022 in a nutshell. If we don't like someone, everything they do is terrible and if we do like someone, everything they do is o.k.Not when it comes to Gottlieb
A slime ball vs A reporterAre 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.
I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that he unknowingly reported false info.When Gottlieb himself says
“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”
He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.
Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
I'm not a Gottlieb fan but the full quote supports @businesslawyer's contention.When Gottlieb himself says
“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”
He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.
Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
Exactly. NJHusky is employing a method that some in this thread find distasteful in Gottlieb.I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that the unknowingly reported false info.
I will add we may not believe in the sincerity or accuracy of Gottlieb's statement, he may not even have sources for all we know, but our opinions are different than trying to distort statements to support our opinions when those statements can easily be disproven.I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that the unknowingly reported false info.
Indeed. I was merely commenting on the meaning of the words on the page.I will add we may not believe in the sincerity or accuracy of Gottlieb's statement, he may not even have sources for all we know, but our opinions are different than trying to distort statements to support our opinions when those statements can easily be disproven.
I know.Indeed. I was merely commenting on the meaning of the words on the page.
Absolutely disagree that your interpretation is the only way to read it. Stating "that there is no credible basis" is very different than stating "at the time I reported it there was no credible basis." It is an admission that now, at the present time, he knows there would be no basis for reporting the story. I don't see how you can conclude from that that he knew at the time there was no credible basis. The words he used now were vetted by lawyers as part of the settlement. They were selected carefully.When Gottlieb himself says
“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”
He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.
Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
This. As I keep saying, Gottlieb may be a slimeball and he may have made it up. But nothing in the linked article requires that conclusion.I will add we may not believe in the sincerity or accuracy of Gottlieb's statement, he may not even have sources for all we know, but our opinions are different than trying to distort statements to support our opinions when those statements can easily be disproven.
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.
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.Gottlieb has shown time and time again that he doesn't have much integrity. I get that you aren't familiar with the guy or this story, but I would recommend you do some reading before attacking other users for calling the guy out for being a piece of garbage.
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.
It's not like this is the first time the guy ever made a mistake and is being labeled a slimeball for it.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.
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.I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that he unknowingly reported false info.
He’s slime.
Has a history of slime and used his bully Twitter pulpit to post not one but two defamatory tweets against a baseball agent with a pretty respectable track record.
He was asked to delete the tweets. He didn’t.
Agent and his agency file a lawsuit and all of a sudden Doug goes ahem, back to his ‘sources’ and finds the information to be false.
He could have done this research after the agent protested and before the lawsuit was filed. He did nothing. Only until he saw a messy lawsuit and big $$ losses coming did he check with his ‘sources’ and back down. He’s slime
It should be noted the Freeman still has the same agent.