My mistake, I may misunderstood. I got the impression that they were dropping her case because her past being dragged out into the spotlight throught the media's double standard of reporting created what they felt was an unwnnable situation,It does not say that at all.
Maybe you wrote what you meant incorrectly. It does say that the law firm thinks that there is a double standard but never states that as their reason to drop her.
The headline is in fact accurate, I don't think I ever called that into question, but if what you're saying is correct the headline has nothing to do with the story. You, me and everyone else knows that title leads someone to think that the accuser is without merit.Whether inadvertently or intentionally, you basically did what you're mocking that headline for doing. Except that headline is accurate.
Generally when someone says that a headline is "click bait" it's because you're saying that it's hyperbolic at the very least... This headline was "Joe Biden accuser Reade let go by lawyer" which is exactly what happened.Can you please point to me where I said that headline wasn't factually correct?
“What’s your experience specifically with respect to domestic violence?” Monterey County Deputy District Attorney Robin Duffy asked Reade during a trial in California early last year, according to a transcript of the testimony.
“Well,” Reade responded, “I worked originally for former U.S. senator Joseph Biden as a legislative aide. He worked on the Violence Against Women Act.”
In the January 2019 testimony, Reade seemed to praise what Biden started as a U.S. senator, saying that “going way back to my former boss, Joe Biden,” there has been a “movement” to “take the onus off the victim” by encouraging neighbors or other associates of victims to report domestic violence to authorities.
She also cited Biden and the Violence Against Women Act during testimony in October last year, six months after she first publicly accused Biden of inappropriately touching her nearly two decades ago, limiting her complaints then to allegations he stroked her neck and twirled her curly hair between his fingers.
In addition, defense attorneys are reportedly now trying to determine if the transcripts show she provided false testimony about her credentials.
But, according to Antioch University officials, some of what Reade told the judges was not true.
"Alexandra McCabe attended but did not graduate from Antioch University,” the school’s spokeswoman, Karen Hamilton, said in a statement to ABC News.
In fact, according to one source familiar with the matter, Reade attended the equivalent of just one year of school at Antioch University in 2000 – a fraction of what’s usually required to earn a degree.
If proven false, Reade’s claims – under oath – could amount to a crime.
In several press releases announcing convictions over the years, prosecutors have repeatedly described Reade’s testimony as “critical” to their cases. The district attorney’s office is now reviewing the matter, and defense lawyers from many of trials are now looking to reopen their clients’ cases, according to the New York Times.
The details of Reade’s education may not have been her only overstatements while testifying in court – she repeatedly testified that she was a “legislative assistant” in Biden’s office.
In her October 2019 testimony seven months ago, she even suggested she was involved in moving Biden’s key legislation along.
“On the Violence Against Women Act, I was a legislative assistant and did research in that office,” she said, according to a transcript of her testimony.
In January 2019, she testified that she worked for Biden “as a legislative aide” – the same title she used to describe her position in at least four personal essays posted online.
“When you work as a legislative aide, you research the overarching issue of what the policy is or the law is they're trying to enact,” she said in court. “So I was reading and studying before and going to hearings and things like that.”
But, in fact, government records show Reade was a “staff assistant” on Biden’s team – a lower position than a “legislative aide.”
Reade seemed to acknowledge the difference in a podcast interview two months ago, when she said she “worked for legislative aides” on Biden’s staff.
“Pretty low on the totem pole,” she said of her position at the time. “I was working with the interns. So I supervised the intern program, and made sure all the mail was distributed where it was supposed to [be].”
When assisting legislative aides, she “would help go to a hearing and take notes, or write something,” she added.
I mean it in the literal sense that it's intended to generate clicks above all else. In my opinion when you give an article that kind of title and them don't bother to report why the client was let go, you've definitely entered that territory.Generally when someone says that a headline is "click bait" it's because you're saying that it's hyperbolic at the very least... This headline was "Joe Biden accuser Reade let go by lawyer" which is exactly what happened.
The Republican Party has thrown its full weight behind challenging California’s move to a mail-ballot November election during the coronavirus pandemic.
A lawsuit from the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the California Republican Party seeks to invalidate Gov. Gavin Newsom’s order that county election officials mail every registered California voter a ballot. While Newsom and California election overseers have said the switch is necessary to balance public health with civic participation, opponents argue that Newsom has overstepped his authority.
About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.
“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”
Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.
News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.
To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.
This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.
More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.
On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.
The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.
There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.
Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”
It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!
Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.
Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.
But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.
Mr. Sauter was president of CBS News, 1982-83 and 1986.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.Christ.
we are literally living in the film idiocracy.