"The View": Week of 11/24/14

[Wings]

shok, on 27 Nov 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:

 

 

I think abortion should be legal and affordable in every state. I think we shouldn't have "rich" and "poor" school districts; I think we should gather the tax money for schools and distribute it equally. I think pot should be legalized. I support gay rights; I'm against any form of gay discrimination. I think the Freedom Riders were among the bravest and most admirable people who ever walked this earth. I support Affirmative Action. I support the Dream Act; I wish Congress would get off its ass and do something for the millions who lost the gene lottery by being born into poverty elsewhere but contribute to our society every day. I can't imagine what it must be like to leave your home and everything familiar because there is no other way to feed your children and provide for them. As for my feeling white privilege or being a right-winger? No.  

 

I think I've provided a sufficient snapshot of who I am, and who I am not. I, too, have immersed myself for hours in both document dumps and will spend many more hours until I'm finished. 

 

This situation would not be what it is today if not for the initial false narrative. "Unarmed" is not synonomous with following a peace officer's commands to stop and to surrender. "Unarmed" is not synonomous with non-combative. The initial narrative was that MB was shot in the back and that the officer then stood over MB and fired his last rounds into MB's head. Those falsehoods among others in the initial narrative are what whipped people into the frenzy we see today. MB's blood inside the vehicle supports DW's account. The blood trail and the position of the shell casings supports DW's account. From many of the interviews and much of the GJ testimony we know that DW fired when MB advanced at a run, backing up as he was firing. When MB paused, DW ceased firing. When MB resumed his advance DW resumed firing and continued to back up, trying to maintain distance between them. At the end of his advance MB dropped within six feet of DW, which is well inside an officer's "danger zone" of twenty one feet. And if that is not fighting the law I don't know what is.

 

Should DW have allowed MB to fire the gun when MB forced it into DW's hip? Should DW have allowed MB to overrun him outside the vehicle? Why? Giving up or giving in is dereliction of duty. If MB had killed DW it would have been merely a blip on Main Stream Media's radar because it is such a common occurrence. Where is the justice in that? I believe that there are valid cases based on race which merit worldwide attention but I am not the least bit convinced that this is one of them.

 

 

Thundering applause and standing ovation!

[Morbs]

Rosie accused ABC News of paying for the interview on her Twitter.  Unnamed sources are telling different blogs they did, she may be right.

[Dissy]

I wanted to see today's show but it isn't being shown on the west coast. Please snark away.

[Medicine Crow]

When RosieO was talking about upsetting feuds, was she referring to The Donald?  I wasn't sure.

[Lava VaVoom]

yes, she was

[Former Nun]

Today's show (in AZ) was broadcast an hour early because of football.  I would have missed it if my reliable little DVR weren't smarter and more efficient than I.

[CMH1981]

So what are the odds that Rosie O will bring up the possibility (unless it's been proven currently) that ABC News paid Darren Wilson for that interview next week?  I kind of want her to bring it up, but i'm afraid if she does that they could dismiss or suspend her from the show for it.  I know it's a known fact that most exclusive interviews are paid for (and yes Barbara Walters they are; just b/c you didn't get an interview, all that means is ABC wouldn't pony up the money for your decrepit ass to ask someone what kind of tree they would be), but not many people know about that and w/the protests and everything this could blow up in ABC's face.  I'm sure they weren't the only network who offered up money for that interview of course.  So what do we think, do we think Rosie O will go there?

 

I liked today's show, it felt like a very relaxing panel today.  Was it pre-taped?  How in the world did Whoopi not know about the Rosie O / Trump feud that still seems to go on b/c Trump is an horse's ass.

[Wings]

I don't see why it matters if networks pay for interviews or not.  It doesn't change the information.  

[marny]

I thought it was very sweet when Nicolle got teary- eyed talking about her mother and how great she is. It's nice seeing her sincerity when she talks about her family. It's much more enjoyable than Bitsy pretending her children ask profound patriotic questions, or Sherri telling mortifying stories about her son getting a boner when he sees pretty girls.

[CMH1981]

 

I was enjoying watching Rosie O's face when she tossed her hair like she did that day she took on Trump, that I guess I didn't hear Whoopie say she didn't know about it.I was trying to remember that day - Joy tried to get them to go to commecial and the rest was Bitsy and Rosie. Was Sherri guest hosting that day?  It's all a blur...

 

Well the day of the start of the Rosie vs Trump and then the Rosie vs Bitsy (where Joy kept begging them to go to commercial and the Geddie refused to) were two separate shows.  Today Rosie was referencing Trump and their long-standing feud (more on Trumps part at this point b/c he can't let things go), not Bitsy.  

 

I wonder if Rosie O's veiled reference to Trump will stir things up again w/him?

[Morbs]

I don't see why it matters if networks pay for interviews or not.  It doesn't change the information.

Because criminals benefit financially from their crimes.  ABC paid for Casey Anthony's legal bills basically.  It's fucked up.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Morbs

[Wings]

Because criminals benefit financially from their crimes.  ABC paid for Casey Anthony's legal bills basically.  It's fucked up.

 

 

Ah ha. Didn't think about that.  Darren Wilson is not a criminal from where I sit.  

[Dissy]

 

I don't see why it matters if networks pay for interviews or not.  It doesn't change the information.

Actually it can change the information. In the past journalists didn't pay for stories because of ethical reasons. One of those reasons is that a person can dramatize, sensationalize or even lie about their story as a way to squeeze more money. That can cause the interview to be seen as unreliable.

The other reason is creating a market for bigger and more dramatic incidents that can be taken advantage of by some.

Unfortunately, most broadcast journalism is now bought and paid for.

[Morbs]

Ah ha. Didn't think about that.  Darren Wilson is not a criminal from where I sit.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply he was,  I'm pretty fuzzy and grey when it comes to Ferguson.  But in general, journalists shouldn't pay for stories because it can support criminals (like a serial getting a movie deal to tell the stories of his crimes, we have laws to prevent this) or just lead to bad information (people looking for a payday so they make stuff up).  So it's just fucked up that ABC News continues to do it and then denies it.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Morbs

[CMH1981]

Does ABC News deny paying for interviews, or was that just what Barbara Walters said?  Like I mentioned up-thread I think when Babs said that they don't pay for interviews it was to save face b/c ABC didn't pony up enough for the interview.  They can then throw shade at the other network who put the winning bid in for the interview.  I could see a network news dept refusing to comment on paying for interviews, then you have Babs going rogue like that.

[Morbs]

They released some statements in 2011 saying they would stop checkbook journalism and no longer pay for any licensing fees to get exclusives, but it doesn't seem like that was the truth.  It always really bothered me when BW made those claims because I knew she was lying.  They didn't actually pay for the sitdown, but they would pay for like the use of images or videos, and BW just thinks she can get away with saying they don't pay for stories because we the audience are so, so stupid.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Morbs

[athousandclowns]

What the heck there was a show today? My dvr did not tape it nor is it on demand. Darn I love it if Rosie slams dump truck again as I hate DT and can not stand  anyone who kisses is over inflated ass.

[bannana]

Well the day of the start of the Rosie vs Trump and then the Rosie vs Bitsy (where Joy kept begging them to go to commercial and the Geddie refused to) were two separate shows.  Today Rosie was referencing Trump and their long-standing feud (more on Trumps part at this point b/c he can't let things go), not Bitsy.  

 

I wonder if Rosie O's veiled reference to Trump will stir things up again w/him?

I bet it will.  I didn't see this ep, and would like to understand how this came up.  Thanks--if you can provide insight.

[TribbleTrouble]

Does ABC News deny paying for interviews, or was that just what Barbara Walters said? Like I mentioned up-thread I think when Babs said that they don't pay for interviews it was to save face b/c ABC didn't pony up enough for the interview. They can then throw shade at the other network who put the winning bid in for the interview. I could see a network news dept refusing to comment on paying for interviews, then you have Babs going rogue like that.

Brian Stelter, CNN's senior media correspondent (he reports on the media) says ABC News flatly denies paying for interviews and that they did not pay anything, licensing or otherwise, for the DW interview. He said he'd been following up on the rumor for days and had so far found no evidence to contradict ABC's statement. Obviously that's still pretty far from definitive proof, but as far as I know Stelter is reasonably reliable.

[CathinAZ]

Thought I had heard somewhere in the past that while most reputable news organizations will not "pay for interviews" some get around it by paying the interviewees a (size able) fee for using family photos, or access to written diaries, etc. they may also pay for flying the interviewee and whoever else he/she wants to come along first class, putting them up in a nice hotel, full room service, covering cost of a 'business related' shopping trip for clothes, etc. to wear for interview, etc. - the contract to cover all this could included a non disclosure clause so details are not made public. So it can be a matter of semantics where a network is able to say correctly they do not pay FOR AN INTERVIEW, As described so well in posts above, paying for interviews would lead to untruths, embellishments, etc.

Trump has another apprentice "reality' show that will air in 2015, so it will be interesting to see how the show is advertised on The View. He really is a vile, pompous, publicity seeking piece of crap! Didn't he publically say he though Bitsy was stupid and the months later Bitsy was smiling and taking photos and chatting with him like he never publically slammed her?

Edited November 29, 2014 by CathInAZ

[RogerFromOhio]

Ah ha. Didn't think about that.  Darren Wilson is not a criminal from where I sit.  

It is illegal to shoot at someone who is running away unless they are danger to someone or committed a felony..... that ignored fact alone made Darren Wilson a criminal

 

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/27/7298711/ferguson-grand-jury-mistake

[Wings]

Why RoseO decided to stoop to respond to Trump is beyond me.  He is not worth it.  Ignoring is the best approach to idiots.  And Trump?  Are you nuts to have stooped so low to respond to RosieO and slam her appearance?  I forgot who threw the first jab!  They are both guilty of being assholes.  

[Stacee]

Rosie O then said she regretted engaging with assholes via social media. And she did one of those "just saying'" looks and looked directly in the camera ... you know, with a "you know who I mean" kind of look. It was very very funny. And she started fussing with her hair, kind of doing a comb-over swirl of her hair with her hands. 

LOL. 

Thanks for explaining. Sounds like it was indeed funny. 

[imjagain]

The funny thing about the fued was Rosie was never putting down Miss whatever. She was actually defending her, saying she was a girl and made mistakes. She said something like who is Donald Trump to make this girl grovel at his feet for forgivenes. And did bring all past troubles. I always found it strange that it got twisted and the media ran with RO picks on Miss whatever and Trump defended her.

Edited November 29, 2014 by imjagain

[TribbleTrouble]

It is illegal to shoot at someone who is running away unless they are danger to someone or committed a felony..... that ignored fact alone made Darren Wilson a criminal

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/27/7298711/ferguson-grand-jury-mistake

I thought so as well, and I think Wilson's statement was very carefully crafted to avoid the appearance of an unconstitutional shoot. If you believe Wilson's account that Brown not only assaulted him inside the vehicle but also *tried to take his gun*, then I think that rises to the level of felony assault of a police officer, thus legally justifying his wildly shooting off 12 rounds at a fleeing unarmed teen in the middle of a residential neighborhood, completely missing his target with at least half of those shots. A simple punch, even on a police officer, is only a misdemeanor assault. But try to take his gun during that assault and that changes the ball game. Personally, I find Wilson's clearly coached account to the GJ extremely non-credible in a number of ways. Hopefully someday there will be a federal and/or civil trial where someone will speak for the victim (the way the prosecutor should have but did not) and cross-examine Wilson about some of the deep flaws in his account.

[Wings]

I think this is a done deal.  No one, who can, will push for Wilson to be prosecuted.  The good that will come out of this the alert to police that their jobs are on the line.  Wilson is "quitting" but I sense this was a department decision and they are allowing him to "quit."  I am not convinced he is guilty but that doesn't matter.  This has been discussed into the ground and the 2 sides are holding their ground.  And some of us are in the middle and just not sure. 

Edited November 29, 2014 by wings707

[ginger90]

I would think he'd have to resign. It would be for his safety and the safety of his fellow officers, I'd think. It's not like he can be reassigned. where would they put him?

[TribbleTrouble]

I would think he'd have to resign. It would be for his safety and the safety of his fellow officers, I'd think. It's not like he can be reassigned. where would they put him?

He resigned today saying it was the hardest thing he'd ever had to do. So resigning is harder than taking a human life? Good to know. Sigh. smdh

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson-resigns-the-hardest-thing-ive-ever-had-to-do/

[Wings]

I would think he'd have to resign. It would be for his safety and the safety of his fellow officers, I'd think. It's not like he can be reassigned. where would they put him?

 

 

Yes, I agree. 

[Medicine Crow]

Yes, I agree. 

I know this is absolutely none of my business, but I just have to say that if what we've read is true, Wilson has close to a million bucks in his jeans, so he can go anywhere he (& his new little wife) want.  JMHO.

[buffynut]

I thought it was wonderful. It made my day. Unfortunately, it's now online that Rosie "dissed" Trump and will he retaliate, etc., etc. 

I didn't even remember the details as to why she mocked him in the first place, but didn't care. I detest Trump.

Google doesn't show any response from Trump (yet), but I did find this: 

http://www.thewrap.com/abc-the-views-rosie-odonnell-reignites-feud-with-donald-trump-video/

[Wings]

I know this is absolutely none of my business, but I just have to say that if what we've read is true, Wilson has close to a million bucks in his jeans, so he can go anywhere he (& his new little wife) want.  JMHO.

 

A million?  Really? I didn't read this and find that hard to believe, don't you?   wow

[Medicine Crow]

A million?  Really? I didn't read this and find that hard to believe, don't you?   wow

Just Google "Darren Wilson a millionaire" & read for yourself.  I'm just sayin'.

[Wings]

Just Google "Darren Wilson a millionaire" & read for yourself.  I'm just sayin'.

 

ok

 

ETA:  These are from donations, not paid interviews. That is what I originally thought.   I am not surprised that he has supporters who are helping financially.  It happens with many in the news when the story touches others.  

 

I am not convinced he is guilty nor am I that he is innocent.  

Edited November 30, 2014 by wings707

[Medicine Crow]

ok

 

ETA:  These are from donations, not paid interviews. That is what I originally thought.   I am not surprised that he has supporters who are helping financially.  It happens with many in the news when the story touches others.  

 

I am not convinced he is guilty nor am I that he is innocent.  

Donations, payments for interviews, does not negate the fact that money ends up in his jeans.

 

With respect to whether he's guilty or innocent, I don't think we'll ever know the REAL story of what happened.  Some of the witnesses were "mistaken" or just plain lied, but I don't really believe everything Wilson told George Stephanopoulos was the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.  JMHO.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Medicine Crow

[shok]

I am not convinced he is guilty nor am I that he is innocent.  

 

That's why there should have been a trial in a court of law, not just a sham of a grand jury.

[suomi]

All felony cases go either before a grand jury or are presented in open court at a preliminary hearing, where a magistrate hears evidence and determines whether there is enough to order the accused to stand trial.

In St. Louis County, a spokesman for McCulloch's office, Ed Magee, said all homicide cases go before a grand jury.

The grand jury system has its advantages, though they are not always visible to outsiders eager to learn every detail of a hot-button case, said Mark Berger, an expert in criminal law and a professor at the University of Missouri's law school in Kansas City.

Among other things, Berger said, grand juries have the power to seek evidence that exceeds police powers, and juror identities are kept secret.

"They have virtually no restraints," he said. "They don't need to establish probable cause to demand evidence."

"The grand jury is more flexible on time, so you can do a more in-depth investigation," said Laurie L. Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School and a former assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. "It's more secret, which might alarm some people, but that might also make more people open to coming forward."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-0821-ferguson-grand-jury-20140821-story.html

I can't help but feel that keeping private the identities of jurors and witnesses is beneficial in a community where "snitches get stitches" graffiti showed up the first day on the convenience store where the strong-arm robbery occurred.

[shok]

 

a spokesman for McCulloch's office, Ed Magee, said

 

That sentence alone makes me skeptical about the objectivity of the whole article.

 

You do know, don't you, that the robbery/shoplifting had nothing to do with Wilson gunning down Mike Brown. Wilson told a fellow cop back at the station he hadn't heard anything about it. Wilson's own chief told a press conference two or three days later that it had nothing to do with the robbery and that Wilson's only reason for confronting the boys was their jaywalking.

 

Of course, Wilson wasn't asked to give an evidence statement about what had happened right after the incident which was a huge breach of policy, as was him washing his hands and having custody of his own gun until he put it into an evidence bag himself. And the statement he gave an associate a day or two later, once he'd had plenty of time to compose himself and his story wasn't recorded either on video or audio.

 

Things like this are the reasons why this grand jury was such a farce. Wilson DIDN'T KNOW about the robbery. No information about it should have been entered into evidence and almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed in a court trial. Michael Brown wasn't the defendant, Wilson was, but this prosecutor treated it the other way around and that's why so many people, in the community that you find so distasteful, and from all around the world are outraged by this parody of justice.

[NextIteration]

You do know, don't you, that the robbery/shoplifting had nothing to do with Wilson gunning down Mike Brown. Wilson told a fellow cop back at the station he hadn't heard anything about it. Wilson's own chief told a press conference two or three days later that it had nothing to do with the robbery and that Wilson's only reason for confronting the boys was their jaywalking.

 

Of course, Wilson wasn't asked to give an evidence statement about what had happened right after the incident which was a huge breach of policy, as was him washing his hands and having custody of his own gun until he put it into an evidence bag himself. And the statement he gave an associate a day or two later, once he'd had plenty of time to compose himself and his story wasn't recorded either on video or audio.

 

Things like this are the reasons why this grand jury was such a farce. Wilson DIDN'T KNOW about the robbery. No information about it should have been entered into evidence and almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed in a court trial. Michael Brown wasn't the defendant, Wilson was, but this prosecutor treated it the other way around and that's why so many people, in the community that you find so distasteful, and from all around the world are outraged by this parody of justice.

 

Every single bit of this post needs to be repeated a million times loudly across the country to help those blind to the facts understand the outrage being displayed over this case.

 

It doesn't matter if this is a legally justifiable shoot in the long run, the whole thing, from day one, has been a travesty of justice.  And it isn't even that a True Bill (though that sparked the outrage Monday night) was not returned, it's the utter sham that McCullough made of the Grand Jury process.  Wilson did not know about the theft of cigars at the mini-mart so stretching by trying to invoke the fleeing felon justification is a lie.

 

The protests are not going to stop, this genie is out of the bottle, there were way to many highly publicized videos of what has been going on forever in a very short period of time, starting with Eric Garner right up to Tamir Rice two days before the Grand Jury decision was released. There is racism in our law enforcement systems all over the country and black males are especially at risk.

[shok]

Every single bit of this post needs to be repeated a million times loudly across the country to help those blind to the facts understand the outrage being displayed over this case.

 

As does yours.

 

Another very important point that should be made is that the grand jury didn't clear Wilson, they didn't declare him innocent, they didn't come back with a verdict of Not Guilty. All they did, based on the hogwash that was prejudically presented, was say there wasn't enough evidence to indict to send Wilson to trial. A jury of his peers in a proper trial in a court of law are the only people who could have 'cleared' Wilson of the crime depending on their verdict after hearing ALL the pertinent and permissable evidence and having it cross examined by competent lawyers for BOTH sides.

[Cosmocrush]

Rosie accused ABC News of paying for the interview on her Twitter.  Unnamed sources are telling different blogs they did, she may be right.

 

 

Let's see...which illustrious former member of the View used to say ABC NEVER pays for an interview, and said it many, many times every chance she got?

 

ABC News does not pay for interviews but ABC Entertainment (the umbrella corp name)  most certainly does and it's exactly how the news division can say they do not pay.  They pay for pictures, permission to film the person, etc but not the interview so they can keep thinking their journalistic integrity is intact.   They do it all. the. time.    The $500K sounds believable to me.  

 

And it does matter if any newsmakers (not just alleged criminals or even convicted criminals) are paid for interview.  It's an ethical issue - journalism 101.  ABC News announced they were going to stop the practice a few years ago but instead found a loophole since they are part of a big media corp.  Compare to the Associated Press for example, who actually adheres to longstanding values and practices.  .