Jeff Bezos accuses National Enquirer parent company of 'extortion and blackmail' over dick pics


#42

Literally not a single outlet in the US would post an image of dead Yemeni children, because that would disrupt the image of America as a benevolent empire. The vast majority of Americans have no idea about the crisis in Yemen and the media helps keep it that way.


#43

Not to get too far off-topic, but my understanding is that the Clems (AKA Heather Clem and her husband Bubba the Love Sponge :face_vomiting:) conspired to video Terry Gene Bollea’s (AKA Hulk Hogan’s) sleazy indiscretion with the intention of having, to use the term in vogue, kompromat. Then Gawker got ahold of the video and published it. Secretly videoing someone during sex is a form of sexual assault in my book, but I guess the Clems had less money to go after and of course Theil wanted revenge against Gawker so that was the lawsuit he was willing to fund. Publishing that material is skeevy, though arguably protected under the first amendment. The Court ruled that publishing it was an invasion of privacy, which from a purely legal standpoint I can see since Hogan was only a marginal public figure and the video was made by surreptitious means without significant public information value.

But, as you point out, the damages were grossly disproportionate. Instead of discouraging publishing ill-obtained private sex-tapes, it wiped out an entire journalistic outlet (crappy journalism though it often published).


#44


 


#45

Yup. Don’t get me wrong - Gawker deserved to get sued, and deserved to have to pay out a chunk of money in punitive damages. Get put out of business? Not so much.


#46

No thank you, Mr. Pecker,”

Small world. That’s my safeword too.


#47

This could break the Enquirer’s deal with the SDNY prosecutors. That would lead to a severe rat-farking


#48

Please re-read my comment, I was not speaking about this article. I was using this article as a reason the weeky recap of AMI publications, that usually takes up the whole page of the /blog view, should be discontinued.

They should have never started, this AMI malfeasance that harms individuals and literally the entire country of the US has been known for a while now. Hopefully this gross, clear example of trying to suppress actual news and blackmail someone might be enough to wake the Publisher here up.

AMI is not all “ha ha Bat Boy”


#49


#50

Of course. The only media outlet that had images about the event was RT. And everybody in the US knows that it is just a Russian propaganda rag, serving the deception of the American people - repeatedly telling them that their Disneyland world is not what goes for reality.

Although, I personally dubbed RT “Regurgitating Twitter”, because 90% of their offerings originate from Twatter.


#51

You’re not starting to get disappointed are you?


#52

#53

Hang on, wasn’t Mr Pecker the dickhead in Ghostbusters, too?


#54

Outlets in the middle east (outside of control of the Saudis) also regularly have images such as that, because, you know, it’s happening in their backyard. Not in the US, because we don’t care that our tax dollars are slaughtering people.


#55

The dumbest part was putting it in writing. Even Trump knows to try and eliminate the paper trail.

It is also amusing that the mouthbreathers at the National Enquirer decided to go after the publisher of The Washington Post . The WP’s star has fallen since the glory days, but they are the guys that published The Pentagon Papers and were central in investigating the Watergate scandal. It’s like some high schooler trying to bat in the major leagues. It is not going to be pretty.


#56

Nah, he’s just hungry.


#57

Again, as Factsheet Five once summarized it: “Kill the poor, not the unborn”


#58

Incidentally, who actually buys and/or reads the Enquirer? While I myself used to purchase Weekly World News (which used to have the same publisher as the Enquirer) mainly as source material for montages, I have never, once, seen someone purchase the Enquirer while I was in the grocery line. Have I led that much of a sheltered life that I’ve never seen this in thirty or forty years of making purchases in a checkout line? I can’t even specifically recall anyone thumbing through one. But presumably someone out there has been buying enough issues to keep the thing afloat; the question is “who?”

Enquiring minds want to know!

Also: “No thank you, Mr. Pecker” sounds like the title of a sex hygiene film from the '50s, about the dangers of V.D.

And:
heehee


#59

677985_v2


#60

Hey, now, they did label it " CONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR DISTRIBIUTION [sic]". That’s like those “This email is only intended for the recipient…” disclaimers that people put at the bottom of their emails – you just don’t ignore that, man! Is nothing sacred?

(OTOH maybe misspelling “distribution” makes it null and void)


#61

Ive never seen anyone buy or look through it either.

Starting to wonder if its not just fully funded to print, paid position, and to be thrown away every week, as a nation permanent smear campaign against anyone the owner doesnt like.

I’m disappointed in general with much of the human race, but especially with the worthless fucksticks that publish tabloid drivel.