If Rall had a solid case for libel, he’d be suing LA Times already.
I’m not sure what the libel would be either though.
Despite his claim he was called a liar what the times actually said was
“However, the recording and other evidence provided by the LAPD raise serious questions about the accuracy of Rall’s blog post. Based on this, the piece should not have been published.”
Is that libelous?
I’ve listened to the tape a couple of times. And I’m not hearing what he’s hearing.
And frankly the transcript with its talk of killing widows seems implausible.
It’s the “Broken Widows Theory” of policing.
It doesn’t matter so much that we hear what he hears in terms of the specifics–what’s important is the doubt it throws on the whole event. There’s obviously other people around, they are communicating “something” and we even hear the possible zip-cuff. The exact wording can be argued about, but what can’t be argued is that the Time’s didn’t just roll over for the LAPD. The enhanced tape clearly makes it at best inconclusive, and the Times needs to answer for their complete lack of due diligence here and their apparent willingness to be yes-men for the very organization they should be critical observers of.
2 Likes
There’s obviously ONE OTHER PERSON around, (saying something that’s largely indecipherable). The “possible zip cuff” might be the cop taking something out of his belt, or really anything at all. Meanwhile, there are no sounds indicating that Rall is being treated roughly by the officer, or that his drivers license is being mishandled. Regardless of which version of the recording you listen to, (and I’ve listened to them all), the tape does not support Rall’s dubious account of a violent encounter with LAPD.
For me, the fact that Rall asked the cop for dining tips, (which Rall attributes to “Stockholm Syndrome”) is the plot point on which Rall’s story passes or fails the smell test. Why would anyone who’s just been treated roughly by a cop ask them for dining tips?
Also, since Rall claims to hear those zany phrases “Let’s go murder some widows” & “I’m just a big girly-boy, give or take” in the recording, (and includes them in his bizarre transcript) why do we not also see Rall’s request for dining tips in the transcript? Is it because the nefarious LAPD/LATimes/Grey Alien conspirators edited it out of the recording, or is it because Rall opted not to include it because it make him look less credible?
1 Like
Really-- no sounds that his drivers license is being mishandled? Did you expect it to blow a rape whistle?
Sure–whether there’s just one person, or several, what they said, and what the zipping sound is, are valid questions, but the fact that they are “questions”–no one can say for sure–means the Time’s blanket assertion that the tape doesn’t support his version of events is unwarranted. Yeah, I find his creative interpretation of what was said in that still hard to decipher recording annoying, and I personally think Rall likely exaggerated the overall hostility and tone of the encounter, as he seems wont to do. But given that Rall said he was cuffed AND the same cop evidently has been reported to cuff people in the past for traffic offenses AND there’s pretty loud zipper sound on the tape, that core event probably took place. Also, there was likely some negative comments made about the incident by passerbys. While none of that is completely provable, it sure as hell falls into the realm of possibility as far as Rall’s basic account of a 15 year old event is concerned.
While the LA Times offices aren’t a court of law, some level of “reasonable doubt” and due diligence should come into play when they’re cutting loose a cartoonist at the behest of the very organization he has taken to task, and when they’re not sure, they should come down on the side of their fricking people. Analyzing the tape at a very common and basic level is a pretty low threshold to hit to avoid throwing a journalist under the bus–the Times didn’t even try.
3 Likes
Hold up just a second there…
Rall made claims he was roughed up by the cops and that dozens of onlookers crowded around supporting him.
Does the enhanced and enhanced again recording support that version of events? I would say no.
The times said.
"Rall said he was thrown up against a wall, handcuffed and roughed up by an LAPD motorcycle policeman who also threw his driver’s license into the sewer. Rall also wrote that dozens of onlookers shouted in protest at the officer’s conduct.
Since then, the Los Angeles Police Department has provided records about the incident, including a complaint Rall filed at the time. An audiotape of the encounter recorded by the police officer does not back up Rall’s assertions; it gives no indication that there was physical violence of any sort by the policeman or that Rall’s license was thrown into the sewer or that he was handcuffed. Nor is there any evidence on the recording of a crowd of shouting onlookers."
Does the tape back up Rall’s claims - not it does not.
Also this
“AND the same cop evidently has been reported to cuff people in the past for traffic offenses AND there’s pretty loud zipper sound on the tape, that core event probably took place.”
Umm - no - the times story you refer to does not report the officer in question having handcuffed in the past. It says he was present where a person was in handcuffs. It also has another officer present. So in terms of proving Durr is not telling the truth, fail.
Ah - so now the cop is meant to be using a zip tie, not handcuffs. That seems a new spin on the original story.
And Rall’s complaint at the time skips a bunch of stuff he now ‘remembers’.
And the records show they DID try to contact him, despite his claim to the contrary.
But a lot of this comes down to the curious notion that if the Times publishes a story accusing someone of ill treating Rall it’s up the person or group being accused to prove it did NOT happen, not for Rall to prove it did.
How does that work again?
"some level of “reasonable doubt” "
Some level of reasonable doubt doesn’t apply to the person that Rall accused, but does apply to Rall?
Is that what you’re saying?
1 Like
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. The person he accused wasn’t the one cut loose by the LA Times–Rall was, and he’s the one for whom it applies. That’s how it works.
No one can say for certain what was going on by the tape, either way. There are other voices–shouting? Can’t really tell. Dozens? Who knows–so much is whistled over and inaudible, no real idea. Was the zipper sound that of cuffs–maybe, maybe not (and cuffs are cuffs in general usage). Did they really try to call him, really leave voice mails, who knows? Some old records in a log don’t really mean much, and even if they did and he actually ever heard them and didn’t recall it 15 years later, not a damning omission and a pretty insignificant portion of the story. And the tape isn’t visual–I don’t know if they pushed him against a wall, or if his license ended up in a gutter. Neither do you.
In short–does any of it refute Rall’s story to the degree that the Times should have simply taken the LAPD’s word over his and summarily terminated their relationship? No, it does not.
The Times has a responsibility to stand by its journalists when there’s this much uncertainty, and that goes double when the journalist has an extremely adversarial relationship with the organization disputing his story. Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt–the Times didn’t even go so far as to clean up the tape.
2 Likes
no, no, you’ve got a point.
Journalists have been getting a free-pass from the media for YEARS. It’s high-time the media stopped believing in them, and started believing in the police, instead.
2 Likes
So you are a believer in that the Times can print stories that are not supported and when they find out thy are not supported they should stick to their guns. I wonder how you feel about Judith Miller.
But when the people who the stories are ABOUT point out that the evidence does not support that story they should back people up who made accusations without proof.
Now let’s examine what you said
“No one can say for certain what was going on by the tape, either way”
Except you have Rall screaming to the high heavens that it PROVES the cops were liars and conspirators and that Durr is a scumbag and that Rall is vindicated.
But it doesn’t. Even you say it proves nothing.
“d even if they did and he actually ever heard them and didn’t recall it 15 years later, not a damning omission and a pretty insignificant portion of the story”
However what Rall said
“I filed a formal complaint with the Los Angeles Police Department. A few months went by without my hearing anything, so I called to check in. I was told that the complaint was dismissed. They had never notified me.”
So he stated as A FACT that they did not call him back. Not that he didn’t remember if they called him back or not. So if he doesn’t recall why would he have stated as a fact that they didn’t contact him? He could have said that he didn’t remember - but that would hardly support the “Rall the martyr” image now would it?
So the claim that the LAPD dismissed his claim without contacting him is insignificant. The suggestion that the LAPD just swept a complaint under the carpet is “insignificant”?
And the discrepancy between his filed complaint and what he is saying now? 15 years later he wants to add to the story from what yous eem to believe is a faulty memory.
" or if his license ended up in a gutter. Neither do you."
Although you do have the officer saying here’s your license back. And Rall saying nothing about it having just been thrown in the gutter. Perhaps he felt it wasn’t worth mentioning?
Oh perhaps that the ‘classic Stockholm syndrome’ that Rall apparently developed over the space of 5 minutes?
“There are other voices–shouting? Can’t really tell. Dozens? Who knows–so much is whistled over and inaudible, no real idea”
But Rall states as FACT that a crowd of dozens assembled.
" It was an ugly scene, and in broad daylight it must have looked like one, because within minutes there were a couple of dozen passersby shouting at the cop"
Or a ‘crowd’ of three or four. Spouting lunacy. Two may be company and three may be a crowd, but 4 isn’t a ‘couple of dozen’.
“he Times has a responsibility to stand by its journalists when there’s this much uncertainty, and that goes double when the journalist has an extremely adversarial relationship with the organization disputing his story”
Because Rall has a fine track record of not making accusations that turned out to be BS. (Pat Tillman anyone?)
The material referenced above where Rall admits making stuff up? Yes, he seems like a man who has a reliable track record.
And he was a FREELANCER not one of ‘their’ journalists. So no he wasn’t ‘fired’ as much as he’d like to try to claim he was.
1 Like
Perhaps they should look on a case by case basis at what is being said rather than having a blanket assumption on way or the other.
Does the evidence support Rall’s accusation?
No. However many lunatic statements appear in the ‘real’ transcript. Seriously does that seem plausible to you?
Then we have Rall’s track record with making accusations that turned out to not be true. (Tillman).
If you are going to accuse someone does the burden fall on you to prove your version of events, or the accused person to prove that they did NOT do what was claimed about them?
1 Like
If you are a newspaper, and you are going to accuse one of your reporters of lying – yes, the burden does fall on you to prove your version of events. And no, believing the police when they say “pinkie-swear we’re not lying this time” does not count as due diligence of proof.
2 Likes
BS - Rall made an accusation.
The police said “that’s not accurate”.
But now it’s on the police to PROVE it’s not accurate? Or just raise a reasonable doubt?
You go on to say
“If you are a newspaper, and you are going to accuse one of your reporters of lying”
And you seem to have now entered the Rall Fantasy Land of making things up.
Here’s what the LA Times ACTUALLY said.
"However, the recording and other evidence provided by the LAPD raise serious questions about the accuracy of Rall’s blog post. Based on this, the piece should not have been published.
Rall’s future work will not appear in The Times.
The Los Angeles Times is a trusted source of news because of the quality and integrity of the work its journalists do. This is a reminder of the need to remain vigilant about what we publish."
Accusations of lying - zero.
Do you think there are serious questions about the accuracy given that, no, the evidence does not support Rall’s version?
1 Like
This was a blog post, about an event 15 years in the past. As most remembrances are, it was printed without any “support” and everything was hunky dory. It’s just when the LAPD produced their inconclusive information purported to prove otherwise that it became an issue. Trouble is, the information they brought up is just that–inconclusive–and furthermore the Times evidently didn’t even bother to do the most basic analysis of the tape, which did reveal other voices and the zipper sound. They should have done that.
Lack of basic fact checking and the speed at which they took the LAPD’s word over the cartoonist who has been mercilessly lampooning them for years is a shameful example of a newspaper not providing support for it’s journalists (freelance or otherwise) and buckling to pressure from those who might be assumed to have an interest in having said journalist silenced.
They can “point” it out all they want. They need to prove it to some reasonable degree before a reputable newspaper disavows their own journalist. The LAPD didn’t “prove” anything with that crappy tape and log entry. They might have cast doubt, sure. And the Times would have done well to report on their side of the story–or give the LAPD space to tell it. But again, summarily firing a journalist (and “firing” is essentially what they did to a freelancer they’ve used regularly for years and years) with inconclusive “evidence”-- and what’s more, evidence produced by an entity that has a vested interest in shutting up that same freelancer is exactly the kind of thing a news organization is supposed to resist.
Irrelevant. What he screams about now doesn’t really apply to the Times originally dismissing him in the first place on flimsy evidence.
Yes, the LAPD saying they called him multiple times, 15 years later, is completely insignificant in terms of evidence that should ever lead a news organization to believe an outside agency over their journalist without something more substantial than log entries. It should have had NO bearing on the Times decision. Not only could the log reports be fabricated, there’s no proof they called even if they did put it in a log, or that they called the right number, there’s no proof a VM was actually left, and none that Rall’s indeed got the message. And this was 15 years ago. It means nothing, and the Times shouldn’t even have considered it when deciding to terminate their relationship with the cartoonist.
IFAIK, Rall never said he was rude or aggressive with the cop. People react a lot of different ways, and I don’t know that I would mouth off to a cop that just did something like that, especially if he just had me up against a wall and cuffed. I might well kiss his ass and do whatever I had to to get the hell out of there alive. So–again–who knows? Certainly not conclusive “proof” of his story either way.
Again, can’t really tell by the horrible, static-laden, whistle-filled tape, can we. (Answer: No. No we can’t).
Rall’s past behavior wasn’t cited by the Times at all. If you’re going to ascribe motives here, how about the motives of the LAPD, who have been criticized by Rall for years. And if you want to look at reliable track records when it comes to telling the truth or hiding facts, the LAPD makes Rall look like a fucking choirboy.
He was fired for all intents and purposes. They had a long standing relationship, he was very regularly published, they severed that relationship. Don’t pretend it wasn’t just like losing a job for Rall.
No matter how much you personally find his work atrocious, or his personality obnoxious, no matter how much you doubt his story, the argument against him is inconclusive by a huge margin. There was no cause for the newspaper to throw their journalist under the bus at essentially the behest of a police department he’s harangued for years and years.
Hmmm…
2 Likes
Some people seem to think that just because Rall sued me (unsuccessfully) for $1.5 mil over a joke email, I’m not entitled to have an opinion about Rall’s credibility.
As far as I’m concerned, I can’t think of anyone more qualified than myself to comment on the subject of Rall’s credibility, because I’ve had extensive personal experience of Rall’s predilection for making shit up, (both in and out of the courtroom).
You can of course write me off as hopelessly biased crank, but what you shouldn’t write off are the documents I’ve posted. These deposition transcripts show Rall in his own words, admitting under oath that he’s a writer who plays fast and loose with the facts. I’m confident that once you’ve read these deposition excerpts, you’ll see Ted Rall the “journalist” in a very different light.
2 Likes
So power doesn’t a message, why is it you are so eager to shoot the messenger for them?
Corporate media are often more parasite than symbiote.
Reknowned Misanthrope is disliked by employer and fired in the most irresponsible manner possible. Misanthrope’s obligations to be a standard bearer for high morals are low. Employer’s obligations to investigate the truth are high. Even if you don’t think the recording makes a difference, it should have been something they looked into.
Contentious litigation breeds ill-will that informs bias. Bias ain’t bad. Everyone is biased. But am I going to take what you say with a grain of salt? Absolutely. Is it your problem and not mine? Absolutely. Just because you had a slap-fight with a jerk, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong here. It’s certainly not like you were there. Bear in mind, this is the LAPD, and they were dealing with a well-established obnoxious person. They’ve beaten the crap out of people for less.
2 Likes
If he had been in Philly they would have firebombed the neighborhood.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
