Interests Trials and Tribulations

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
CWC Tok said:
It's also an ethical violation for a reporter to pay for an interview, even with a small gift like a cup of coffee:

Journalists identify themselves and the media outlet they work for. Where was this alleged reporter from?

Your story involves Chris using a contraband phone (or getting a special permit for no discernible reason) to sic an anonymous, bribing reporter on you.

I really don't like to call people out on here, but the needle on my my bullshit detector is spinning off the charts.
Click to expand...

The reporter said where she worked and her name, even gave us her number. I'm not doxing her here. Phones aren't contraband in the courthouse, cameras are. Yes chris does have an iphone I acknowledge that, but he can't bring it in a courthouse cuz of the camera. So he either is using an old phone or a burner that doesn't have a camera, which he's allowed to bring in.

bradsternum said:
lol
Click to expand...

The phone could also be for him to frantically call Barb to tell her he's about to go to jail or something too. I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion it's for the reporter. That's just my gut feeling.
 
The main reason I have my doubts about the reporter thing is I don't know why one would want to touch Chris's story unless it's for some kind of website/blog that isn't very well-known or already has shit credibility. He's on trial for macing an employee of a store he was banned from. It just seems like something any legit reporter would back the fuck away from because even if they describe Chris as someone who has been harassed for almost a decade it wouldn't connect well with the current trial.

So yeah, is the reporter for some clickbait or unknown website?
 
This is something I notice as being common in the CWCommunity. A thought that "oh no one will care outside of the people who follow him". Chris is the type of case that would make a sensationalist reporter jizz themselves. I could easily see a reporter buying Chris a cheap Virgin Mobile phone without a camera and telling him to text when he sees the same people from before that he also saw at a BK. I just dont get why that would be out of the realm of possibility
 
I can provide the following info:

Immediately after the trial, Lipitor PMed me telling me that the reason for the continuance was the idea that he seek psychological help. He told me that it was implied/suggested that if Chris complied, he would be able to get a more amenable plea deal. He also told me Chris was uneasy about this because he was worried the trolls would find out. Lipitor told me that he supported the idea of Chris seeking psych help, and did not want to spook him out of it by posting it right away.

This is a bit of a pseudo-confirmation I guess. I can't offer any independent verification, but for those who accept my word, I can confirm that Lipitor told me the same thing 2 weeks ago. And we have his tales and photos from the previous hearing.

Also, I would like to point out that he stated two things about the reporter/phone. 1. Chris had a flip phone. 2. There was a reporter. The connection between them was his speculation, and is separate from his credibility.

Edit: The reason why I posted several comments before this was because I wanted to ask Lipitor before revealing our correspondence. And I didn't want to wait before jumping in on the fun. The reporter/cell phone was new to me, and ripe for speculative posting.
 
Pickle Inspector said:
To speculate: If true perhaps Chris has been talking to members of the LGBT community at the club he goes to and brought up the issue of bullying, transphobia is a pretty hot issue so maybe they passed information to Chris how to contact an interested journalist to help cover it?
Click to expand...

This seems possible, or a Reuben G. Baron kind of situation where the reporter is seeking brownie points from his/her community.
 
lipitor said:
The reporter said where she worked and her name, even gave us her number. I'm not doxing her here.
Click to expand...

Again, the notion of "doxing" a reporter is laughable, and your emphasis that she "even" gave you her number reveals you know nothing about journalistic practices. This is what reporters do--they identify themselves, identify their news outlets, and provide their contact information (phone and e-mail) specifically because they WANT potential sources to contact them. In fact, a great deal of a reporter's day is spent sitting at the phone waiting for people to call them back.

You are expecting us to believe that a reporter stalked the courthouse waiting for the hearing specifically to persuade Chris followers into giving interviews, yet would somehow be upset by potential sources contacting her. You deliberately did not address my points about her violating ethical practices by offering a gift in exchange for an interview, nor my point that, once the article was published, her contact information would be out in the open.

Despite your hardline stance that this is a "real reporter," your story is simply not believable. Anyone who did so much as work for their high school newspaper can sniff this bullshit out.
 
yawning sneasel said:
This is something I notice as being common in the CWCommunity. A thought that "oh no one will care outside of the people who follow him". Chris is the type of case that would make a sensationalist reporter jizz themselves. I could easily see a reporter buying Chris a cheap Virgin Mobile phone without a camera and telling him to text when he sees the same people from before that he also saw at a BK. I just dont get why that would be out of the realm of possibility
Click to expand...

Yeah. If the reporter story is true, she definitely doesn't work for anyone in the mainstream. Most likely a tabloid reporter or someone with a blog.

EDIT: Or maybe Chris got someone to pose as a reporter in an attempt to scare off weens.
 
lipitor said:
I think your credibility problem lies with the fact you keep assuming Christian came up with the idea to have a reporter there. When it was more likely Barb's Idea or even maybe the public defender's idea to put him in touch with a reporter. She seemed to be there to confront trolls, not to get to the bottom of the Blarms controversy. I have to imagine the PD doesn't want spectators hanging around either, and got in touch with a reporter for Chris.
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely she just found these forums and read about people watching the trials.

If she identified herself and the topic of her story openly to someone I don't think she has a reasonable expectation of privacy here. I don't see any harm in telling us who she is, like 40% of being a journalist is just SEO now anyway, heh.

At the very least, tell us the name of the publication. It's hardly some big secret or anything.

EDIT: Is it Gawker? It's Gawker, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
CuriousBystander said:
Yeah. If the reporter story is true, she definitely doesn't work for anyone in the mainstream. Most likely a tabloid reporter or someone with a blog.
Click to expand...
Don't they have many of those "free" newspapers you find at coffeehouses or sandwich shops that often have reporters doing this kind of stuff? I remember them from one trip to the US. They seemed quite common. They survived off of local stories, often slapped in tiny boxes because the rest is ad space. They are a free paper, after all. Oh yeah, and all those creepy ads about "I saw you..." and very creative hookup pieces.

I would think, due to the tediousness of having to text with one of those ancient phones that the reporter would have done Chris a favor and saved some vague drafts in the phone, and that Chris could load them and hit send. Dunno. Maybe giving too much credit.
 
CWC Tok said:
Again, the notion of "doxing" a reporter is laughable, and your emphasis that she "even" gave you her number reveals you know nothing about journalistic practices. This is what reporters do--they identify themselves, identify their news outlets, and provide their contact information (phone and e-mail) specifically because they WANT potential sources to contact them. In fact, a great deal of a reporter's day is spent sitting at the phone waiting for people to call them back.

You are expecting us to believe that a reporter stalked the courthouse waiting for the hearing specifically to persuade Chris followers into giving interviews, yet would somehow be upset by potential sources contacting her. You deliberately did not address my points about her violating ethical practices by offering a gift in exchange for an interview, nor my point that, once the article was published, her contact information would be out in the open.

Despite your hardline stance that this is a "real reporter," your story is simply not believable. Anyone who did so much as work for their high school newspaper can sniff this bullshit out.
Click to expand...

Dude I'm sure she thinks she wants to hear from you all too. I don't give a fuck if she would want me to give her potential sources, we both know it'd be a bad idea if I did that. I don't think you're right about buying a cup of coffee being unethical. Find me a source. If so I'll admit she's an unethical journalist. You're right I don't know shit about journalistic practices, but the amount of times I've had to correct you should indicate you don't either. That's what happened dude. Just wait, you'll see.
 
lipitor said:
Dude I'm sure she thinks she wants to hear from you all too. I don't give a fuck if she would want me to give her potential sources, we both know it'd be a bad idea if I did that. I don't think you're right about buying a cup of coffee being unethical. Find me a source. If so I'll admit she's an unethical journalist. You're right I don't know shit about journalistic practices, but the amount of times I've had to correct you should indicate you don't either. That's what happened dude. Just wait, you'll see.
Click to expand...

I already cited the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

And, just so I can see if I'm following the bouncing ball here: this reporter has the time and resources to travel to the courthouse, burn the better part of a day waiting for the hearing, and has no qualms about approaching a member of the public for an interview. Yet she invested this effort without producing an article, and despite running down a "field agent," she is unable to find this forum to try to approach further sources.
 
No offense at all to lipitor and anyone else who does the whole reporting thing, but a lot of the skullduggery, stealth, and such really does seem kind of silly. I mean, this is happening in the USA. It's open court. There's no reason to hide why you're there, who you are, or anything. It's one of your rights as a citizen, to be allowed to view the judicial process.

You don't have to give a reason, or make up some official business sounding excuse. You can literally say "I'm here because I want to watch the trials today" and walk away.
 
lipitor said:
I don't give a fuck if she would want me to give her potential sources, we both know it'd be a bad idea if I did that.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there.

We have an entire wiki worth of information on Chris freely available to anyone who can use a search engine. This forum is free to view without an account and simply making one isn't difficult. It's not like we're keeping any secrets.
 
DawnMachine said:
I think it's more likely she just found these forums and read about people watching the trials.

If she identified herself and the topic of her story openly to someone I don't think she has a reasonable expectation of privacy here. I don't see any harm in telling us who she is, like 40% of being a journalist is just SEO now anyway, heh.

At the very least, tell us the name of the publication. It's hardly some big secret or anything.

EDIT: Is it Gawker? It's Gawker, isn't it?
Click to expand...

This. I don't see why you owe any confidentiality to the source, who isn't even a source but (allegedly) a journalist. Why keep that secret?

As for weenery, who cares? They have it coming.
 
lipitor said:
we both know it'd be a bad idea if I did that.
Click to expand...

Best case scenario, she gets a reasonable, informed interview and twists it into a sensationalist smear piece anyway. I'm pretty sure this site has had worse press.

Worst case scenario, she gets a bunch of quotes that consist of nothing but Batman calls and :julay:

Who exactly are you trying to protect here?
 
CuriousBystander said:
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there.

We have an entire wiki worth of information on Chris freely available to anyone who can use a search engine. This forum is free to view without an account and simply making one isn't difficult. It's not like we're keeping any secrets.
Click to expand...
It's more I don't want people trolling the reporter and it somehow getting back to me than that.
 
My money is on Vice or Buzzfeed.

The person or publication contacts Chris, says there is a large sum of money if he does what they tell him AND keeps his mouth shut, they get a 'deep internet story' and he gets to tell his side of the story for all the world to hear. Attention, money, & sympathy.

There is all this debate about journalists. Keep in mind that if it does happen to be an internet publication, that they do not play by the print publication rules. Journalistic rules & ethic are not upheld like they used to, especially when your publications front page is '50 Pictures of Cats Eating Food They Shouldn't!'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom