NYT was going to publish home address of Fox news reporter

[W erp]

What about publishing the last name of a man who blogged only under the guise of his first and middle?

You mean the thing NYT didn't do? What about it?

Just a joke.

[Slaughter None]

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

Exactly, lol

[Slaughter None]

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

They did publish it not thought about it but actually published it.

[Vassenor]

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

They did publish it not thought about it but actually published it.

Where did they publish Carlson's details?

[Liriena]

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

They did publish it not thought about it but actually published it.

Still lying.

Change the thread's title and stop trying to give the facts your shitty, dishonest spin. The evidence doesn't support your unending stream of bullshit, and the more you double down the worse you look. At this point, you owe your fellow posters an apology for going far beyond the point where your behaviour could have been interpreted as benevolent ignorance.

[Gravlen]

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

They did publish it not thought about it but actually published it.

That is false.

[West Leas Oros 2]

That is patently impossible. No person can be "non-ideological". A news organization will inevitably be "ideological" by virtue of being the product of specific social, economic and cultural conditions that it cannot escape.

I would have to agree with you on that atleast no news channel nor a person can be completely non-biased but talking about the NYT ofcourse they would deny that they were never going to post his address they have a huge incentive to do so.

what incentive do they have to dox him to begin with? All that does is undermine the public's trust and maybe even get you arrested.

[Adamede]

Yah that is a shitty practice that frankly shouldn't be supported by either side of the political spectrum.

So Tucker Carlson should be protected from reality and continually be in his Fox News bubble?

Didn't know that not publishing people's home addresses was the same thing as forming an opinion bubble, or "protecting them from reality".

[Necroghastia]

Yah that is a shitty practice that frankly shouldn't be supported by either side of the political spectrum.

So Tucker Carlson should be protected from reality and continually be in his Fox News bubble?

Didn't know that not publishing people's home addresses was the same thing as forming an opinion bubble, or "protecting them from reality".

Good thing they never were going to do it and all evidence point toward Carlson being a lying POS as usual.

[Darkpoint]

That’s not journalism.

[Fartsniffage]

Yah that is a shitty practice that frankly shouldn't be supported by either side of the political spectrum.

So Tucker Carlson should be protected from reality and continually be in his Fox News bubble?

Didn't know that not publishing people's home addresses was the same thing as forming an opinion bubble, or "protecting them from reality".

No one published Tuckers address. The only person who got doxxed was some poor freelance reporter from Maine who Carlson painted a target on.

[Necroghastia]

That’s not journalism.

Lying about a major publication threatening to doxx you? Yeah.

[West Leas Oros 2]

That’s not journalism.

Apparently, it also didnt happen.

[Adamede]

Yah that is a shitty practice that frankly shouldn't be supported by either side of the political spectrum.


Didn't know that not publishing people's home addresses was the same thing as forming an opinion bubble, or "protecting them from reality".

No one published Tuckers address. The only person who got doxxed was some poor freelance reporter from Maine who Carlson painted a target on.

Than that's just a lot of shitty behavior all around.

[Fartsniffage]

No one published Tuckers address. The only person who got doxxed was some poor freelance reporter from Maine who Carlson painted a target on.

Than that's just a lot of shitty behavior all around.

Nah. All the evidence points to Carlson lying about what the NYT was going to do. This isn't a both sides thing. Carlson is at fault.

[Gravlen]

I would have to agree with you on that atleast no news channel nor a person can be completely non-biased but talking about the NYT ofcourse they would deny that they were never going to post his address they have a huge incentive to do so.

what incentive do they have to dox him to begin with? All that does is undermine the public's trust and maybe even get you arrested.

While I agree with the first part - NYC had no incentive to dox him - I take issue with some of the second part. There's nothing criminal about publishing his adress. It would be protected speech under the first amendment.

[Adamede]

Than that's just a lot of shitty behavior all around.

Nah. All the evidence points to Carlson lying about what the NYT was going to do. This isn't a both sides thing. Carlson is at fault.

Fair enough.

[West Leas Oros 2]

what incentive do they have to dox him to begin with? All that does is undermine the public's trust and maybe even get you arrested.

While I agree with the first part - NYC had no incentive to dox him - I take issue with some of the second part. There's nothing criminal about publishing his adress. It would be protected speech under the first amendment.

Why the fuck would publishing someones address with the intentnto threaten someone be protected? Sounds like incitement if you ask me.

[Fartsniffage]

While I agree with the first part - NYC had no incentive to dox him - I take issue with some of the second part. There's nothing criminal about publishing his adress. It would be protected speech under the first amendment.

Why the fuck would publishing someones address with the intentnto threaten someone be protected? Sounds like incitement if you ask me.

Addresses are generally public record. In the UK you can get a copy of the electoral roll with includes names and addresses with a small payment to a local council.

And proving intent is hard.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Why the fuck would publishing someones address with the intentnto threaten someone be protected? Sounds like incitement if you ask me.

Addresses are generally public record. In the UK you can get a copy of the electoral roll with includes names and addresses with a small payment to a local council.

And proving intent is hard.

Fair enough. Still, definitely has the possibility for danger. Of course, lots of celebrities post their addresses, so I guess it's not quite so big.

[Gravlen]

While I agree with the first part - NYC had no incentive to dox him - I take issue with some of the second part. There's nothing criminal about publishing his adress. It would be protected speech under the first amendment.

Why the fuck would publishing someones address with the intentnto threaten someone be protected? Sounds like incitement if you ask me.

Threats are criminal. But you have to actually make a threat. Saying "Tucker Carlson wants to buy a building in Bryant Pond village, Maine - the property behind the abandoned Franklin Grange Hall on Route 26 - close to his summer home in Woodstock" is not a threat and should not be criminal.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Why the fuck would publishing someones address with the intentnto threaten someone be protected? Sounds like incitement if you ask me.

Threats are criminal. But you have to actually make a threat. Saying "Tucker Carlson wants to buy a building in Bryant Pond village, Maine - the property behind the abandoned Franklin Grange Hall on Route 26 - close to his summer home in Woodstock" is not a threat and should not be criminal.

is that what he claimed was posted? That's pretty tame.

[SD_Film Artists]

They did publish it not thought about it but actually published it.

Still lying.

Change the thread's title and stop trying to give the facts your shitty, dishonest spin. The evidence doesn't support your unending stream of bullshit, and the more you double down the worse you look. At this point, you owe your fellow posters an apology for going far beyond the point where your behaviour could have been interpreted as benevolent ignorance.

Indeed. I'm not sure how this thread got to 18 pages when it's basically; 'This guy said that a rival media company is going to doxx him, turns out the guy is lying and everything is ok.'
I was suspicious when the OP's only source was a youtube video.

[Gravlen]

Threats are criminal. But you have to actually make a threat. Saying "Tucker Carlson wants to buy a building in Bryant Pond village, Maine - the property behind the abandoned Franklin Grange Hall on Route 26 - close to his summer home in Woodstock" is not a threat and should not be criminal.

is that what he claimed was posted? That's pretty tame.

Oh no, it's not what he claimed now. He has given very little detail about what upset him this time. But it is something he got pissed about in the past.

In a letter to the town of Bryant Pond, a town in Oxford County, Carlson had expressed interest in buying the old town garage next to the town’s library and turning it into a studio with room enough for an audience, according to the Sun Journal, which first reported Carlson’s plans.

“I’d be responsible for buying and repairing the building,” he said in the letter, which the Sun Journal quoted. Carlson offered to buy the garage for $30,000, and said Fox “has agreed to install an advanced, broadcast-level studio if we get it.”

But now Carlson told the Sun Journal the publicity has spoiled the plans and that Fox doesn’t want to leave expensive broadcasting equipment in a rural studio whose presence has been widely publicized.

Carlson described himself as "bitter" and "crushed" and called the news report a "total violation of my privacy."

“I can’t have the building now,” Carlson told the Sun Journal. “I’m kind of crushed.”

[Necroghastia]

Still lying.

Change the thread's title and stop trying to give the facts your shitty, dishonest spin. The evidence doesn't support your unending stream of bullshit, and the more you double down the worse you look. At this point, you owe your fellow posters an apology for going far beyond the point where your behaviour could have been interpreted as benevolent ignorance.

Indeed. I'm not sure how this thread got to 18 pages when it's basically; 'This guy said that a rival media company is going to doxx him, turns out guy is lying and everything is ok.' I was suspicious when the OP's only source was a youtube video.

Mostly people reading the title and taking it at face value and then people who bothered to dig into it correcting them, with a couple arguments from OP about why Tucker is tooootally trustworthy and the damn LIEberal media is lying for... some reason.