When Actors claim Defamation!

[PaulP]

How would you prove otherwise, you would need to time travel between parallel universes where both events happened!

It would be easy to show an actor's profile / workload etc. before and after such an event. And a process of very simple deduction would lead to a plausible reason as to why such an increase occurred.

Still waiting...........

[PaulP]

Wow - certainly no fake news to be found on a footy forum. And here I was thinking women have been the victims of some incredibly shabby treatment for thousands of years. But no, apparently not. It is we, as men, who are the real victims, as a result of scheming evil women trying to gain advantage from trumped up claims.

[LP]

It would be easy to show an actor's profile / workload etc. before and after such an event. And a process of very simple deduction would lead to a plausible reason as to why such an increase occurred.

Still waiting...........

Still waiting for what PaulP?

Plotting a career trajectory in the arts would be a coin toss, almost the definition of a Monte Carlo simulation, they can go from zero to hero almost by chance!

Wow - certainly no fake news to be found on a footy forum. And here I was thinking women have been the victims of some incredibly shabby treatment for thousands of years. But no, apparently not. It is we, as men, who are the real victims, as a result of scheming evil women trying to gain advantage from trumped up claims.

Not at all, and there is no post asserting that except your own, which seems to be you reporting your own fake news in the best Trump manner!

Back on subject.

FWIW, a friend on mine pointed me to a great Podcast covering this issue called Radiolab. Not the first time I've listened to them, but they have a willingness to lay such issues bare. In light of the recent #MeToo phenomenon there is recent series titled "In the No Part 1, 2 and 3" discussing this very issue. It's applicable to me and by the sound of it ProfE due to our roles in organistaions that have to deal with these sorts of issues. Well worth a listen as they protagonists will surprise you if for nothing else their willingness to extremism!

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538884/radiolab

[PaulP]

Still waiting for what PaulP?

Plotting a career trajectory in the arts would be a coin toss, almost the definition of a Monte Carlo simulation, they can go from zero to hero almost by chance!
................

It has nothing to do with parallel universes or any other obfuscatory mumbo jumbo in which you like to indulge when the mood takes you. Reality TV is full of people who have a rise in their social media profile as a result of mass media (TV, newspapers etc.) exposing them to a greeter audience - this leads to appearances on other shows, a rise in interest in their core business etc. So name one actor who has received similar exposure as a result of sexual assault allegations, who has had a similar rise in popularity, workload etc.

[LP]

It has nothing to do with parallel universes or any other obfuscatory mumbo jumbo in which you like to indulge when the mood takes you. Reality TV is full of people who have a rise in their social media profile as a result of mass media (TV, newspapers etc.) exposing them to a greeter audience - this leads to appearances on other shows, a rise in interest in their core business etc. So name one actor who has received similar exposure as a result of sexual assault allegations, who has had a similar rise in popularity, workload etc.

It's immeasurable PaulP, unprovable in either the positive or a negative, in too many cases both the accusations and the effects of those accusations are subjective.

Using some other unknown persons rise in social media from obscurity due to reality TV as an example is not a relevant measure at all, that is as valid or as irrelevant as the millions of clicks providing proof for some fraudulent article like an acrobatic jetliner!

In your demand for proof you demand knowledge of something before the fact, that in itself is a form of obfuscation!

[PaulP]

It's immeasurable PaulP, unprovable in either the positive or a negative, in too many cases both the accusations and the effects of those accusations are subjective.

Using some other unknowns persons rise in social media from obscurity due to reality TV is not a relevant measure at all, that is as valid or as irrelevant as the millions of clicks providing proof for some fraudulent article like an acrobatic jetliner!

In your demand for proof you demand knowledge of something before the fact, that in itself is a form of obfuscation!

So in other words, you have no examples.

The parallels between a surge in work, profile etc., between reality TV folks and accusers are perfectly valid.

[LP]

The parallels between a surge in work, profile etc., between reality TV folks and accusers are perfectly valid.

I don't think so, the subject of this thread is the potential for coordinated activity on either side.

There are questions on both sides that should leave the reasonable person feeling uncomfortable, and I see no reason to favor one side above the other!

In the Rush case, his accuser doesn't pay, this isn't a case between the accused and the accuser, yet the accuser testifies! Through hate, justice or reward?

Rush could be rewarded, while he risks costs he could also be assessed as placing a bet!

If there is no benefit what motives of his accuser, I'm rightly led to believe that in genuine circumstances these are deeply private, personal and embarrassing situations causing grief and disenchantment. Yet I see a smiling, perhaps even parading, débutante leaving the court! Why participate in the media organizations litigation, this is a civil case isn't it?

Am I to be expected to assume it is of good intention, if so explain why on what grounds?

Further to today's events, why the sudden change in the defense plea have they discovered a liability or exposed a fraud?

[PaulP]

Still waiting LP. It's ok, no need to rush (tee hee.) I intend being on this forum for years, so I've got all the time in the world.

[dodge]

The Rush case is different.  He is suing the newspaper for defamation.  This is not only for personal reputation, but also loss of work.  I don't think the actress made a formal complaint.

The consequences of Rush's action is that everything has to be aired. He has to be able to prove that he has been defamed, therefore his story, her story and everyone else's who was involved in that production.

From the reports, there is a massive defense of Rush, and the actress has been saying that she was intimidated by who he is - and she has little support from the rest of the people involved in the show.  It seems to be along typical lines - someone with power and someone with none.  There is also a blurring of generations and what is and isn't acceptable.  Two worlds colliding.

Back to the original question - who is to be believed?  In many cases, both would have elements that are to be believed,  That doesn't make them both right.

[LP]

The Rush case is different.  He is suing the newspaper for defamation.  This is not only for personal reputation, but also loss of work.  I don't think the actress made a formal complaint.

The consequences of Rush's action is that everything has to be aired. He has to be able to prove that he has been defamed, therefore his story, her story and everyone else's who was involved in that production.

From the reports, there is a massive defense of Rush, and the actress has been saying that she was intimidated by who he is - and she has little support from the rest of the people involved in the show.  It seems to be along typical lines - someone with power and someone with none.  There is also a blurring of generations and what is and isn't acceptable.  Two worlds colliding.

Back to the original question - who is to be believed?  In many cases, both would have elements that are to be believed,  That doesn't make them both right.

A sensible response that is free of political, social or moral agenda.

I have one associate who works in a similar area of the arts, projects they get involved in are like those of Rush and they are not developed overnight. They are planned years out, it's surprising to know how far out some of these endeavors start, not months but years! I find it an uncomfortable assertion from the Rush camp, and the Wilson camp before that, and the claims by their supporters, that opportunities dried up effectively overnight. Because if they were busy they would have been working on projects 2 or 3 years out from completion with a lot of money already invested. Not something that investors will generally throw out with the bathwater, or when a court date is not yet even set in a such civil case!