A lack of journalistic integrity at the New York Post!? INCONCEIVABLE!

Dumbass tag please...

Wait, is this illegal? I mean... If I can write something that could be taken the wrong way, as long as it's not slander/libel what's the problem? And then if I offer the poor schmuck who happens to be the subject of said muckraking, what's the problem?

Morally bankrupt, yes. But so is Quixstar.

Stern, who began working for Page Six more than 10 years ago, is something of a dandy with his own Web site and clothing line.

that's going to go over like gangbusters in federal prison.

"Should the allegations prove true, Mr. Stern's conduct would be morally and journalistically reprehensible, a gross abuse of privilege and in violation of the New York Post's standards and ethics,

I don't know what takes more chutzpah, the attempted blackmail or the use of the words "New York Post" & "standards & ethics" in the same sentence?

/wonder if Fox News will cover this?

billionaire is a democratic fundraiser, new york post is owned by rupert murdoch. this should get an obvious tag.

flavor of the month: billionaire is a democratic fundraiser, new york post is owned by rupert murdoch. this should get an obvious tag.

Tin-foil hat a little too tight today?

atpgod

i'm guessing you've never heard of the term blackmail?

Among the other false items is a Jan. 1 report that Burkle flew Tobey Maguire, girlfriend Jen Meyer and blonde actress Sarah Foster in his private jet

Why point out her hair colour? It confuses and annoys me when journalist do that. Why not list her height or eye colour if we're picking random attributes?

What a turd.

Typical behavior from the empire of Sky and Fox News.

Sounds like business as usual from Rupert Murdoch's media companies.

/wonders if FOX News is covering this
//probably not

atpgod
Tin-foil hat a little too tight today?

huh? part of what the guy could give the post in exchange for "protection" was dirt on his buds bill, hillary and al gore. I would say that removes flavor of the month's comment from the realm of crazy, out-there conspiracy theory and drops it smackdab into the world of the plausible.

Cue right-wing conspirators in 3...2...1...

Oh wait they've already arrived.

New York Post is owned by Sun Myung Moon.

Did he offer to beat him up if he paid them the so-called protection money?

/Dinsdale!

Muta

you are thinking of the washington times.

atpgod

what everyone else said.

popain: atpgod

i'm guessing you've never heard of the term blackmail?

This is what I read as being illegal:
if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

I can't really make heads or tail of it... can someone explain it to me?

But from what I read... his case is slightly different. His job is to report on this stupid shyt all the time. In this case, he's offereing someone a get out of jail free card. I don't think that's the same as be blackmailing my boss with pictures of him boiking his secretary...

/I could be very wrong, though.

Muta,

The Reverend Moon owns the Washington Times, which has an editorial page that make the NY Post seem like The Nation.

/woo-doggy, lookit all them i-talics

If the Post was actually to cover the story:

Shameless Hack works at Brainless Rag

I thought that's what advertising departments were for.

/works in marketing/advertising

inaccurate items on Page Six? Unpossible!

I think that might be the first time I've seen the word 'dandy' in a story in a long time.

JaredSeth: If the Post was actually to cover the story:

Shameless Hack works at Brainless Rag

Nah, I've never seen a word in a Post headline longer than 6 letters.

The Post headline would be along the lines of

DEEP SIXED!!!

& the tory would play up the fact that since the blackmailee has contact with the Clintons, there must be something to it...

Are they allowed to just print lies with impunity on Page 6 like that? If they print a made-up hookers-and-blow type story can't he sue them for defamation or libel or something?

please add an "s" to tory for maximum sensibility.

thank you kindly.

Before this completely devolves into a mindless leftwing/rightwing circlejerk (pin the bukkake on your opponent and win teh intrawebs!), I've got a serious question. Are there any news sources that the general public still considers honest and non-partisan? Or do we equally distrust all forms of media nowadays?

If our president can load press conferences with gay escorts that are pro his 'cause of the day' then let the press freelance.

what a country!

I like this initiative-but then again I like bank robber movies where the robbers get away

bdub77: I think that might be the first time I've seen the word 'dandy' in a story in a long time.


He's one of them "fancy lads," isn't he?

atpgod: Wait, is this illegal? I mean... If I can write something that could be taken the wrong way, as long as it's not slander/libel what's the problem? And then if I offer the poor schmuck who happens to be the subject of said muckraking, what's the problem?

Morally bankrupt, yes. But so is Quixstar.

Oh, it's quite illegal. It's called extortion.
If you read TFA it says in there that this guy's section of the paper was just making stuff up out of thin air... For instance weekend trips to this billionaire's mansion, despite him not actually *having* any such mansion...

And this naughty editor told him that he'd get the paper to stop writing this stuff about him - IF he'd cough up a bunch of cash (amongst other things).

That's extortion all right...

Isn't it illegal to print false news about someone? Like "slander" or ruining someone's reputation?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't get arrested enough to know.

carrion_luggage: Did he offer to beat him up if he paid them the so-called protection money?

I think he offered not to beat him up if he didn't pay.

/will this be on Ethel the Frog?

EdgeRunner: Before this completely devolves into a mindless leftwing/rightwing circlejerk (pin the bukkake on your opponent and win teh intrawebs!), I've got a serious question. Are there any news sources that the general public still considers honest and non-partisan? Or do we equally distrust all forms of media nowadays?


Nope - I think you're right. Of course, everyone will chime in that their preferred source that playes to their agenda is accurate...but come on - the media is self-serving anymore. If there's no news to report, go create some (like that NASCAR racism thing).

It's funny that with so much information available o us, it should take us less time than any time in history to figure out what is going on. Instead, for those who care to really understand, you have to read from so many different sources and try to find the middle ground. I guess it's like the old saying goes: "A man with one watch always knows what time it is; a man with 2 watches is never sure."

He's going to be fired for following Fox's ethics (sic) policy to the letter - but forgetting to give Rupert his cut.

deevo: Nah, I've never seen a word in a Post headline longer than 6 letters.

It was a play on the old Headless Corpse found in Topless Bar headline.

/obscure, apparently?

I like how the Post calls him an employee that only works 2 days a week at the paper. Yeah for 10 years and he's a mainstay on Page 6.

Here is the Post's coverage of the story: link (opens in new window)


They even say that THEY broke the story! Nice.

Count me in with the people who don't see what the big deal is. Especially, why the cops had to be involved.

There are libel laws. If they cut, use them. Other than that, tattle to the editors. If they want to keep him on in spite of the evidence, boo-hoo. Next step: put pressure on the editors by going public. Then they should drop him fast enough, because the public likes to see all the gossip, not just some of it.

Other than that: ask a gossip page editor how much you need to give him to keep you off said gossip page, don't be surprised if you get a straight answer. It's a business deal, nothing more. Anything else: refer above, "libel".

/feh

Other than that: ask a gossip page editor how much you need to give him to keep you off said gossip page, don't be surprised if you get a straight answer. It's a business deal, nothing more. Anything else: refer above, "libel".

Without getting personal... are you an idiot? It went WAY beyond making up stuff on a gossip page when he offered to stop it in exchange for money. The billionaire didnt contact HIM and ask to get it stopped - the guy working for the news site approached him and said "Hey Ill get people to stop writing BS about you if you PAY ME MONEY"

Thats about as clear cut case of extortion as there could possibly be - me and my orginazation are harming you - pay us and we will stop.

labberdasher: Especially, why the cops had to be involved.



I think it was that whole concept of "blackmail."

Stern is a little punk and needs a round-house
cock punch

"In this case, he's offereing someone a get out of jail free card"

Free, $220,000, what's the difference, eh?..

Hey has anyone ever checked out this site?

http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/

\

Blackmail, without goods?

"Give me $x or I publish this video of you shagging a skunk."
=> blackmail.

"Give me $x or I make up stuff about you and publish it on the gossip page I edit."
=> my answer: "Go ahead. I do wonder how long you'll keep that job, though. Or any shred of credibility in your profession. Or circle of friends, for that matter."

Fizpez - you have a way with words, I must say. It just isn't very good.

I refuse to believe that the New York Post, an arm of Newscorp and affiliate of Fox News, could possibly report with anything less than the highest standards and integrity.

what a scumbag... those saying its not a big deal are wrong, and i'm going to write a story about you... contact me if you don't want me to do that...

EdgeRunner
Before this completely devolves into a mindless leftwing/rightwing circlejerk (pin the bukkake on your opponent and win teh intrawebs!), I've got a serious question. Are there any news sources that the general public still considers honest and non-partisan? Or do we equally distrust all forms of media nowadays?

Well, it's hard to say. There are many news organizations where the people there TRY to adhere to journalistic standards, but the right-wing propaganda machine has convinced a lot of people that the "mainstream media" has a "liberal bias". (Of course, "liberal bias" really means "is biased, is unprofessional, will lie and manipulate the reader to fulfill his/her agenda and hates America/our troops".)

Do they do the same thing on the left? Not really. With the exception of the New York Post, the Washington Times, Fox News and the editorial page of the Wall St Journal -- oh, and a few magazines like National Review -- I don't know that any papers are singled out as having a "conservative bias".

More importantly, the left doesn't make blanket bias statements about "the mainstream media" or "the media" as though it were a monolithic enemy the way the right does. Nowadays, if you have a person call in to C-SPAN's phone-in shows, and they say "the media's _____ bias", you are going to hear "liberal" in there 9 times out of 10. It's a freaking meme at this point, and a very popular one amongst people who have swallowed the party line on the right.

EdgeRunner

I mean, for example, look at PBS's "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer". One of the finest hours in broadcast news, every weeknight. Do liberal pundits come out and accuse Jim Lehrer of having a "conservative bias" that makes him incapable of objectively reporting the news? Of course not -- but the exact opposite charge is made about him and the whole network by right-wingers.

Whether a reporter is a liberal or a conservative doesn't make any difference, as long as they have the professionalism and honor to do their job properly and honestly. The implication with the "liberal bias in the 'mainstream' media" is that the liberal bias of the reporters in the media overwhelms their normal professional attitudes and turns them into slavering partisan trolls who will deliberately skew, feature and/or avoid stories to serve their agenda. The fact that Rupert Murdock's conservative media empire does this openly and deliberately is spun as "balance" to the claimed bias on the other side.

Between convincing conservatives in this country that colleges are dangerous, cityfolk are all gays and criminals and welfare mothers, liberal Democrats are out of control, the media is untrustworthy and "activist judges" are trying to "redefine marriage", you can easily turn people into terrified, closed-minded little voterbots. As we've seen.

Is this in any way a condemnation of conservative principles? Of course not. It just so happens that the scumbags enacting this propaganda blitz are part of a supposedly conservative political movement.