Author Topic: Patrick Brown #MeToo  (Read 3923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #390 on: February 17, 2018, 03:28:01 pm »
Why is it an issue if the witness and reporter knew each other?

The issue is the lack of full disclosure, not that they knew each other. I guess one other factor that should be considered as well is that if the witness (accuser?) was to remain anonymous, then disclosure would be more difficult.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #391 on: February 17, 2018, 03:30:55 pm »
Yes, if they interviewed someone with contradictory evidence then that should have been part of the story. Do we have any confirmation on that detail?

There's no actual evidence of anything. But the guy himself says that they interviewed him and he told them it hadn't happened.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 11:56:50 am by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #392 on: February 18, 2018, 10:15:33 am »
timeline I read has Brown being contacted 6 hours before the news report was released publicly...

6 hours? That's an hour longer than Babe.net gave Aziz Ansari to respond, so I guess that's something.

a period in which he, apparently as described, did not offer comment back. However, during that period Brown called the last-minute news conference to deny a pending news report about sexual misconduct, and decry it as "categorically untrue."

If they contacted him 6 hours before the story aired, then clearly they didn't do any investigation into his side of the story. They obviously could have spared themselves a lot of egg-on-the-face regarding the girl who changed her story after he demonstrated that her time-line was false.

If the guy who is the subject of your story discredits one of your primary witnesses, you have to ask why your crack investigative journalists didn't find the error in her account first.

Per Canadian Press Feb 16:

Quote
Statement from CTV News:

CTV News stands by our reporting and will actively defend against any legal action. We welcome the opportunity to defend our journalism in court. - Matthew Garrow, Director of Communications, CTV News

Of course Garrow is going to say they stand by their reporting. What else is he going to say? "Oh man, we really **** up this time"?  Of course not.  They'll fight up til the moment they're told to write a cheque, or up to the point where they decided the damage to their reputation is not worth the cost, whichever comes first.

Per TorStar Feb 14:
Quote
Matthew Garrow, director of communications at CTV News, said the network “continues to stand by its reporting on Patrick Brown.”

“Patrick Brown’s allegations regarding our reporting are false. As we reported once again last night, the two women have reiterated their allegations of sexual misconduct by Patrick Brown,” said Garrow.

“His attacks on our journalistic practices are groundless and wrong. CTV News continues to ask Patrick Brown if he thinks the two women accusing him of sexual misconduct are lying. He has yet to respond,” he said.

“CTV News will continue to report on this matter undeterred by Patrick Brown’s groundless allegations.”

And as for challenging Brown to call the women liars, that's bait. He won't do that because it's a bad PR move.  Brown offered a version of events regarding accuser #2 that differs from her version.  Maybe her version is correct, or maybe her version is not correct. If her version is not correct, it doesn't mean she's deliberately lying.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #393 on: February 18, 2018, 10:38:00 am »
And as for challenging Brown to call the women liars, that's bait. He won't do that because it's a bad PR move.  Brown offered a version of events regarding accuser #2 that differs from her version.  Maybe her version is correct, or maybe her version is not correct. If her version is not correct, it doesn't mean she's deliberately lying.
What gets lost in the coverage of stories like this is human memory is as pliable as play-dough which means memories change over time. This means people can honestly "remember" events from the past that are complete fiction. They are not lying because they believe their memories to be true but, without corroborating evidence, no justice can be served by simply assuming that old memories are factual. In this case, the false memories could be come coming from Brown or the woman or both. We can't really know.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #394 on: February 18, 2018, 10:45:52 am »
The connection not being disclosed would be an issue, if it is true.

So, by the way, the woman named earlier by Frank Magazine is the accuser.

Quote
“Recipients of the annual Scholarship in Broadcast Journalism are chosen by Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication, with no connection to the journalism practiced by CTV News,” explained Matthew Garrow, a spokesman for CTV News. “The bursary is funded by CTV Ottawa affiliate CJOH TV.”
http://vancouversun.com/news/provincial/furey-brown-accuser-won-award-from-ctv/wcm/0b093c3f-5366-4256-91fb-285372ca4dbe

The woman receiving the scholarship doesn't mean she has a connection with CTV News.  But guess who won that scholarship?  (Name Redacted) won that scholarship, it's listed on her LinkedIn profile.   (Name Redacted) was at the "Hockey Night In Barrie" event the accuser claimed to have organized for Brown. Kate Malloy from the Hill Times confirmed that Rachel Aiello and the accuser worked together at the Hill Times. Guess who worked with Rachel Aiello at the Hill Times? (Name Redacted) did. 

At this point, it's very difficult to believe that the accuser could be anybody other than (Name Redacted). 

So why does that matter?

It matters because you or I or anybody else with 5 minutes and an internet connection could easily find that Rachel Aiello and (Name Redacted) know each other.  They went lawnbowling together-- that's not a sexual metaphor, they were 2 of the 4 members of the "Hill Times Headliners" lawnbowling team. They've been photographed together, they cowrote at least one piece for Hill Times.

And yet Mr Garrow claims that CTV did their due diligence and found there was no connection.  Could they have really investigated that?  Given how easy it is to find a connection between the two names, how could CTV have actually looked into it at all and not found a connection?

From the above Vancouver Sun article:
Quote
Brown’s lawyer, Mark Sandler, suggested to the Sun recently that the relationship should have been disclosed in the original story.

“What I also found somewhat disturbing, and I’m not sure the whole story is out yet, is the relationship that existed between the second accuser and one of the key reporters on this story from CTV,” Sandler said.

“CTV has said they’ve done some due diligence in this area,” Sandler said. “To be frank, I don’t see how they could have done any due diligence to leap to the conclusion that…the relationship wasn’t problematic.”


They had a story about the source and Brown, it was about what happened, the location had zero relevance at the time. This was a story of circumstances, not a criminal investigation.

Maybe not. But did CTV make any effort to investigate the actual truth of the allegation?  Isn't there some onus on the reporters to make sure the witness's story checks out before they put the story on air?

Brown publicly blew up their witness's story.  Wouldn't it have been a lot better for CTV if their own reporters had discovered the discrepancy first, rather than the network ending up in this extremely embarrassing situation of having a major element of their story blow up in their face.

Brown was obviously contacted before the story went to press because he is the one that broke the story to the public. The only timeline I am aware of is between when Brown broke the story, and CTV published it. The more important times are when CTV went to Brown for comment, and when they originally intended to break the story; do you have any insight into those times because they are the only one relevant to your comment.

Waldo indicates that they gave Brown 6 hours. I had read somewhere-- I believe in his Facebook post-- that he had been given little time and no specific names or dates about the allegations against him. So how was he really supposed to respond?


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #395 on: February 18, 2018, 11:00:05 am »
They got some key facts wrong, but if they were misinformed by their sources it might be hard to show malicious intent, negligence, or damages.

Damages are obvious.  This story has clearly caused catastrophic damage to Brown's career and reputation.

Negligence? I think that Brown's lawyers will try to demonstrate that CTV did not do adequate research to verify the truth of the allegations before taking them to press. The blunder in which the witness had to revise her story to correct a significant factual mistake is something CTV could have caught if they had done more research. They also seem to have conveniently failed to interview any witnesses who were not supportive of the accusers.

Malice?  Malice doesn't necessarily mean "we're going to take down Patrick Brown". It could also mean "we're going to make this into a blockbuster story" or "Chels is my buddy and I want her side of this to look good" or something like that. Any effort to make the story "juicier" at the expense of the plaintiff (ie, Brown when he sues) could be argued to be malicious.  Again, there's a strong appearance of bias here, which is why the connection between the reporter and the witness is extremely uncomfortable for CTV.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #396 on: February 18, 2018, 11:54:51 pm »
6 hours? That's an hour longer than Babe.net gave Aziz Ansari to respond, so I guess that's something.

If they contacted him 6 hours before the story aired, then clearly they didn't do any investigation into his side of the story.

as he lawyered-up, I expect Brown took direction not to respond to CTV, not to convey, as you say, "his side of the story". This would have been his chance to (presumably) have the CTV article include pertinent details... from his perspective. Odd that he would go mute in that regard - yet call a news conference to deny the allegations - yes? Methinks your cub-reporter/sleuthing attempt needs work!

Quote
Brown says, via {his lawyer} Villeneuve, that CTV first contacted his office for comment at around 4:30 p.m. on the day of the report, but that he first learned of the allegations an hour later. Brown says his lawyer then “sent notice to CTV before they aired demanding they not.”

“It is important to note that Mr. Brown did not respond to our request for comment, nor did he request a deadline extension for his response,” CTV communications director Matthew Garrow says in an email. “However, he did call a pre-emptive news conference prior to our story airing. We understand Mr. Brown’s advisors knew for a number of days we had been working on a story prior to us reaching out to Mr. Brown for comment.”

(per Canadaland Article - Graeme Gordon - February 16, 2018)

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #397 on: February 19, 2018, 09:35:30 am »
as he lawyered-up, I expect Brown took direction not to respond to CTV, not to convey, as you say, "his side of the story". This would have been his chance to (presumably) have the CTV article include pertinent details... from his perspective. Odd that he would go mute in that regard - yet call a news conference to deny the allegations - yes? Methinks your cub-reporter/sleuthing attempt needs work!

Maybe so. I'm not a lawyer or a reporter, just an average person with an internet connection.  I don't know what the protocol is in breaking a story like this. I do know that if CTV had done more investigating they wouldn't have ended up in such an embarrassing situation.

And, if I (or any other average person with an internet connection) can find that their reporter and their witness are friends, it seems hard to believe that CTV's investigators and legal team couldn't.  Mr Garrow told us they investigated this and found no connection between the two.  Does that seem believable?

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12468
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #398 on: February 19, 2018, 01:49:07 pm »
Damages are obvious.  This story has clearly caused catastrophic damage to Brown's career and reputation.

Ok, but to separate that out from what would be a reasonable response from the party (ie. had an a relationship with a staffer) and assess damages, I don't know but it seems difficult to me.

Quote
Negligence? I think that Brown's lawyers will try to demonstrate that CTV did not do adequate research to verify the truth of the allegations before taking them to press. The blunder in which the witness had to revise her story to correct a significant factual mistake is something CTV could have caught if they had done more research. They also seem to have conveniently failed to interview any witnesses who were not supportive of the accusers.

That might be impactful if we're talking about the age of the person who complained about him, but not if we're talking about the number of flours of his house.

Quote

Malice?  Malice doesn't necessarily mean "we're going to take down Patrick Brown". It could also mean "we're going to make this into a blockbuster story" or "Chels is my buddy and I want her side of this to look good" or something like that. Any effort to make the story "juicier" at the expense of the plaintiff (ie, Brown when he sues) could be argued to be malicious.  Again, there's a strong appearance of bias here, which is why the connection between the reporter and the witness is extremely uncomfortable for CTV.

 -k

If it's about a "juicier" story, I think that can only be established if they exaggerated facts.  It's "malicious" if they are explicitly trying to do him damage, I think is the definition.

I don't know that the relationship matters, either, if the facts are right.  Why a witness knowing a reporter represents "bias" is beyond me.

Has he sued yet ?

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #399 on: February 20, 2018, 01:20:26 am »
Ok, but to separate that out from what would be a reasonable response from the party (ie. had an a relationship with a staffer) and assess damages, I don't know but it seems difficult to me.

Well, first off, there was no claim of an inappropriate relationship.  There's a claim of one incident of inappropriate touching and sexual advance toward a subordinate.

Secondly, trying to assess what portion of the damage is directly attributed to CTV's shortcomings is putting the cart before the horse.

And thirdly, I think Brown's lawyers will be able to make a very strong argument that the bulk of the damage to Brown's reputation and career have come as a result of the sensationalistic and completely false pairing of the words "underage", "highschool", and "****" in the original article. 


That might be impactful if we're talking about the age of the person who complained about him, but not if we're talking about the number of flours of his house.

Michael! We're only talking about the number of floors in his house because it was a key piece of evidence that discredited the witness's timeline of when the incident occurred.   Her claim that the incident occurred in an upstairs bedroom of a 2-story house proved that it couldn't have happened while she was still underage or in high-school, because Brown didn't live in a 2-story house until well after she had graduated and was of legal age for drinking.  That's why people were talking about the number of floors in Brown's house. 

I'd think that if they were doing their due diligence, finding out where the incident took place and finding out whether Brown actually lived there would probably have been key steps in verifying the woman's story.


But wait!  There's more!!

The man who she claimed drove him to Brown's house says no such thing ever happened. But that's not the interesting part.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-allegations-1.4535373

The interesting part is that the man says he didn't even know she claimed he did until last week, when CTV called to fact-check the story.

Key excerpt:
Quote
The man says he only found out on Tuesday the woman was identifying him as the person who drove her to Brown's when CTV called him to fact-check her story.

In an article published on Wednesday Feb 14, "Tuesday" seems to indicate February 13.

Got that?  CTV called him to fact-check the witness's story 2 weeks after they put her story on the air.

Does it really sound like they did their due diligence before this ****-typhoon went to press?

They only decided to fact check her story after she got caught very publicly in a major inaccuracy.  That, my friend, is not the action of a network that did its due diligence before they went to air.  That is the action of a network that just found out they made a big mistake and is scrambling to find out what else they might have failed to check.  You don't investigate your own story 2 weeks after you went to air with it. That's not investigative journalism mode, that's damage control mode.

They done **** up, Michael.

If it's about a "juicier" story, I think that can only be established if they exaggerated facts.  It's "malicious" if they are explicitly trying to do him damage, I think is the definition.

Not so.  He doesn't have to show that they were deliberately trying to cause him harm, he just has to show that they caused harm and that they failed to live up to reasonable standards of journalism. (hypothetically, by not bothering to actually fact-check the accusers' stories by interviewing relevant witnesses.)

From an ethical point of view, I think that if you're going to press with a story that is going to destroy somebody's career or their life, you'd better make sure you have your facts right.  And if not, "lol, sorry about your career bro" isn't going to cut it. 

I don't know that the relationship matters, either, if the facts are right.  Why a witness knowing a reporter represents "bias" is beyond me.

It presents an appearance of bias.  If you're going to do a story where one of your besties is one of the key parties, your story had better be immaculate. And this trainwreck is nowhere close to immaculate.  At this point it has a very slanted appearance, which opens the door to speculation of bias.

If the connection between the reporter and the witness doesn't matter, why did CTV spokesman Mr Garrow say that they investigated before they went to press?  You might think it doesn't matter, but CTV clearly thinks it mattered, because when the accusation came out they denied it and said they'd already looked into it before they aired the story.

I already linked the comment from Brown's lawyer a couple of posts ago:
Quote
“What I also found somewhat disturbing, and I’m not sure the whole story is out yet, is the relationship that existed between the second accuser and one of the key reporters on this story from CTV,” Sandler said.

“CTV has said they’ve done some due diligence in this area,” Sandler said. “To be frank, I don’t see how they could have done any due diligence to leap to the conclusion that…the relationship wasn’t problematic.”

As I keep pointing out, media outlets normally disclose relationships that might cause viewers to question whether the coverage is biased. "Bell Media is a parent company of CTV News" for example.  Because the notion of integrity requires that they put their cards on the table. Why didn't they do so in this case?

Has he sued yet ?

He's announced the intention to sue, and his lawyers are apparently talking with CTV lawyers. I read somewhere that they have asked for an order to have all relevant emails and communications secured by a third party so that they don't get deleted.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #400 on: February 20, 2018, 02:23:41 am »
They done **** up, Michael.

so... about those allegations lost in the flurry of amateurSleuthing! So... #notMeToo?


Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #401 on: February 20, 2018, 03:58:00 am »
The interesting part is that the man says he didn't even know she claimed he did until last week, when CTV called to fact-check the story.

Key excerpt:
In an article published on Wednesday Feb 14, "Tuesday" seems to indicate February 13.

Got that?  CTV called him to fact-check the witness's story 2 weeks after they put her story on the air.

Yet for the past few days we have had people claiming CTV knew before they posted the story that his account was different. I guess CTV is being judged based on conflicting evidence, what is good for one argument is used differently for another.

I would say that amateur sleuthing is happening far and wide.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #402 on: February 20, 2018, 09:24:10 am »
so... about those allegations lost in the flurry of amateurSleuthing! So... #notMeToo?

At this point those allegations are now :

 1) that a 28 year old guy met a 19 year old girl in a bar, invited her home, and received a consensual blow-job. 

 2) that a man tried to initiate a sexual encounter with a woman who worked for him, was rejected, respected her wishes, and didn't inflict any retaliation on her.  She continued to work for him, I believe that she returned to work for him later, she continued to comment on his social media posts... this sounds like an awkward encounter that didn't cause lasting damage to either her employment or to their overall relationship.

The first, even if true, simply isn't news. 

The second, even if true, is inappropriate-- the kind of conduct that would probably earn anybody else a sit-down with an HR person, maybe an educational video and a stern wag of the finger.  This is not the kind of intimidation and abuse of power that #MeToo was originally about.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #403 on: February 20, 2018, 09:28:52 am »
Yet for the past few days we have had people claiming CTV knew before they posted the story that his account was different. I guess CTV is being judged based on conflicting evidence, what is good for one argument is used differently for another.

I would say that amateur sleuthing is happening far and wide.

Not sure what to make of the conflicting account. Will look more into that.  Either way... the man's story would have been good to be in the original article. As would witnesses who were at the party.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #404 on: February 20, 2018, 12:00:11 pm »
At this point those allegations are now :

 1) that a 28 year old guy met a 19 year old girl in a bar, invited her home, and received a consensual blow-job. 

 2) that a man tried to initiate a sexual encounter with a woman who worked for him, was rejected, respected her wishes, and didn't inflict any retaliation on her.  She continued to work for him, I believe that she returned to work for him later, she continued to comment on his social media posts... this sounds like an awkward encounter that didn't cause lasting damage to either her employment or to their overall relationship.

The first, even if true, simply isn't news. 

The second, even if true, is inappropriate-- the kind of conduct that would probably earn anybody else a sit-down with an HR person, maybe an educational video and a stern wag of the finger.  This is not the kind of intimidation and abuse of power that #MeToo was originally about.

interestingly, your summary of the allegations ala your investment in amateur sleuthing, doesn't quite align with what's presented in the original CTV article that references 2 reporters/journalists in the byline. I'm referring to the actual allegations and accuser comments/interpretations of actions taken, as stated, as reaffirmed by CTV in recent days (as quoted in an earlier post)... that is to say, CTV standing by its reporting & the accusers standing by their allegations. Your reference to HR has a coincidentally related comment from the related accuser:
Quote
"I didn’t think that there was any sort of recourse that I could take because I did think this is something that in maybe in another job, I would go to maybe HR about. But I didn’t feel, I didn’t even know who HR was in this context. Particularly being in a constituency office. I mean, I just didn’t know what to do."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations-from-two-women-resigns-as-ontario-pc-leader-1.3774686