longislandcuse
Living Legend
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 36,004
- Like
- 43,302
What..
This is just an excerpt from the Walters interview as posted by Dan Abrams' website Mediaite.That was one horrid interview by Barbara. Why did she not ask: "if you like him so much.. why did you make public a tape that you knew would destroy him?" That is the one and only question that a real reporter would have asked.
There are no real journalists left in America.
That was a seriously embarrassing interview
The thing is Barbara Walters used to be Edward R. Murrow, now she is Mario Lopez.That was all about laying the seeds for a legal defense. In CA you need the consent of both people when you tape and record them. If Sterling consented to V recording him she is protected from jail time, but if she tried to extort Donald Sterling for some money not to release the tape he could sue her all day long. She isn't trying to claim she had nothing to do with the tapes when its obvious Sterling probably cut her off her $$$ from him and wanted to retaliate. I really hope she is ruined as much as Sterling when she looks bad as well. Sterling deserved some safety in his beliefs inside his domicile/castle. Even though he is a racist/terrible person and I am glad he is going to lose the Clippers V looks so bad.
Barbara Walters is a terrible journalist these days she is fluff. Their is no doubt V only agreed to an interview if certain questions wouldn't be asked and these days news organizations fall over themselves to be the first with an interview. I am sure ABC paid V for that interview and agreed to all her reasonable demands.
She is the greatest American female journalist of alltime. She was the real deal interviewing world leaders in the 70's-90's, but since she has done the View she become a cartoon character.The thing is Barbara Walters used to be Edward R. Murrow, now she is Mario Lopez.
TurribleThe thing is Barbara Walters used to be Edward R. Murrow, now she is Mario Lopez.
Slaters gonna slate.The thing is Barbara Walters used to be Edward R. Murrow, now she is Mario Lopez.
LOL Hillbillies! :rolling:Beverly Hills has come a 'fur piece from the days of Milburn Drysdale and Miss Jane.
That was all about laying the seeds for a legal defense. In CA you need the consent of both people when you tape and record them. If Sterling consented to V recording him she is protected from jail time, but if she tried to extort Donald Sterling for some money not to release the tape he could sue her all day long. She isn't trying to claim she had nothing to do with the tapes when its obvious Sterling probably cut her off her $$$ from him and wanted to retaliate. I really hope she is ruined as much as Sterling when she looks bad as well. Sterling deserved some safety in his beliefs inside his domicile/castle. Even though he is a racist/terrible person and I am glad he is going to lose the Clippers V looks so bad.
Barbara Walters is a terrible journalist these days she is fluff. Their is no doubt V only agreed to an interview if certain questions wouldn't be asked and these days news organizations fall over themselves to be the first with an interview. I am sure ABC paid V for that interview and agreed to all her reasonable demands.
Existentially speaking, I'm not sure what I think Hell is but for the sake of TMZ, I really hope that the fire and brimstone crowd is correct because there a special place there for those subhuman creatures.Actually California law is a little different.
ALL parties to a conversation must give their consent for recording.
In this case, presumably, that's only D & V.
But V claims there was a third person in the room (who apparently was not part of the actual conversation but privy to it).
That's significant because it may mean the conversation can't be considered "confidential" and therefore whoever actually recorded it did not break the law regardless of whether D knew he was being recorded.
Also, I highly doubt ABC paid for the interview.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...journalism-will-no-longer-pay-for-interviews/
However, I do think it's likely that TMZ paid for the recording.
Paid whom? How much? Whose idea was making the recording? Why?
We still don't know.
Two things stood out:What..
I said in CA both sides must give consent to be recorded which is what you said.Actually California law is a little different.
ALL parties to a conversation must give their consent for recording.
In this case, presumably, that's only D & V.
But V claims there was a third person in the room (who apparently was not part of the actual conversation but privy to it).
That's significant because it may mean the conversation can't be considered "confidential" and therefore whoever actually recorded it did not break the law regardless of whether D knew he was being recorded.
Also, I highly doubt ABC paid for the interview.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...journalism-will-no-longer-pay-for-interviews/
However, I do think it's likely that TMZ paid for the recording.
Paid whom? How much? Whose idea was making the recording? Why?
We still don't know.
That was one horrid interview by Barbara. Why did she not ask: "if you like him so much.. why did you make public a tape that you knew would destroy him?" That is the one and only question that a real reporter would have asked.
There are no real journalists left in America.
That was a seriously embarrassing interview
But she said she wanted to be President of the United States! You wouldn't vote for her?The whole thing is a joke, so she loves this man and cares deeply for him, yet she tapes him and sends it to tmz, knowing it will ruin him. I am getting so sick of this woman.
But she said she wanted to be President of the United States! You wouldn't vote for her?