Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I assume that “accursed” is a typo, but it might actually be more accurate than “accused.”
@larry3435 Yes, thank you. Corrected, but maybe it was better. :-)
Yeah, what exactly is the burden of credibility that must be met for these accusations to be socially or professionally credible?
The point being that since all women must be believed, and to question the accusation is to attack the accuser, then ‘credibly accused’ means accused by a woman. End of story, no further proof needed.
Bo,
This isn’t rocket science. They have publically fired him and created a cloud of suspicion about him that will damage him for the rest of his life. He has grounds to sue them for this damage which is quite large. When the wildly embellished stories of his accusers see the light of day in court they will fall apart. Management will be responsible for failing to check the stories out properly or give him a chance to respond.
For instance, how could Gloria Allred one of the most experienced trial lawyers in the country claim she didn’t recognize that the yearbook she presented to the world as conclusive proof of Roy Moore’s guilt was an obvious forgery? Maybe Moore should consider suing her for defamation.
Regards,
Jim
Unless you know the person being accused, and then – maybe – you might be able to question the accuser’s claims. (Thinking of Lena Dunham and friend here.) Even then, you’ll probably be pressured to recant your defense of the person. It’s a terrifying trend.
I’ll call and raise, BG. If what Mr. Smiley says is true, the allegations are lies. And therein is the problem.
The high-ups at PBS, who are not witnesses to the conduct of Smiley or his accusers, have no idea if Smiley is telling the truth or if his accusers are. Neither can the investigator that PBS utilized to look into this. All the investigator can do is interview those claiming personal knowledge (Smiley; the accusers) and present his/her determinations of the partys’ comparative credibility to the high-ups. It’s up to the big shots after that.
Here’s the thing about allegations. They are only as credible as the people making them and whatever corroborative evidence may be around (emails, etc.). Whoever did the investigation obviously found the accusers more credible than Smiley, and wrote it up that way.
As to the system being committed to the rule of law and due process, remember whose system we are talking about: PBS’s. And PBS is a high-profile non-profit corporation that lives on its corporate good will. PBS is not a court and is not obliged to act like one. I guarantee you this: PBS’s commitment to rule of law and due process stops where its corporate image starts.
RayG,
They publically fired him for sexual misconduct which was completely unnecessary. This is pure defamation. Management is responsible for the damage done to his reputation by the public disclosure. Management has very deep pockets and many extremely able trial lawyers will be glad to go after them. If none of the accusers will even show up to testify in court so they can continue to anonymously destroy others at will then Management may find themselves in serious trouble. They’ll pay a very large settlement and will have a “black eye” that won’t go away for a very long time. That will be Justice.
Regards,
Jim
If I were in his shoes and knew for a fact that I was innocent of the charges, I’d think very seriously about suing. I don’t know that I would, but I’d certainly be talking to lawyers and seeing what my options were.
I beg to differ: the whole phrase “credibly accused” tacitly admits we may find some women’s accusations incredible. Else why need the “credibly”?
To use such language is to acknowledge we shouldn’t accept an accusation at face value, but should test the accusation against the other knowledge we have to see if the accusation ought to be taken seriously.
I’m not as certain as you, Jim. It strikes me that PBS’s lawyers were very careful in phrasing their public statements to exclude any claim of sexual misconduct. I think the statements successfully avoid an actionable claim of defamation. Here’s the first one:
“Effective today, PBS has indefinitely suspended distribution of ‘Tavis Smiley,’ produced by TS Media, an independent production company. PBS engaged an outside law firm to conduct an investigation immediately after learning of troubling allegations regarding Mr. Smiley. This investigation included interviews with witnesses as well as with Mr. Smiley. The inquiry uncovered multiple, credible allegations of conduct that is inconsistent with the values and standards of PBS, and the totality of this information led to today’s decision.”
And the most recent one:
“The totality of the investigation, which included Mr. Smiley, revealed a pattern of multiple relationships with subordinates over many years, and other conduct inconsistent with the values and standards of PBS.”
Even if these statements turn out to be untrue, I don’t see them as actionable defamation. PBS certainly does NOT characterize the relationships as sexual or even inappropriate, only that there was “a pattern of multiple relationships” that is “inconsistent with the values and standards of PBS.” I mean, not even “violations of,” but “inconsistent with.” Pretty weak. It strikes me PBS’s lawyers were careful enough crafting the statements to avoid an actionable defamation claim.
More to the point, I don’t think PBS would fire a popular guy like Smiley on “troubling allegations” unless they were really confident those allegations were true and provable. And truth is always a defense to defamation.
Sorry, you are giving too much credit for logic to SJW’s. The only incredible accusations are those from white men, or women who accuse Bill Clinton. Don’t you know, women don’t lie about these things! And, even if they do, it is because of the horrors of the patriarchy, thus deserved. After all, if all sex is rape, even the sex in marriage, then all men are rapists, so what does it matter if one or the other accusation is inaccurate? He’s still guilty of it somewhere!
I think the term “credibly” is used to try to avoid a defamation lawsuit if the allegations are later proven false. Nothing more, nothing less.
According to this article, Smiley’s claims:
Assuming he’s being honest, that doesn’t sound like a fair investigation on PBS’s part. It sounds more like a scared, hair-trigger reaction to me.
RayG,
I think this lame attempt to defuse the legal recourse isn’t going to hold against a really aggressive lawyer. Their action and statement were timed with the Variety article of which they were fully aware. They knew well that this couldn’t be seen by anyone as anything else but a firing for sexual misconduct. The average IQ at PBS is quite high so I’m told. I’m sure they grasped that they were destroying a man’s reputation permanently not just firing him.
If Mr. Smiley is telling us the truth then he need only hire the right lawyer. The lawyer need only say to PBS, “I’ll see you in court.”
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
If Mr. Smiley is telling the truth, I’ll take his case.
They may not acknowledge it willingly. Nonetheless…
And besides, the OP made the point that,
Now, I happen to believe not all on each side do that, though some seem to. Enough people use “credible” as a real descriptor, rather than just as spin, that those who do just use it as spin can free-ride off it. It still matters to a lot of Americans, even Americans who found the accusations against Moore – dare I say it – credible, that accusers not be automatically accorded the label “credible”, or even be assigned the label based purely on partisan affiliation.
Huh. Good points. Didn’t feel right “liking” the comment in case that would be seen as my endorsement of the accusations, but I’m glad you raised these points.
Is this topic somewhere along the lines of “There’s a sucker born every minute?” I agree it’s dangerous for people to throw these words around as if some credible judgment has been made. You’re basically confusing people with a form of an oxymoron. I.e., can you really say that they are both allegations and creditable? They’re one or the other. Then you’re using words that seem to soften the impact to make you seem more reasonable when you include ‘allegations,’ which is similar to calling someone arrested for a crime a suspect or an alleged criminal. Notice they’re not saying ‘alleged whatever’ — they’re saying the allegations are credible — therefore they’re true! The person making the statement is both police and judge. (Now the public is justified in being the executioner.) The more reasonable you can make yourself sound, the more dangerous is the deception in this line of rhetoric.
Including “credibly accused” in a news account is like naming a dish by its cooking time, unless you are worried that it is undercooked. There should be no story published if the publisher has not done some due diligence with regard to the accusation. That is, “credibly accused” should be the minimum standard for even publishing and need not be stated in the publication.
Just using the phrase “credibly accused” means nothing. What is “credible” to the publisher? How was it established in a “he said/she said” event? There are far too many new entities that are not credible in their reporting on other topics so why should using the phrase “credibly accused” mean anything at all?
Excellent post. The left and MSM has ben bastardizing our language for quite a while now. I guess “credibly accused” is just the latest . . .
I see this frequently in family law, especially in CPS cases. Monstrous women accuse the father of assault. Since he now has criminal charges pending, he needs to take advantage of the fifth amendment. But in civil court failure to answer questions via the fifth amendment is very bad. The judge or jury is allowed to assume the worst answer. So the accused can risk jail by speaking out or stay out of jail and lose his parental rights.
And the accuser can shed her crocodile tears and that is usually very effective.
Very good observation. This went right into my notes, and may go right into my book. It will be duly credited.
Update: No sooner did I put it in my notes and think about it, I realized I myself just used the phrase: to describe Harvey Weinstein and Tariq Ramadan. I used it very intentionally — I said they had been “credibly accused” of rape, and this was why they must face a *real trial,* not trial in the media. But you’ve made it clear that I need to refine what I mean when I use that phrase, and why. And be careful of it, inasmuch as (I had not realized it) it has become a cliche, and a dangerous one.
Anybody remember the marketing slogan in “Ghostbusters?” “We’re ready to believe you!”
Excellent post. I’ve been growing more concerned as each new accused meets the next news cycle. I may not care for any of the accused, but so long as they continue to claim innocence, they should get their day in court.
The tough call is on the broadcasters, who have to decide how to handle the charges, whether credible or incredible.
Tavis Smiley was on Tucker Carlson last night. I am sure PBS thought that Smiley was “credibly accused” but the lack of due process is appalling.
Rodin,
This isn’t a lack of due process this is “Kafkaesque”. The difference is that this is America and you are innocent until proven guilty and you do have the right to sue for willful defamation. I think Tavis is going to take PBS down and they deserve it.
Regards,
Jim
*********************************
Assuming Smiley is telling the truth, the lack of process is definitely appalling, and PBS absolutely deserves to take a hit for it.
At some point, though, labeling what can really be just plain English as yet another Kafkaesque cliche simply serves to foment hysteria, witch-hunts, and obfuscation in the other direction.
Somewhere in the Rumpole of the Bailey stories, when someone complains Rumpole is defending a blackmailer because blackmail is an extra-awful crime, Rumpole retorts well, then, perhaps that’s all the more reason those accused of it should be defended extra-carefully. To which I heartily agree. When it comes to accusing others of crimes, we don’t want anything less – indeed, we want the probably guilty to go free as long as they’re not probably guilty enough.
But I’m not blind to the right’s tendency to just flip the script: if we see leftists as claiming that women’s innocence and men’s knowing predation should be the conclusion everyone jumps to at even the rumor of impropriety, we can be a little too eager to claim the opposite, irrespective of its truthfulness – that it’s the women who can be presumed to know what they’re doing, while the men are the clueless victims. (You can swap out women and men with young and old, or any other pair where one party seems inherently more sympathetic to the left than the other.)
Only, that’s not true, either.
Overall, I like contrarians (even married one), because they provide a needed check on established opinions, but not because we can arrive at truth by deciding, whatever established opinion is, the “real truth” must be the opposite.
In my dating life, that’s usually been the case. I usually realize I had no idea what was happening between us.