Whatcha boycotting?

[Defiant]

Whatcha boycotting?

Pussy.

Same.

[Carpet_pissr]

Pussy.

A little infected taint cyst blood never hurt anybody!

I'm trying to imagine what someone who isn't following the Draz Drama would think after reading this.

Wildcard!!!

I actually thought about that as well, but since there are only about 12 of us left on OO, I figured the vast majority would get it.

But assuming they didn't see the thread, their thoughts might have been:
1. Whoa, this thread just got jacked up to 11!
2. That dude, always with his foul-mouthed and often disgusting drive by posts!
3. (quickly, but FOOLISHLY Googles "taint cyst")
4. Blocks me immediately for unnecssaryily (and random!) disgusting graphic images than no one wants to picture

[Alefroth]

[Skinypupy]

How support from the world's largest communications company - AT&T - helped build and flourish One America News, the far-right network whose fortunes and viewership rose amid triumph and tumult of the Trump administration

Have to admit that I did not see that one coming. May need to switch carriers now, although they're all kinda shitty to some extent.

[Kraken]

Back to my OP:

Last week, my favorite beer bar held a fundraiser for Geoff Diehl, the peripatetic GOP gubernatorial candidate. Charlie Baker hasn't announced his intention to seek reelection, and Diehl could win the GOP nod if he doesn't. Diehl was trump's campaign chairman in MA, and just a couple of days ago spoke against vaccine and mask mandates. He's an authentic trumper, and I'm seriously bummed that the owners of this bar are raising money for him. I can't give them my money in good conscience anymore. This one's a genuine sacrifice...and probably pointless beyond salving my conscience, since they don't know they lost a customer.

Today trump endorsed Diehl, firming up my decision to stay away from the Union Brewhouse. But his endorsement isn't exactly sought-after here.

By endorsing conservative Republican Geoff Diehl’s primary challenge on Tuesday, Trump underscored Baker’s distance from the national party and his persistent criticism of the former president in one of the most anti-Trump states in the nation.

“Sometimes it is good to have a foe,” said former GOP Gov. Jane Swift. “Trump does not appeal to Massachusetts independents, so it will not help [defeat Baker]. It will actually likely help to define [the Baker ticket] as ‘not that type of Republican.’”

Trump’s support for Diehl fits the model of his post-presidential endorsements, which tend to reward allies and punish enemies. In Baker’s case, the governor is most definitely the latter.

Baker has said that he left his ballot blank in 2016 and again in 2020, rather than vote for Trump. What little relationship they had fell apart during the pandemic. Baker became a more vocal Trump critic in the final year of the president’s term and afterward, when he supported his second impeachment and rejected his unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was rigged.

Baker’s stance toward Trump played well in a state that gave Trump barely one-third of the vote in his two presidential runs — despite governing one of the bluest states, Baker ranks as one of the nation’s most popular governors.

"It is clear that the endorsement is more about the former president's view on Governor Baker than it is about Geoff Diehl," said Amy Carnevale, a Republican state committeemember who was a Trump delegate in both 2016 and 2020 but also supports Baker.

Baker responded to Trump — who slammed the governor as a “RINO” who is “definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy” — by shrugging his shoulders.

If Baker decides not to run, then Diehl will be the front-runner for the R nomination...which is fine, since a full-throated trump endorsement only makes him more toxic. Still can't patronize a business that supports him, though.

[LordMortis]

How support from the world's largest communications company - AT&T - helped build and flourish One America News, the far-right network whose fortunes and viewership rose amid triumph and tumult of the Trump administration

Have to admit that I did not see that one coming. May need to switch carriers now, although they're all kinda shitty to some extent.

If this sources to more people with more details then it's time to get rid of my meager holdings in T, already a losing proposition since they decided to spin off Warner. Again, it's hard to call it a boycott when I have no ATT services but it makes it a whole lot easier to not even consider them. As it stands the article is long on OAN bashing and only talk about the headline for the last 20% of the piece. For those no inquired to through the pre-amble which is most of the writing, ATT's involvement doesn't start until

In his 2019 deposition in the labor suit unrelated to AT&T, the elder Herring said he created OAN for two reasons.

[malchior]

This is one issue I won't look past. I just emailed my money manager and put T on the block list. I've asked him to liquidate my position.

[ImLawBoy]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

And with that, I will gracefully back out and allow the bashing to proceed.

[malchior]

If this sources to more people with more details then it's time to get rid of my meager holdings in T, already a losing proposition since they decided to spin off Warner.

No better source than the Reuters article itself which quotes the following:

OAN founder and chief executive Robert Herring Sr has testified that the inspiration to launch OAN in 2013 came from AT&T executives.

“They told us they wanted a conservative network,” Herring said during a 2019 deposition seen by Reuters. “They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side. When they said that, I jumped to it and built one.”

Since then, AT&T has been a crucial source of funds flowing into OAN, providing tens of millions of dollars in revenue, court records show. Ninety percent of OAN’s revenue came from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including satellite broadcaster DirecTV, according to 2020 sworn testimony by an OAN accountant.

Herring has testified he was offered $250 million for OAN in 2019. Without the DirecTV deal, the accountant said under oath, the network’s value “would be zero.”

...

The state and federal court documents reviewed by Reuters detail a lucrative relationship for OAN with AT&T, even as the two occasionally tangled in court.

The records include a reported offer by AT&T to acquire a 5% equity stake in OAN and AWE, though the two sides ultimately signed a different deal. The court filings also cite a promise by OAN to “cast a positive light” on AT&T during newscasts.

The confidential OAN financial records are drawn in part from testimony, including by Herring and the accountant, generated during a labor lawsuit brought against OAN by a former employee and unrelated to AT&T. When that case went to trial last year, the network’s lawyer told the jury that AT&T was keeping OAN afloat.

“If Herring Networks, for instance, was to lose or not be renewed on DirecTV, the company would go out of business tomorrow,” OAN lawyer Patrick Nellies told the court, a transcript shows.

[ImLawBoy]

All uncorroborated statements that AT&T disputes. The official statement:

AT&T has never had a financial interest in OAN’s success and does not ‘fund’ OAN. When AT&T acquired DIRECTV, we refused to carry OAN on that platform, and OAN sued DIRECTV as a result. Four years ago, DIRECTV reached a commercial carriage agreement with OAN, as it has with hundreds of other channels and as OAN has done with the other TV providers that carry its programming. DIRECTV offers a wide variety of programming, including many news channels that offer a variety of viewpoints, but it does not dictate or control programming on the channels. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong. The decision of whether to renew the carriage agreement upon its expiration will be up to DIRECTV, which is now a separate company outside of AT&T.

And with that, I will now really back out.

[malchior]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Officer said they'd be out of business under oath if AT&T/DirectTV contracts didn't exist but we're supposed to equate that to the propaganda they spew? I'm super disappointed to see this sort of gaslighting.

[ImLawBoy]

No one ever lies under oath, certainly not the angels at OAN . . . .

[malchior]

No one ever lies under oath, certainly not the angels at OAN . . . .

Reuters also claims they saw (edit: some of ) the actual financials. Is Reuters mischaracterizing it? Or you going to claim they lied under oath about AT&T in a dispute that didn't even involve them. Again this is very, very disappointing.

[LawBeefaroni]

This is one issue I won't look past. I just emailed my money manager and put T on the block list. I've asked him to liquidate my position.

I haven't touched T after my experience with them as a customer. The OAN stuff is troubling but have to wait to see exactly what is going on here. I mean don't all cable companies that carry OAN pay them fees?

[malchior]

This is one issue I won't look past. I just emailed my money manager and put T on the block list. I've asked him to liquidate my position.

I haven't touched T after my experience with them as a customer. The OAN stuff is troubling but have to wait to see exactly what is going on here. I mean don't all cable companies that carry OAN pay them fees?

I thought that too but read the Reuters piece. They gave them preferential treatment including paying them a well-above market fee per subscriber.

Edit: The above market rate is the one of the few ways this makes sense. They are carried by several providers. How then does AT&T/DirecTV add up to 90% unless they pay a much higher rate?

[LordMortis]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

And with that, I will gracefully back out and allow the bashing to proceed.

I did and I'm awaiting more detail with eyebrow raised.

[LordMortis]

This is one issue I won't look past. I just emailed my money manager and put T on the block list. I've asked him to liquidate my position.

I haven't touched T after my experience with them as a customer. The OAN stuff is troubling but have to wait to see exactly what is going on here. I mean don't all cable companies that carry OAN pay them fees?

If WOW carry them then it's at a higher tier than I have. They do have other crappy grift "news" channels, aka Newsmax and that is enough to make cutting the cord a thing (and addition to Fox) as something I will proceed to do as soon as it's reasonable to have an outage of service while I make decisions on the future of my media consumption.

[malchior]

That's how I approach cord cutting. I pick the services I want, it isn't necessarily a boycott, but I'm not funding something I am diametrically opposed to as well. There is no perfect since all these media relationship resemble the Sheinhardt Wig Company but it is close enough IMO.

[stessier]

I read that Reuter's piece before finding this discussion. I don't think it says what people are claiming it says. I want to see more information before making a judgement.

[malchior]

I read that Reuter's piece before finding this discussion. I don't think it says what people are claiming it says. I want to see more information before making a judgement.

What do you interpret differently? FWIW - there doesn't sound like there is a great chance more information is coming anytime soon. AT&T "disputes" it. I assume other outlets are looking at it but this sounds like one of those flash in the pan stories where everyone will just move on.

[malchior]

I'll be clear I don't think AT&T was paying for propaganda outright. This feels more like a Frankenstein's experiment gone wrong. The relationship seemed turbulent and dicey at times. But that just feels like bare-knuckle business to me. AT&T might have gotten squirrely about putting them on DirectTV once they saw how extreme it was. What I don't doubt is that they were as an organization fundamental to building that beast when the world was already spiraling into a bit of GOP chaos. Maybe OANN had them over a barrel but the FCC lobbying sort of betrays that. They were at some level allegedly working together to support the merger for their mutual benefit.

Where does that leave me? Maybe the OANN guys are lying about the financials and also lying about the 'ghostwriting by AT&T' during the merger talks with the FCC but that doesn't add up to me. Perhaps OANN does not have a ton of credibility but this is the type of he said/she said stuff that is backed by discovery. I just don't believe they were just 100% lying in court about it. It also isn't like AT&T has been an upstanding corporate citizen during its lifetime and I factor that in as well. I also don't believe incredibly specific details such as "18 cents a subscriber" were conjured from thin air. It indicates a level of rigor on Reuters part that the handwaving dismisses too casually IMO.

[Carpet_pissr]

What I don't doubt is that they were as an organization fundamental to building that beast when the world was already spiraling into a bit of GOP chaos.

Why? For commercial reasons, or political preference by one or more leaders at AT&T?

That would be difficult to suss out, I think, to say the least (unless there is explicit evidence found, like an email or text).

[ImLawBoy]

I'll be clear I don't think AT&T was paying for propaganda outright. This feels more like a Frankenstein's experiment gone wrong. The relationship seemed turbulent and dicey at times. But that just feels like bare-knuckle business to me. AT&T might have gotten squirrely about putting them on DirectTV once they saw how extreme it was. What I don't doubt is that they were as an organization fundamental to building that beast when the world was already spiraling into a bit of GOP chaos. Maybe OANN had them over a barrel but the FCC lobbying sort of betrays that. They were at some level allegedly working together to support the merger for their mutual benefit.

Where does that leave me? Maybe the OANN guys are lying about the financials and also lying about the 'ghostwriting by AT&T' during the merger talks with the FCC but that doesn't add up to me. Perhaps OANN does not have a ton of credibility but this is the type of he said/she said stuff that is backed by discovery. I just don't believe they were just 100% lying in court about it. It also isn't like AT&T has been an upstanding corporate citizen during its lifetime and I factor that in as well. I also don't believe incredibly specific details such as "18 cents a subscriber" were conjured from thin air. It indicates a level of rigor on Reuters part that the handwaving dismisses too casually IMO.

OK, I really do want to stay out of this, but I need to point out that you seem to give a lot of credence to the allegations and what one side presents in court without considering what the other side is saying and filing.

In court records, AT&T denied it made such a deal to carry OAN on DirecTV if the Herrings lobbied for the merger. “Support for the merger was never a condition of or part of any content agreement,” an AT&T spokesperson recently told Reuters. Slator, no longer with AT&T, could not be reached for comment.

Another former senior AT&T executive told Reuters the company never made quid-pro-quo offers linking network deals to political support. “You just don’t mix the two,” he said.

In any event, the former executive said, such lobbying by a conservative news channel would be implausible or ineffective because it would have come during the presidency of Barack Obama, a Democrat. “The Herrings were not going to have influence with Obama’s people,” said the former AT&T official.

Why is what OAN is saying in court more credible than what AT&T is saying in court to you?

[El Guapo]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Officer said they'd be out of business under oath if AT&T/DirectTV contracts didn't exist but we're supposed to equate that to the propaganda they spew? I'm super disappointed to see this sort of gaslighting.

ImLawBoy is just seeing things differently (and reasonably, as far as I can tell right now) than you, man. Honestly, it's pretty inappropriate and disappointing for you to call that gaslighting.

[malchior]

OK, I really do want to stay out of this, but I need to point out that you seem to give a lot of credence to the allegations and what one side presents in court without considering what the other side is saying and filing

Most of what Reuters alleges is supported by their review of the record. Most of the AT&T denials are in the press. A mountain of difference in my book.

In court records, AT&T denied it made such a deal to carry OAN on DirecTV if the Herrings lobbied for the merger. “Support for the merger was never a condition of or part of any content agreement,” an AT&T spokesperson recently told Reuters. Slator, no longer with AT&T, could not be reached for comment.

This is a pretty narrow denial. Of course, there was never any explicit agreement calling for lobbying to secure a content agreement. You could read that as denying an implicit agreement if you are being generous. I am not so inclined to be.

Another former senior AT&T executive told Reuters the company never made quid-pro-quo offers linking network deals to political support. “You just don’t mix the two,” he said.

I mean is that official deals or the stuff that happens during conversations. It's very possible that they exaggerated the cooperation but the Obama angle is only marginally compelling. I mean it is fair realpolitik to suggest that the FCC process is beholden to the politicians but it still is a review process. It makes sense for a content producer to have a voice in a merger discussion as a stakeholder. And it would have some measure of weight if someone who has a signed agreement spoke on its behalf based on their understanding of the combined benefit. Everyone would understand the context. I also wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle on how important an element it is.

But still this glosses over the claim that AT&T ghostwrote the lobbying text. That's a specific allegation that seems like it could be the subject of a flat out denial if they want to attempt to put it to rest. It also seems like an awfully specific thing to lie about in court.

Why is what OAN is saying in court more credible than what AT&T is saying in court to you?

I think this is a misread and the wrong framing. I am trusting Reuters. Most of what Reuters alleged comes from their reading of the record as available to them and was ostensibly vetted by an army of lawyers. I contrast that to AT&T's response which obvious is constrained by many factors. Still they have so far offered narrow tailored denials about certain statements while ignoring others.

As some context, I've helped design this sort of crisis management so that partially informs as I am reading between the lines. I've been in the war room so to speak while the defenses are crafted so call it a semi-informed read on the AT&T reaction. I can only imagine the Enterprise Incident Management folks (or whatever this sort of crisis management is called at AT&T) are trying to just sail through the storm. I understand that silence on the many allegations within isn't necessarily an admission of anything. However, they'll be sniping at low hanging fruit to try to limit the damage. And that is the lens I look at this from. In essence, what does Reuters claim and how strong is the factual pushback by AT&T. I also consider the different strengths of the arguments. In court claims about financial arrangements? Pretty solid usually. Any of the wink and nod stuff? Debatable. In any case, the case against hasn't been extraordinarily strong on AT&T's part IMO.

[malchior]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Officer said they'd be out of business under oath if AT&T/DirectTV contracts didn't exist but we're supposed to equate that to the propaganda they spew? I'm super disappointed to see this sort of gaslighting.

ImLawBoy is just seeing things differently (and reasonably, as far as I can tell right now) than you, man. Honestly, it's pretty inappropriate and disappointing for you to call that gaslighting.

I have quietly not said things which I had conflicting views on due to professional relationships. He did it, he did caveat it, but I stand by what I think here. That he is alleging that someone lied in court against his conflicts in this way is ... just not cool with me. Just to be clear why I think this, he is saying that what people said under penalty of perjury -- yes I'm not naïve enough to think it doesn't happen -- is equated with their public product persona. That's just crap.

[El Guapo]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Officer said they'd be out of business under oath if AT&T/DirectTV contracts didn't exist but we're supposed to equate that to the propaganda they spew? I'm super disappointed to see this sort of gaslighting.

ImLawBoy is just seeing things differently (and reasonably, as far as I can tell right now) than you, man. Honestly, it's pretty inappropriate and disappointing for you to call that gaslighting.

I have quietly not said things which I had conflicting views on due to professional relationships. He did it, he did caveat it, but I stand by what I think here. That he is alleging that someone lied in court against his conflicts in this way is ... just not cool with me. Just to be clear why I think this, he is saying that what people said under penalty of perjury -- yes I'm not naïve enough to think it doesn't happen -- is equated with their public product persona. That's just crap.

You're basically accusing him of believing that there is this AT&T / OAN relationship and then lying about it because of his employment. Do you really believe that?

[ImLawBoy]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Officer said they'd be out of business under oath if AT&T/DirectTV contracts didn't exist but we're supposed to equate that to the propaganda they spew? I'm super disappointed to see this sort of gaslighting.

ImLawBoy is just seeing things differently (and reasonably, as far as I can tell right now) than you, man. Honestly, it's pretty inappropriate and disappointing for you to call that gaslighting.

I have quietly not said things which I had conflicting views on due to professional relationships. He did it, he did caveat it, but I stand by what I think here. That he is alleging that someone lied in court against his conflicts in this way is ... just not cool with me. Just to be clear why I think this, he is saying that what people said under penalty of perjury -- yes I'm not naïve enough to think it doesn't happen -- is equated with their public product persona. That's just crap.

To be clear, people lie in court (or "misremember" or "have different interpretations of what happened" or whatever you want to call it) all the time. That's why juries (or judges, in a non-jury trial) are tasked with assessing the credibility of witnesses and who to believe when they hear different stories. The threat of perjury may add some level of deterrent, but those cases are not often prosecuted (as far as I know). I don't particularly care if you want to tag me with the meaningless term of "gaslighter" or something, but I think you (and perhaps the Reuters reporter) are giving too much credence to what someone said in court as gospel truth.

[malchior]

I have a feeling my thoughts on this will be disregarded as blindly supporting my employer, but I urge folks to take a close look at what is claimed in the article. "Proof" is largely disputed statements made in court cases. I mean, maybe now is the time to start believing what OAN is saying, but it might make sense to give this some time to see whether there is any substance to these allegations.

Officer said they'd be out of business under oath if AT&T/DirectTV contracts didn't exist but we're supposed to equate that to the propaganda they spew? I'm super disappointed to see this sort of gaslighting.

ImLawBoy is just seeing things differently (and reasonably, as far as I can tell right now) than you, man. Honestly, it's pretty inappropriate and disappointing for you to call that gaslighting.

I have quietly not said things which I had conflicting views on due to professional relationships. He did it, he did caveat it, but I stand by what I think here. That he is alleging that someone lied in court against his conflicts in this way is ... just not cool with me. Just to be clear why I think this, he is saying that what people said under penalty of perjury -- yes I'm not naïve enough to think it doesn't happen -- is equated with their public product persona. That's just crap.

You're basically accusing him of believing that there is this AT&T / OAN relationship and then lying about it because of his employment. Do you really believe that?

That isn't the right read at all. I'm saying his push back was incredibly conflicted. And the way he did it was what as a saw as a common defense PR tactic which is applying some slime that attempts to unfairly undermine the discussion. This idea that their business lies in public, so as an individual they might be lying in court? I don't think that's cool. I think it is safe to say that isn't how people generally act in these cases. Especially when they can be caught fairly easily - why I raise the issue about financial statements they made such as AT&T is 90% of revenue or we'd be worthless. That is just too easy to disprove unless it is (at least) mostly true.

That said, looking at that quote...my choice of words was unfortunate. And to ImLawBoy I apologize for that directly. Gaslight was too strong a word. I think people react to it differently and I didn't account for that. I more meant that I felt that weighing in as an insider with that sort of defense just wasn't what I'd expect.

[malchior]

I don't particularly care if you want to tag me with the meaningless term of "gaslighter" or something, but I think you (and perhaps the Reuters reporter) are giving too much credence to what someone said in court as gospel truth.

Yeah I get that and again I apologize for that term. It was the wrong choice.

Still, the idea that this is just some naïve reporter making this sort of allegation against someone with the size of AT&T just doesn't pass any sort of smell test to me. There is zero chance they didn't convince several layers of management at Reuters to the entire piece's veracity and weight. They almost certainly reviewed this story and the supporting evidence with legal. They went over this with a fine tooth comb. This isn't an article about a cookie store here. This is one of the oldest, biggest, deep pocketed corporations in the United States. That is why I just can't dismiss as casually as some others do. It doesn't mean its gospel but I believe it's almost certainly accurate. In the end, I ask you to look at it from the devil's advocate point of view. Would you believe if someone on the inside was trying to sell this defense?

[stessier]

I have to say it is amusing that the 4th estate is dying but this reporter gets every benefit of the doubt. When I read that article looking for a smoking gun, I came up empty. That 90% was not at all convincing to me. Have you not watched depositions where CEOs "misremember" so often that it is comical? This happens even when it's easily fact checked in the moment! I see no reason to give the OAN founders anymore credibility than AT&T, no matter what they say, until there is evidence of their claims.

[LordMortis]

I have to say it is amusing that the 4th estate is dying but this reporter gets every benefit of the doubt. When I read that article looking for a smoking gun, I came up empty. That 90% was not at all convincing to me. Have you not watched depositions where CEOs "misremember" so often that it is comical? This happens even when it's easily fact checked in the moment! I see no reason to give the OAN founders anymore credibility than AT&T, no matter what they say, until there is evidence of their claims.

*coughcough*Lindell*coughcough*

I don't give AT&T any benefit of the doubt here but I'll wait for more. I was pretty much taken into skepticism when it took 80% of the article to get to the facts of the article related to the title. By the time I got to the meat, I was wondering if the article was at all what it claimed to be.

[malchior]

I have to say it is amusing that the 4th estate is dying but this reporter gets every benefit of the doubt.

Well I'd point out this is not indicative of the larger problem with the press. This is what the press should be doing and hasn't been doing! Instead, they often chase easy, lazy horse race type stories. This is a *hard* story. They don't tell nuanced contextual stories and this is why. We are seeing the outlines about how much damage has been done to the press. An outlet does what appears to be solid investigative reporting and people want to pick sides between two unethical entities and ignore that there is a third party that is taking a risk even publishing the story. People have been trained to instinctively dismiss/tear down that work. This is not healthy for our democracy.

The idea that this is about a reporter getting the benefit of the doubt ignores everything I wrote above about the process required to publish something like this. Boiling this down to trusting the reporter or not is just not the right way to look at it. It is profoundly reductive. The question you should ask is do I trust Reuters. Do I trust that they as a major news organization will publish a story like this that may invite something that damages their credibility like getting basic facts wrong or inviting lawsuits (though that is their less likely fear by far).

When I read that article looking for a smoking gun, I came up empty. That 90% was not at all convincing to me. Have you not watched depositions where CEOs "misremember" so often that it is comical?

Statements about financial matters is one of the most falsifiable arguments there is. It also isn't likely the entire basis for the statement. Reuters only relied in part on the testimony. They reported they reviewed other financial documents. I highly, highly doubt that the 90% quote makes it into the article based on that statement alone.

[Blackhawk]

Personally, I just assume any multi-billion dollar national-level corporation that deals directly with the public is despicable at levels that would disgust me if I knew. Any and all. They exist by treating humanity as a commodity to be herded and manipulated for profit and/or power. I don't have services with AT&T, but if I did, I don't think I could find another option that wasn't just as (allegedly) foul, albeit in a different way I haven't heard about.

And yes, I have developed a pessimistic outlook on that particular slice of humanity lately.

[Isgrimnur]

Not like the good old days of MCI.

[Paingod]

They exist by treating humanity as a commodity to be herded and manipulated for profit and/or power.

It's always amazed me that a business can become so cold and uncaring and sees people as fuel for the corporate furnace - engineering addictive substances, suppressing damning research, ignoring human rights issues, etc.

There are real, live people making decisions to do these things. At some point the people at the top become so removed from the humanity that all they see are numbers on a spreadsheet. Profits and losses. There are no people left to worry about, no ecosystems to destroy. Just profits and losses. So many of the business classes I've taken have "Ethics" segments that it seems like colleges are fully aware of the monsters that these people become and are desperate to reach them before they get to that point.

I fully believe that when a person reaches the ability to do that, they're really capable of just about anything you can think of. Often there are so few controls to stop them that they do whatever you could think of. It reminds me of the executive meeting scene in Dogma. Only one of them was a decent human being.

I used to exclusively buy Goya products if they carried something I needed because I thought I was supporting an underdog - always in the "Ethnic Foods" aisle. I don't buy anything they make now.

I've always boycotted all social media because I've believed it was more destructive than helpful, too heavily distracting people from the real world. If I have a Facebook, Instagram, or other account it's because someone I knew asked me to follow them and I wanted to be nice - and then I never logged in again.

I've never been in a Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A and wouldn't if I could find one. I try and limit my Walmart purchases as much as possible. I've never had a Papa John's pizza and wouldn't now if I was offered it. I admit that I order a lot of things on Amazon - but they carry things I'd have to buy from companies like Walmart if I didn't get them there so I don't know a good fix for that.

[Jaymann]

I am going to cancel my AT&T service. Not a boycott per se, but due to shitty service. Over a week to even attempt to address a service outage is unacceptable. The boycott is a happy side benefit.

[Blackhawk]

I've never been in a Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A and wouldn't if I could find one. I try and limit my Walmart purchases as much as possible. I've never had a Papa John's pizza and wouldn't now if I was offered it. I admit that I order a lot of things on Amazon - but they carry things I'd have to buy from companies like Walmart if I didn't get them there so I don't know a good fix for that.

Trust me, I'd avoid a lot more businesses if I lived somewhere with more options.

[Jaymann]

This is what my experience was like cancelling A T & T: