This sounds like the easiest defamation suit in history. Really boils my piss the way gossip-flingers will big themselves up with this journalistic lingo "the reporting of the story" as if they do...
This sounds like the easiest defamation suit in history.
Last September, Allan filed a defamation lawsuit against the TikToker for $150 million to compensate for his loss of earnings and his “destroyed reputation.” On July 5, 2024, they settled the case under undisclosed terms.
On the day of the settlement, Harvey issued a nine-minute apology video. Sitting in a plaid shirt, in a dark room lit by purple LED lights, he admits that he “made some mistakes in the reporting of the story” of Catherine and Allan’s divorce.
Really boils my piss the way gossip-flingers will big themselves up with this journalistic lingo "the reporting of the story" as if they do anything resembling journalism. No fact-checking, no verification, no competing perspectives, spinning new accusations (at the guy's kids!) in real time. And when criticism (or worse) comes knocking the 'citizen journalist' is gone, suddenly it's just 'just a normal person sharing their opinions'.
It's this entire species of personality on social media who self-appoint as experts and don't seem to realise that they are making entertainment, not education or politics or journalism.
The loss of journalism as a profession - which includes a lot of what you cite here: getting statements from counter-parties (not the same as "bothside"ing), not inserting oneself into the story,...
The loss of journalism as a profession - which includes a lot of what you cite here: getting statements from counter-parties (not the same as "bothside"ing), not inserting oneself into the story, etc. I think there were a lot of reasons to not trust "the media" but I've always respected reporters and we can't really function as a society without them.
I don't even really know what can be done at this point, it seems like the entire profession has collapsed and the vestiges of it (substack, etc.) aren't sufficient to replace what was lost.
This is a terrible story, and I think the author is much more sympathetic to the father than I end up being. Video evidence is referred to repeatedly, but rarely described. One of the few clear...
This is a terrible story, and I think the author is much more sympathetic to the father than I end up being. Video evidence is referred to repeatedly, but rarely described. One of the few clear descriptions we get is Allan calling Catherine a "fat loser". There is testimony from the girls and from Allan that Catherine pushed him to this sort of behavior, and that may be the case, but we don't actually get an explanation of what caused him to use that sort of insult, especially where his young daughters could hear. We don't actually get a clear depiction of his side of the story, despite the length of this article. We just hear that Catherine said he was bad, but actually, it was Catherine who was bad. I understand not wanting to go through that, not wanting to shred your privacy any more than it's already been shredded, and even that it may have been the author of the piece's choice, rather than the father's, to focus the article as they did. But still, an article was published, which is an invitation to opine on the subject. And with the limited information I have, it seems like those poor girls didn't actually have any safe, stable parent in their lives.
There's also a possibility - albeit, remote - that Catherine wasn't lying, and wasn't abusive. It's possible that the girls are lying now, because they know that their father is their only living parent and they want to stay on his good side. Perhaps she did attempt to inform her daughters in a more compassionate way and was thwarted. That's not a great fit for the facts laid out in the article, and I don't actually think it's likely to be the case, but my point is that the story is still quite murky and this article doesn't do much in the way of adding clarity.
So what is the article trying to do? Clear a name? Advocate against cyberbullying? Advance a solution? It seems that it must be advocating against cyberbullying and toxic social media campaigns, because I see no names cleared and I don't see a solution suggested anywhere. I'm not sure it's effective at that advocacy. Even if Harvey hadn't posted those TikTok videos, even if strangers weren't harassing the family, this would still be a terrible and sad story. The experience they had with the family court system is heartbreaking on its own, and again, unclear who is actually a victim and who is an abuser, aside from the obviously innocent children. There are no obvious solutions as to how any of that could be improved.
Ultimately I come away from this article seeing it as simply exacerbating the issue of this family's infamy, and leaving me sad and full of questions that have no answers. I hope other readers got something more positive out of it than I did.
It's possible that my own family's experience with an incorrect version of our story being made popular in the news and on social media is coloring my reaction to this. Our experience was extremely different and people were largely supportive of us when it happened - although we did have a few extremely painful interactions - but it still pained us deeply that false information was being spread. I spent quite a lot of time and effort during a painful and exhausting time doing what little I could to correct the story as much as possible, and share the truth as we knew it. I would not have wanted an article with so few of my own words published. When, in fact, I did contact a journalist who was willing to publish our side of the story, I made sure to be as clear an thorough about our side as possible, and emphasized how important it was to me that the article be specific about the truth. I know that not everyone wants the same things that I and my family do, and that the situations were quite different, but that brings me back to wondering what the family in the article does want, and how well the article served that purpose.
I hope that one day, those girls have the opportunity to have their own truth heard, if that's what they want. I hope that they have the opportunity to be forgotten and live quiet lives of obscurity, if that's what they want.
It seems that the most damning narrative for the father was already published, repeatedly, through social media and tabloids running with incomplete facts. This article is in response to the...
It seems that the most damning narrative for the father was already published, repeatedly, through social media and tabloids running with incomplete facts. This article is in response to the sensation created by those articles.
Additionally, that the article doesn't spend a lot of time slinging mud at a dead person lends credibility. The mature people in these situations don't run to the Internet the same way the more manipulative folks do.
Also, from the article:
But on May 2 of last year, a new court-appointed psychologist issued an incredibly thorough, over 100-page report that was so damning for Catherine, a judge suspended all access to her kids until further notice.
As someone who used to do volunteer child advocacy for children in foster care, and testified in many dependency hearings, you don't see that very often. A judge getting a report and immediately suspending contact, including supervised contact is rare.
I'm sure they could have cited any number of things in that report to completely tank the mother's reputation, but they took the high(er) road.
But it does sling mud at her. It calls her manipulative, abusive, and toxic, repeatedly. It gives quite a lot of details about her actions as well. I'm quite convinced that she was terrible. The...
Additionally, that the article doesn't spend a lot of time slinging mud at a dead person lends credibility.
But it does sling mud at her. It calls her manipulative, abusive, and toxic, repeatedly. It gives quite a lot of details about her actions as well. I'm quite convinced that she was terrible. The fact that she released her children's therapy records cements that for me, and that is indisputable. It's the lack of detail about anyone else's actions that leaves me with questions.
I don't see how explaining the thought process that lead you to "fat loser" is any more defamatory than insisting someone faked their own death and is siphoning off their childrens' inheritance to live on while they may lose the home they grew up in.
I mean, you can't try and clear up someone's name or the facts in this sort of situation without communicating that they aren't a great parent or potentially person. But you don't need to air the...
I mean, you can't try and clear up someone's name or the facts in this sort of situation without communicating that they aren't a great parent or potentially person. But you don't need to air the private details, which very well might be traumatic for the kids. Especially since it sounds like much of the toxicity centered on the mother's fixation on them as well as how she treated her adopted and biological daughters differently.
I'll say again: courts almost never halt supervised contact, even if the contact is limited to supervised visits at a social workers office with the monitor on the other side of a one way mirror. That the court made those decisions in response to the reports backs up the claims that her behavior was harmful to the children. It wasn't even a one off. As the court learned more, it strengthened the separation from her.
Edit: and the children's attorney was also targeted by the mother, and they were likely appointed an attorney by being old enough to have one to represent their interests in the matter. So whole I have a dim view of a father who volunteers at work to be out of the house his children are being abused in, it doesn't sound like his poor behavior was targeted at the girls.
I don't understand what you're trying to convince me of here? I've already agreed that it seems the mother was terrible. Am I missing something? But it does air private details! It talks about the...
I'll say again: courts almost never halt supervised contact, even if the contact is limited to supervised visits at a social workers office with the monitor on the other side of a one way mirror. That the court made those decisions in response to the reports backs up the claims that her behavior was harmful to the children. It wasn't even a one off. As the court learned more, it strengthened the separation from her.
I don't understand what you're trying to convince me of here? I've already agreed that it seems the mother was terrible. Am I missing something?
But you don't need to air the private details, which very well might be traumatic for the kids.
But it does air private details! It talks about the eldest daughter sleeping on the floor and being punished for stealing a candy bar. It's just selective with them. It doesn't need to describe the videos of Allan being cruel, but it does. Then it says that we don't understand the context, but doesn't clarify the context at all.
When I first commented, I had suspicious yet neutral opinion of the father. His worst sin could be absenteeism and he could otherwise be a well-meaning, caring father. He could be equally toxic and abusive as the mother. He could be even worse. The article clarifies nothing. But the more I think about it, and how far out of the way they had to go to omit details that could either clear his name or muddy it further, the more I find myself thinking they must have been damaging or he would have wanted them included.
I did not read your original comment as particularly neutral, but we all bring our own biases to the table. You can't think of any reason why the father would omit details about his wife who...
I did not read your original comment as particularly neutral, but we all bring our own biases to the table.
But the more I think about it, and how far out of the way they had to go to omit details that could either clear his name or muddy it further, the more I find myself thinking they must have been damaging or he would have wanted them included.
You can't think of any reason why the father would omit details about his wife who abused their daughters and committed suicide, other than it must be covering up his behavior? It could be not wanting to look vindictive. It could be to protect the kids. There's a difference between commenting on things that are already public or semi public in the kids lives, but I'm sure there are many details about the abuse the kids received that they haven't processed and isn't known in their support circle.
There is no public interest in the story, no right for the court records involving abuse of minors to be publicly available. Sometimes we have to live with incomplete information. Personally, I find the behavior of the court corroborating, as some who had been involved in family court proceedings quite a bit.
But to each their own.
Edit: because it might be lost in the conversation, my point is that you can release just enough information to make a point or clear a name, without beating a dead horse or crossing a line to being petty given the situation.
It's not details about his wife I'm confused about, it's details about himself. Exactly, like those videos, which are already public and which he did not comment on. I am not asking for the court...
You can't think of any reason why the father would omit details about his wife who abused their daughters and committed suicide, other than it must be covering up his behavior?
It's not details about his wife I'm confused about, it's details about himself.
There's a difference between commenting on things that are already public or semi public in the kids lives,
Exactly, like those videos, which are already public and which he did not comment on.
I am not asking for the court records to be made available. I am not asking for explanations for anything that wasn't brought up in the article. There were many things brought up in the article that went unexplained. Why bring them up if not to explain them? Either explain them if there is a good explanation, or omit them entirely. That they were included by the author and the father did not insist on explaining them is baffling and suspicious to me. The only explanation I can think of is that they couldn't be omitted due to public awareness, but couldn't be explained because....? What finishes that sentence if not "the father is abusive too."?
Personally, I find the behavior of the court corroborating,
Corroborating to what? The court didn't rule that the dad is a pretty good guy. They ruled that the mother was dangerous. Again, you'll get no argument out of me.
Their explanation is that she would provoke him to these outbursts, and given the transcripts it seems like he was clearly baited to be caught on a recording. The only explanation he could give...
Exactly, like those videos, which are already public and which he did not comment on.
Their explanation is that she would provoke him to these outbursts, and given the transcripts it seems like he was clearly baited to be caught on a recording. The only explanation he could give would be detailing her behavior that provoked the outbursts, which is what could be seen as petty or divulge information damaging to the kids.
Corroborating to what? The court didn't rule that the dad is a pretty good guy.
The court awarded him custody. They don't typically do that to wife beaters or abusers when they have the facts. And given the amount of third party testimony and evidence, reports, and that the wife herself was a litigator, I don't have any reason to think that she was disadvantaged in bringing facts to the court.
From the same article: That seems equally private to me. I understand that the father didn't say that, but he must have read this article before it was published and understood what would be in it...
The only explanation he could give would be detailing her behavior that provoked the outbursts, which is what could be seen as petty or divulge information damaging to the kids.
From the same article:
When I spoke to her, she said she saw Catherine “scream at Ally for almost 10 minutes after she misbehaved—she said things such as ‘You will never have friends’ and ‘You will never succeed in life or get married and have your own kids.’ ”
That seems equally private to me. I understand that the father didn't say that, but he must have read this article before it was published and understood what would be in it and how it would be painted. Hell, it's titled "A Wife's Revenge from Beyond the Grave". He still agreed to participate in the article and to be quoted for it, so he can't be that opposed to the article being petty. And he did say:
“Assuming she’s dead,” Allan says—a caveat I’ve heard him use multiple times—“her dying wish and goal was to still hurt me and the kids.”
Which doesn't seem like someone trying to avoid speaking ill of the dead.
Ally pipes up: “At least now you know what it feels like to be me.” She then turns to me and asks if I’d heard the story of when her mother threw a glass at her.
It doesn't seem that his daughter is upset with stories about times her mother was cruel being publicized. She's volunteering information to the journalist.
As far as awarding him custody, I'll admit that you have more experience here, but I can only see this proving that she was abusive, not really saying anything about the father. It makes it less likely that he was abusing the girls, as that would have probably come up, but it doesn't mean he wasn't abusing Catherine. It's also possible that he was abusing the girls and her abuse just overshadowed his, although I recognize that as being unlikely. Psychology is not a hard science. They didn't run abuse tests on the girls in a lab. I am very open to the possibility that I'm drawing incorrect conclusions from limited information about this aspect, though, and I welcome corrections.
Really, I welcome corrections about the whole case. I would love to believe that these girls are now with a safe parent who is doing his best to provide them with a good home. I hope that they're in a place where time and therapy can begin to heal them, and I would love to believe that they're in the best possible place for that. I just don't come away from this article with that impression, and the more I sit with it, the less I believe it.
just a small note: I don't know if it's true for this specific news outlet but at many publishers the author rarely has control over the final title/headline/summary. The editor is usually tasked...
it's titled "A Wife's Revenge from Beyond the Grave". He still agreed to participate in the article and to be quoted for it
just a small note: I don't know if it's true for this specific news outlet but at many publishers the author rarely has control over the final title/headline/summary. The editor is usually tasked with editorializing... and this happens minutes before publishing or soon after if the article is not performing well :/
From my experience in custody cases, when there are allegations of abuse from both parents, the court has to weigh several factors. 1) the suitability of one or both parents to continue to parent,...
From my experience in custody cases, when there are allegations of abuse from both parents, the court has to weigh several factors. 1) the suitability of one or both parents to continue to parent, 2) to what extent, and 3) to what extent they can minimize infringing on parental rights.
This case had exactly that issue; both parents claimed to suffer abuse from each other and both parents had evidence. In the case of the father, he had evidence of abuse targeting the daughters, which would carry special weight.
In setting custody courts don't like absolutes, because that usually isn't balancing the rights or interests of the parties. It's not uncommon that two adults bring out toxic behavior in each other, which spills over into harm to the children, but individually one or both are fine. The courts job is to tease out these details, set custody that minimally disrupts the children's established parenting relationships, protects the children, and protects both parents parental rights.
The court would have needed compelling evidence to not only cut off all contact with the mother, but to do so while completely flipping the established parental relationship, i.e., Dad was out of the house most of the time and now is the sole provider.
To someone who has been involved in these cases, that is rare.
It doesn't seem that his daughter is upset with stories about times her mother was cruel being publicized. She's volunteering information to the journalist.
Victims of abuse have complicated relationships with what aspects of the abuse is most private or harmful. I wouldn't try and armchair quarterback that.
But more to the point, journalists, real journalists, don't give editorial rights to their subjects in exchange for interviews. He might participate to try and clear his name without unduly disclosing private details or giving a laundry list of accusations against the dead.
It maybe he did, and it wasn't included in the article. Unless the article discloses that he had right of review prior to publication, then I would assume he did not. But like many people smeared by social media, he was hopeful that he could set the record straight, at least enough to find a job again.
Your description continues to sound damning to the mother without necessarily being exonerating to the father, to me. Certainly not editorial rights to the point of changing the story, or...
Your description continues to sound damning to the mother without necessarily being exonerating to the father, to me.
But more to the point, journalists, real journalists, don't give editorial rights to their subjects in exchange for interviews.
Certainly not editorial rights to the point of changing the story, or including something that conflicts with established fact, but is it really that uncommon to let the primary subject look over the article and clarify anything that seems murky? The person who interviewed me in that situation is very much a real journalist, and that seemed like a very natural part of the process. I'm sure if I'd demanded he rewrite half of it or take out my commentary, he probably would have refused, but I still got to make sure that I didn't feel misrepresented.
I do acknowledge it's extremely possible that the father did try to give more information and the author of the article didn't include it, but that's even more baffling to me! That's so much more interesting than listing all the colors of paint the family was harassed with.
Edit: I really, truly hope that isn't the case. If it is, I think the author is doing a serious disservice to this poor man.
We can't know without asking the author, but journalism 101 is don't interview someone who puts conditions on what you can write about them. There is a standard for what details are put in...
We can't know without asking the author, but journalism 101 is don't interview someone who puts conditions on what you can write about them.
There is a standard for what details are put in articles by journalists, and many reason that laundry lists of actions could be omitted for ethical reasons, brevity, clarity, or relevance. But we don't know what we don't know.
Your description continues to sound damning to the mother without necessarily being exonerating to the father, to me.
I don't understand what you mean. Exonerating in what sense? Unless I misremember, your original comment raised fears that he was abusing his daughter's, e.g., they might be saying they don't miss their mom because he is their sole parent, but that he is otherwise a source of fear or concern. But the behavior of the court seems to support the notion that he is a sound father who is not abusing them. If he wasn't, at a minimum he would likely have court ordered services like parental counseling with product oversight from CPS.
I'm not saying that I think the author would have agreed beforehand to include anything and everything the father wanted said about himself, just that I would expect he be given the opportunity to...
I'm not saying that I think the author would have agreed beforehand to include anything and everything the father wanted said about himself, just that I would expect he be given the opportunity to clarify if he felt that he was misrepresented. I'm addressing two possibilities here, neither of which violate the standards of journalistic ethics but both of which are baffling to me for different reasons.
Scenario one - the father did not explain his own behavior, read the article, saw how glaring that omission was, but did not offer clarification for ????? reasons. We know those reasons aren't that he doesn't want to talk about the subject at all, because he agreed to be interviewed for the article.
Scenario two - the father did explain his own behavior, but the author chose not to include that for ????? reasons, but did describe several really boring sounding family photos that don't really add to our understanding of the situation at all.
You mention that the courts don't like absolutes, that they strongly consider parental rights, and that it's not uncommon that parents are toxic while together but as individuals they are fine parents. It seems entirely possible to me that they could have considered her behavior to be obviously harmful, and believed his behavior to only be harmful when exacerbated by her behavior. This could mean his behavior is still harmful in a number of ways. It's possible the court was right, but the girls are still afraid of him. It's possible the court was wrong and he's still harmful even though the mother isn't around. It's also possible that he was never harmful to the girls except insofar as their witnessing what he did to their mother, who he was horribly abusive to. These are only possibilities, and I don't think any of them are particularly likely. I just don't think the evidence of the court removing custody from the mother says as much about the father as you seem to.
You misunderstand. It's not that they severed contact with the mother. It's that they granted sole custody to the father. If neither was fit, the state could investigate, and CPS could pursue...
I just don't think the evidence of the court removing custody from the mother says as much about the father as you seem to.
You misunderstand. It's not that they severed contact with the mother. It's that they granted sole custody to the father. If neither was fit, the state could investigate, and CPS could pursue termination of parental rights for both. Or if the father exhibited concerning behavior around the mother, it would be normal for the court to assign the father to court mandated services or counseling with occasional check-ins with the court. That this didn't happen makes it seem likely that the court didn't have any evidence of him being abusive to the daughters, or his anger with his wife spilling over to the daughters or crossing certain lines that would make him generally unfit.
Frankly, this possibility chasing feels a lot like the social media persecution the guy already went through.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think there are several important differences. One, I didn't hear about this guy from a random TikTok that he didn't even know about. I heard about him from an...
Frankly, this possibility chasing feels a lot like the social media persecution the guy already went through.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think there are several important differences. One, I didn't hear about this guy from a random TikTok that he didn't even know about. I heard about him from an article that he chose to participate in. An article invites thoughts and questions. Two, I'm not directing these questions at him. I hope he never knows that I'm asking them. If, for some reason, I was in a situation where it did seem remotely appropriate for me to ask him these questions, I wouldn't late them with hate and vitriol, I would ask them as gently as possible. Three, I'm not making any claims about him aside from claims the article made. I've got questions, but I've left open all of the possibilities that I can think of. I think that makes a pretty significant difference.
The corollary here is that publicly commenting also invites thoughts and questions, which I've articulated. Your premise seems to be that simply asking all the questions, and leaving open all the...
I heard about him from an article that he chose to participate in. An article invites thoughts and questions. Two, I'm not directing these questions at him.
The corollary here is that publicly commenting also invites thoughts and questions, which I've articulated.
Your premise seems to be that simply asking all the questions, and leaving open all the possibilities is somehow neutral or fair. But questions inform and shape their answers and discussion. When one ignores a preponderance of evidence and spends a preponderance of words on edge cases of possibilities not as well supported by the data, it doesn't feel neutral or open minded.
In your original comment you opine that the article didn't exonerate him, wondered what the point of the article was, and questioned if the girls had a safe parent. In fact, most of your paragraphs are questioning the evidence supporting the father and examining unsupported hypotheticals where the mom wasn't abusive.
One of the few clear descriptions we get is Allan calling Catherine a "fat loser". There is testimony from the girls and from Allan that Catherine pushed him to this sort of behavior, and that may be the case, but we don't actually get an explanation of what caused him to use that sort of insult,
[...]
There's also a possibility - albeit, remote - that Catherine wasn't lying, and wasn't abusive. It's possible that the girls are lying now, because they know that their father is their only living parent and they want to stay on his good side. Perhaps she did attempt to inform her daughters in a more compassionate way and was thwarted. That's not a great fit for the facts laid out in the article, and I don't actually think it's likely to be the case, but my point is that the story is still quite murky and this article doesn't do much in the way of adding clarity.
Ignoring the court rulings, the many experts and third parties, etc, to examine edge counter cases about the mom, while also questioning the point of any article that doesn't completely paint the father in a glowing light seems to be chasing a narrative more than the truth. It feels like a version of "I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking questions" trope used by political talking heads.
But those are my thoughts and my opinions, based on this article and your public comments.
Yeah, that's fine, I vitality l clearly don't have a problem with you doing that. I've engaged with you and didn't compare your actions to that of a hate mob. I don't agree that we have a...
The corollary here is that publicly commenting also invites thoughts and questions, which I've articulated.
Yeah, that's fine, I vitality l clearly don't have a problem with you doing that. I've engaged with you and didn't compare your actions to that of a hate mob.
I don't agree that we have a preponderance of evidence. We have court rulings and expert testimony that lacked evidence of a negative thing, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's also certainly not evidence itself. It's just nothing. The article doesn't mention, for example, expert testimony that he is a good father. I am not saying it would need to, just giving an example of something that would be evidence.
I'm aware that my questions shape their answers, which is why I've filled them with qualifiers. I've acknowledged when things are possible but very unlikely. I've acknowledged when something isn't what I believe but isn't ruled out by the information presented. I mean all of that sincerely.
My questions don't arise from the fact that the father isn't "painted in a glowing light", it's that he's not painted in any light. I want his side of the story. That's missing from the article. I don't understand why it's missing. It seems weird and suspicious to me. I can't make it any clearer than that. I don't know if continuing to go back and forth on this is bringing either of us anything positive.
I appreciate your thoughts and opinions, though, and welcome any you have in the future.
I think a fundamental difference in outlook here is that you don't view the court rulings as evidence, while I do. You are looking for the evidence that the court had access to in making its...
I think a fundamental difference in outlook here is that you don't view the court rulings as evidence, while I do. You are looking for the evidence that the court had access to in making its decision. Which is fair, but impossible in cases with minors. I, too, would prefer to have primary data. However, I also have experience in a profession where I must give credence to court rulings, at least to some extent. That, paired with my volunteer experience with family court, I suspect, gives me a different view of the facts.
I absolutely view them as evidence. Strong evidence, of the thing that it is clear they are evidence of, which is that the mother was not a safe person for them to be with. I just don't view them...
I absolutely view them as evidence. Strong evidence, of the thing that it is clear they are evidence of, which is that the mother was not a safe person for them to be with. I just don't view them as evidence that the father was anything other than safer than the mother. I am not looking for evidence that the court had access to in making its decision, but it is an example of something else that I would accept as evidence.
The evidence that I'm really curious about, though, that I could very easily have access to if things just went slightly differently, is the father's own testimony.
CPS investigated accusations against the dad and didn't push for services. Likewise, the dad received custody without court mandated services. The court doesn't go, "well neither of you is fit but...
I just don't view them as evidence that the father was anything other than safer than the mother.
CPS investigated accusations against the dad and didn't push for services. Likewise, the dad received custody without court mandated services.
The court doesn't go, "well neither of you is fit but the kids have to go somewhere, so off you go." If the father wasn't fit, there would have been more involved in the court proceedings.
That means there wasn't evidence that he was unfit or unsafe. I don't disbelieve that, I take it strongly into account. I also acknowledge that it is possible to be unsafe or abusive in ways that...
That means there wasn't evidence that he was unfit or unsafe. I don't disbelieve that, I take it strongly into account. I also acknowledge that it is possible to be unsafe or abusive in ways that do not leave a clear evidence trail, especially when the situation is very complicated. I think it's extremely unlikely that he was not a much better parent than the mother. That still leaves room for quite a few possibilities.
My personal opinion is that a comment that spends 90% of it's words on fringe possibilities that would require specific assumptions, such as an investigation missing something or a form of abuse...
My personal opinion is that a comment that spends 90% of it's words on fringe possibilities that would require specific assumptions, such as an investigation missing something or a form of abuse that is hard to document, isn't particularly neutral. Much the same way that a news segment that spends 90% of its time covering the one climate study with a null result doesn't seem neutral.
Perhaps important to discuss with the appropriate care and handling, but requires good framing and presentation to not seem biased.
My comment is only focused on that specific aspect because it's the part that you've seemed the most interested in. I'm following your lead here. My earlier comments were very long and touched on...
My comment is only focused on that specific aspect because it's the part that you've seemed the most interested in. I'm following your lead here. My earlier comments were very long and touched on several other aspects, I'd be happy to drill down further into any of those if you're interested.
I'm focusing on your initial comment that spent the majority of its words hypothesizing about the mother and "just asking the questions" about the father. I cited the court rulings as indicators...
I'm focusing on your initial comment that spent the majority of its words hypothesizing about the mother and "just asking the questions" about the father. I cited the court rulings as indicators as to why that felt misplaced in terms of allocation of concern.
I definitely spent more of my original comment questioning the purpose of the article, if it exacerbated the situation the family is in, and my own experience with falsehoods being spread on...
I definitely spent more of my original comment questioning the purpose of the article, if it exacerbated the situation the family is in, and my own experience with falsehoods being spread on social media than I did speaking about the mother or father at all. In fact, I originally only ask the questions about the father or mother at all to indicate the ways in which I feel the article failed at one possible purpose, being to clear the father's name.
If I say that an article fails to make clear the issue of climate change because it only discusses polar ice melt during the spring months which is a normal time for ice to melt, and the article didn't explain why this particular ice melt was abnormal, but I don't doubt that there is an issue with the polar ice caps melting I just don't understand why the article left out that critical information, that's not climate change denial.
Well, I can't speak to the intent of the author of the article. But to my reading it definitely seems like it is in response to the social media witch hunt, and is attempting to provide better...
Well, I can't speak to the intent of the author of the article. But to my reading it definitely seems like it is in response to the social media witch hunt, and is attempting to provide better researched counter narrative. I e., show the complexity and ambiguity of the situation and dispel the white knighting that was happening in defense of the mother. I also suspect the father participated as an opportunity to add depth to his role as being not a villain or not just a villain as portrayed. That and highlight the retraction/apology so that maybe future employers will see that and this article and hire him.
And I don't feel that it worked at providing a counter narrative. The research appears to be there, but the narrative is not. All it provided was a villain, not a coherent story. It's missing...
And I don't feel that it worked at providing a counter narrative. The research appears to be there, but the narrative is not. All it provided was a villain, not a coherent story. It's missing characterization for any other main character.
Does a counter narrative have to be diametrically opposed to the original, or simply different, orthogonal? I do find it to be a successful counter narrative. It changes the story from clear...
Does a counter narrative have to be diametrically opposed to the original, or simply different, orthogonal?
I do find it to be a successful counter narrative. It changes the story from clear victim and villain, to possible villain(s) and characters with many flaws. Not every story has a hero. Sometimes it's all shades of grey.
Practically speaking, being able to change the internet record and narrative from "the father is an inhuman monster" to "the father is deeply flawed" seems like a pretty substantial change.
Simply different is fine, but it should be complete. Or rather, have all of the components of a story. Plot beats, setting, characters. It should explain all of the aspects of the original story,...
Simply different is fine, but it should be complete. Or rather, have all of the components of a story. Plot beats, setting, characters. It should explain all of the aspects of the original story, woven together in a new way. If it just leaves huge chunks unexplained, it's not successful.
I suppose that is subjective. I think it successfully changes the public narrative, especially ending on the apology video from the TikToker. I don't think it needs to be exhaustively complete to...
I suppose that is subjective. I think it successfully changes the public narrative, especially ending on the apology video from the TikToker. I don't think it needs to be exhaustively complete to change people's minds, or at least change the first impression for me googlers. Looking at other comments on the thread, it seems successful in channeling negative attention towards the witch hunt, rather than solely at the father.
I don't think the story will ever be complete, if for no other reason than the motivations of the mother to commit suicide are forever gone, and that was a major facet that made the story so salacious to the public.
I also imagined this possibility while reading the article. I don't doubt that the article is not biased in favor of the father in some ways, but the article also reflects on that when it says the...
It's possible that the girls are lying now, because they know that their father is their only living parent and they want to stay on his good side
I also imagined this possibility while reading the article. I don't doubt that the article is not biased in favor of the father in some ways, but the article also reflects on that when it says the the truth is probably somewhere between her and his side of the story.
I see no names cleared
I think this story does the job of presenting the evidence in a more impartial way (or at least presenting an alternative view) than the articles that were written before it. The article cannot undo the damage that the existing narrative has caused. Beyond documenting the other side of the story I think this article does a good job at showing some of the problems in contemporary life. It's a warning about trusting single sources of information and it's a warning about what it is like to be infamous.
I hope that one day, those girls have the opportunity to have their own truth heard
I hope that this article is close enough to the truth to bring some closure to their lives. It would be very horrible if this article was more concealing than revealing
Unfortunately it seems, nowhere. That's my struggle. Maybe there are other articles out there, but in this one, we have almost no description of events from the father. Just that he was gone, and...
I think it helps undo some of the TikTok defamation. If the story isn't written down here then where? In court documents?
Unfortunately it seems, nowhere. That's my struggle. Maybe there are other articles out there, but in this one, we have almost no description of events from the father. Just that he was gone, and he was nervous about having kids. No explanation of how she manufactured the moments that she caught on video to smear him. Very little description of her abuse, none of her abuse towards him. Even the text message that's held up as damning could very easily be from someone who is genuinely being abused and is lamenting the fact that they can't prove it.
To be clear, I don't think the information in this article is false. I just think too much is missing for it to succeed at any goal that I can think of for it. It doesn't seem like a false experience for the girls has been depicted here. I'm just seeing so little of their words at all, and it's not like they're in a position to speak completely freely. That's what I meant when I said that I hope, if they choose, they'll have the ability to have their own truth heard. I hope that when they have the freedom, they will also have the platform, if that's what they want.
If I'd heard more from the father to clear his own name, I might not have the concerns I have that the girls are not able to speak freely right now. Again, I highly doubt (though don't rule out completely) that they're lying about their mother, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying to placate their father. He doesn't say anything to make that seem unlikely, either.
If someone was going to publish an article directly quoting some of the worst things I'd ever said to someone in a moment of extreme emotional distress, it would be a condition of my participation in that article that I get to explain the full context and specifically what put me in that frame of mind. Had she called their adopted daughter a "fat loser" and he was simply using her same wording? Or did he just believe that was the best way to hurt her? What specifically in that moment led him to want to hurt her in that way? None of that is any of my business, except that they decided to use that specific quote in the article that someone like me was then expected to read. I find the lack of an answer troubling. I can't imagine why someone would agree to have only that much of the story published.
They mention that there are other videos. Of what? What's the context behind them? We're told by the father and the daughter that the father never kicked her, but what did happen? Was he even there? I wouldn't even question this omission - it's easy enough to leave something at "didn't happen" if it didn't - except that it adds to the list of instances where I'm told that the previously spread story is wrong, but not what the correct story is. All I'm told is who the villain is. I can't help but wonder why there isn't more detail. If the goal of the article was just to highlight the horrors of the social media bullying without necessarily correcting the record - due to a desire for privacy or pain at rehashing the situation - the author could have focused more on the bullies and less on the deceased. The primary villain of the story wasn't Harvey, it was Catherine. Again, that could have been the author's choice, but Allan still chose to participate in the article.
When I spoke with a journalist about my family's story, it was understood as a condition of our participation that we would get to read the article before it was published. The fact that we were correcting previously erroneous reporting made us very sensitive about that. The things being said about my family weren't even bad, they were just not true. The people who believed them made an effort to be kind to us, not cruel. I can't imagine that an attorney who had just been maligned so horribly would be any less concerned about the way that he's portrayed. Either the author went completely rogue in an unacceptable way, or Allan made choices about what to leave out. I don't understand those choices.
Thanks for your comment. It is really insightful. I've also lived through some tragic experiences as a child which could be considered abuse. When I read "on another occasion made Ally go outside...
Thanks for your comment. It is really insightful. I've also lived through some tragic experiences as a child which could be considered abuse. When I read "on another occasion made Ally go outside alone after dark to “clean the garden” in the middle of winter" it made me think of many childhood memories. Of course, I have happy memories growing up too but I also remember doing confusing and meaningless labor. I don't say this to say this made me who I am today because I think that is incorrect thinking: abuse is always unjustified.
I say this because I think there are few perfect parents. In my case it was one parent who came up with "brilliant" discipline opportunities which were probably copied out of 1970s parenting book but which were actually abuse. I think that parent came up with new rules so that more punishment could be administered at a steady rate. But I could easily see two parents doing this. Especially because they both have high-stress jobs and I imagine they don't treat each other well. But, from a purely probability perspective, it's more likely that just one parent was the main abuser. I'm speculating that Allan has no backbone: a doormat but not abusive. In the very least he enabled the abuse to continue for years(!) As far as we can see, he didn't try to get help.
But I also wonder... how. common. this. is. In my own lived experience, the experiences in this article don't seem that extreme. The extreme part to me is all the stuff at the edges: the dropbox, the suicide, and the media. We wouldn't know about this story without these extreme things. It would just be something unknown.
I don't think my life would have been better if my parents divorced--but maybe it would have been better if one of my parents was less spineless. I don't think Allan or Catherine are far abnormal American parents. I think their story is more common than not but the litigation and their careers made them more incompatible and explosive with each other.
I don't think all parents are psychotic. I imagine that somehow most parents are able to work semi-cohesively in a positive way. I imagine that it is something that does not come naturally but it is something that people have to learn and work on.
A leavening factor in lynch mobs, in the act of a community deciding to go after one of its own, was they usually knew that person. Personally. The target they'd chosen, for whatever reason,...
Exemplary
A leavening factor in lynch mobs, in the act of a community deciding to go after one of its own, was they usually knew that person. Personally. The target they'd chosen, for whatever reason, wasn't a stranger. It was Jim who runs the farm over there, or Jill, who operates the coffee shop.
Social media has completely removed that leavening factor. Now you can lynch strangers. And further, do it from the comfort of your own home. You get to feel "engaged" and "involved", you can "seek justice" and "right wrongs" all without lifting your ass off the couch.
If Jim from the farm had transgressed, had committed social crimes so onerous that the community (his community) decided to ostracize him, they arrived at that decision collectively. Amongst people they knew, about a person they know. Personally. They'd weigh that. It'd go into the mix with the rest of whatever Jim might or might not have done. People would verify, would push back. Perhaps not always, but sometimes. Because they're all in a community, and know each other, or know people who know the principals in whatever scandal was being considered.
That doesn't exist online. Everyone's a stranger. They don't see people as actual human beings. They see them as imaginary constructs similar to actors. After all, these "people" just appear on their phones and computer monitors, like cast members in a "reality" show. Not as real people, like someone they see in the coffee shop or sit across from in a meeting.
And they all want the dopamine hit of engagement. Of "doing something."
I despite "content creators" because this is one of the things they do. It's one of the types of "content" they create. They want engagement, and for more than just the momentary dopamine hit of being involved. They want monetary egagement too. Engagement with a creator is often financially rewarded by the platforms that host the posts and videos. And those who own accounts that count millions of unique views on a weekly basis are often further rewarded by the marketing industry with sponsorships and product tie-ins and so on.
So you have bored people looking for engagement, for a cause; and "creators" financially incentivized to provide that engagement.
Reporters, actual real reporters, with training and ethics and everything, understand accountability and evidence. The article I just read, for example; the reporter tracked down well more than a dozen actual people. Who were actually involved in this whole mess. Asked them questions, got their take on the situation, interviewed them, challenged them at least a little in some places.
And then reported what they said. Reported what the court record or some other document said. Not a transitory "post", but actual documents that were prepared formally, with an eye towards honesty and accuracy. Certainly anything submitted to a court is going to be more trustworthy than a transitory "post" on social media.
What did the "content creator" do? Barely more than his equally lazy audience. He had some videos and posts (all accessible from his computer), and he edited and linked them into his own vlogging stuff where he flogged the mob, and dialed up the engagement by picking a side and demonizing the other.
At no point did he verify, investigate, or consider. He just ran with what he had. And he didn't even do it journalistically.
All the mainstream media sources that piled into this mess, that pile into any situation, you'll notice if you pay attention they don't say "I think X happened" or "I feel Y should happen." Instead, they quote people. They attribute statements and positions to someone who holds it.
A reporter, an actual real reporter, is a neutral observer. Which is something you rarely encounter these days. Much less consider. In fact, a lot of people seem to consider it some sort of fantasy construct; who could be "neutral?"
The power of the internet is everyone's online, and it only takes "everyone" deciding to point themselves at you for you to then have a platform. Used to be, you had to get past a gatekeeper to have a platform. Now, if you go viral, presto you have a platform to millions of people. You can be anyone, with zero knowledge of legality or ethics or morality or anything else, and command the attention of millions; simply because you're funny or cute or engaging.
But neutrality was, and could be again, an essential part of our news process. The tictoker took a position, and pushed it. Based on those easily accessible posts he got from the mom in this case. He didn't investigate the other side or do anything approaching "reporting." He simply found what he knew would qualify as content for "his audience" and threw it out there to rake in views, which let him rake in payment. And while doing so, made sure to frame everything as "I think X" and "we should do Y."
He openly stated he felt "we" should punish Allen.
That's lynching. Just because they didn't have a rope to string him up doesn't change the fact. They destroyed his life. Literally. We live in a capitalistic society. The store doesn't give you food just because you're hungry. The doctor doesn't treat your wound because you're injured. The landlord (or bank) doesn't rent (or sell) to you simply because you're homeless.
Everyone wants money or they tell you to take a hike. And this guy, Allen, can't make any anymore because the tiktocker dragged his name through the mud so badly that within seventy-two hours of the whole tiktok driven "scandal" breaking wide across the mediascape, Allen's firm said "get the fuck away from us" to Allen. For fear of the mess damaging their business, their ability to make money.
And Allen can't get hired anywhere else. Why? Because social media. That's the whole reason. Allen could start suing everyone who refuses to hire him, or even prepare a court verified "case" of material that proves he's not a monster, but they'd all have the same defense and same reasons for not hiring him.
He's still guilty according to social media. People troll for those dopamine hits of "righteous fury" all the time. And he's still getting death threats and "fuck off" emails and all that even now. Search him and what pops up? All of this stuff. Clients, customers of clients, they can find all that. They can learn of it and connect it to a guy who works at their lawyer's law firm, and start "asking questions."
No court is going to require even a law firm (or any employer) to have to fight a constant battle to defend an employee. To have to constantly defend to a client or customer of a client or even the wide world why they employ Allen (or any "problematic" person as so deemed by social media".
It's easier for them to just cut their losses and hire some other candidate. Someone without social media baggage. So the time keeps ticking and Allen keeps not having an income, all because some "content creator" needed content to fuel his own desire for money (and power; lots of people really get off on the knowledge that they can say something and then legions of fans/followers go forth and do it.)
All because some jackass "content creator" found "content" and threw it up online to benefit himself. Not to report it, not to investigate or verify it, but to profit from it. He wielded the power of his effortless platform to destroy a life. And he's not the only one. Lots of people run around online trying to destroy people all the time. For all the reasons you can imagine, and more besides. Many of those people have an audience who will often join any bandwagon that forms.
They all revel in the lynching. Chasing the dopamine dragon, shooting the validation of the mob straight into their veins. Sitting back on the couch with a dreamy smile on their face, as they tap tap tap on their phone and glory in "we did it!" with the rest of the mob.
And while they look for the next person to destroy. Thump thump thump on their arm, looking for a vein. Ahhhh, there's that validation. Fuck that guy. Yeah, that guy. The one the content creator on my screen is demonizing. Yeah, fuck him. Fuck him good. Oooohh, feels good to be so right about what an asshole that guy is.
This is just sad and disturbing. I never heard of the case before, but an entire family was ruined by it. Those poor girls are just... Damn. Allan lost his job and is struggling to get another,...
This is just sad and disturbing. I never heard of the case before, but an entire family was ruined by it. Those poor girls are just... Damn. Allan lost his job and is struggling to get another, meaning they'll likely lose their house soon. Though it'd be wise to move anyway, since everyone knows where they live and who they are. But even if they move, thanks to social media, people at those girls' school are guaranteed to find out at some point.
I sincerely wonder if they can move to another country and get a new name. That might honestly be the only way for the family to really recover. He was absolutely right: once the first version of the narrative is out, it becomes fact in public opinion. Even the apology video from Harvey won't help, because it's basically guaranteed it won't get as many views as the entire campaign against him.
This is why I always hate people trying to paint situations as black and white. There's always two sides to every story, and in this day and age, it's far too easy to ruin lives.
If the dad ever hopes to find a new job, he's pretty much stuck working US-based jobs because the entire legal profession is tied to state-issued licenses. Being a litigator (as opposed to a...
I sincerely wonder if they can move to another country and get a new name.
If the dad ever hopes to find a new job, he's pretty much stuck working US-based jobs because the entire legal profession is tied to state-issued licenses. Being a litigator (as opposed to a transactional lawyer) would make it even harder because litigation isn't conducted the same way in the US vs foreign countries. Of course there are exceptions, but generally, it's not a profession that translates well abroad.
yeah unless he's practiced international law or he's a tax attorney or in some other field of law that could turn into an expat-focused business abroad, his profession really does limit his...
yeah unless he's practiced international law or he's a tax attorney or in some other field of law that could turn into an expat-focused business abroad, his profession really does limit his options. Even moving within the US might be difficult depending on specifics of his practice.
Being a victim of a social media smear campaign—regardless of the truth of the allegations—ought to be a protected class in employment law, like race and sex, but temporary instead of permanent.
Being a victim of a social media smear campaign—regardless of the truth of the allegations—ought to be a protected class in employment law, like race and sex, but temporary instead of permanent.
How far do you extend that? If someone is smeared in social media as a child abuser, and the allegations are true, do you really want their employment as a school teacher to be protected? I agree...
How far do you extend that? If someone is smeared in social media as a child abuser, and the allegations are true, do you really want their employment as a school teacher to be protected?
I agree that the status quo is a problem, but I do think the veracity of allegations, as well as their specific ramifications for that person's field of work, should be taken into account when deciding whether or not they can continue on in it. I don't know what the mechanism for that would be. I don't think we have a good mechanism for protecting them as a class without those considerations either, though. If your boss can't fire you because the internet thinks you're an abuser, they'll just fire you because of a "decline in your quality of work" which only people who can afford expensive lawyers will be able to argue back against.
If the allegations prompt the school to launch an independent investigation and they're found to be true, then that'd be grounds for dismissal with cause. However, reputational harm from rumors...
If someone is smeared in social media as a child abuser, and the allegations are true, do you really want their employment as a school teacher to be protected?
If the allegations prompt the school to launch an independent investigation and they're found to be true, then that'd be grounds for dismissal with cause. However, reputational harm from rumors would be an illegal reason to dismiss an employee.
they'll just fire you because of a "decline in your quality of work" which only people who can afford expensive lawyers will be able to argue back against
Isn't this also true about traditional protected classes as well?
Absolutely it is! It's a huge problem! I think this is expecting employers to have a lot of resources that aren't often at their disposal. If you run a small daycare, say 10 employees most of whom...
Isn't this also true about traditional protected classes as well?
Absolutely it is! It's a huge problem!
If the allegations prompt the school to launch an independent investigation and they're found to be true,
I think this is expecting employers to have a lot of resources that aren't often at their disposal. If you run a small daycare, say 10 employees most of whom do childcare, and the person who deals with HR is qualified to handle W-9s and making sure people get their allotted breaks, who is expected to be qualified to independently determine if an employee has abused children? It's not like they can question witnesses and subpoena records, even if they had the expertise to analyze those things. If they wait for the police to do them, they risk leaving children with someone who may be dangerous for years.
It's a terrible problem, I don't deny it, and again, the status quo is not fine. The best solution that I can think of is to strengthen the social safety net, so if someone does lose their job unfairly (or even irrelevantly. If you're cruel and emotionally harmful to your children but haven't broken any laws, that's no reason you can't be an accountant or a pipefitter or work in waste management or something ) they can still continue to function.
Strongly agree with your point about the social safety net. I'm a UBI proponent, myself. Though in the specific case of a daycare manager, I'd treat one concerned person calling in about an...
Strongly agree with your point about the social safety net. I'm a UBI proponent, myself.
Though in the specific case of a daycare manager, I'd treat one concerned person calling in about an employee far more seriously than 10 people making similar allegations. The former is cue for closer supervision, if not dismissal; the later will be marked as "smear campaign, nothing to see here."
I think you may have misread what I wrote. 10 people wasn't the number of accusers, it was the size of the hypothetical business, with the point being that they wouldn't have the manpower to...
I think you may have misread what I wrote. 10 people wasn't the number of accusers, it was the size of the hypothetical business, with the point being that they wouldn't have the manpower to investigate regardless of how credible the claims seemed.
I think we may have talked past each other. What I intended to focus on is that I'd treat it as a rule of thumb that multiple allegations in a short window are more likely to be entirely...
I think we may have talked past each other. What I intended to focus on is that I'd treat it as a rule of thumb that multiple allegations in a short window are more likely to be entirely fabricated than a single allegation or just two but spaced apart.
Fine, but isn't that a bit of a non-sequiter anyway? What do you expect an employer with no resources to do about the allegation that they're taking more seriously? In a practical sense....
Fine, but isn't that a bit of a non-sequiter anyway? What do you expect an employer with no resources to do about the allegation that they're taking more seriously? In a practical sense. Investigate how?
In this context that's clearly not how the word is being used -- the comment GenuinelyCrooked was responding to began with "Being a victim of a social media smear campaign—regardless of the truth...
In this context that's clearly not how the word is being used -- the comment GenuinelyCrooked was responding to began with "Being a victim of a social media smear campaign—regardless of the truth of the allegations", which clearly indicates that they consider a "social media smear campaign" to be something that can be undergone when the allegations are true as well. Since (unlike "slander") "smear" is not a legal term, it's not super useful to correct someone when they're using it the same way as others in the conversation and it's clear that everyone understands what they mean.
So it sounds like your saying its another example of people all ways using the wrong words when their are already the proper words avaliable witch they could of used. The affect of this is that...
So it sounds like your saying its another example of people all ways using the wrong words when their are already the proper words avaliable witch they could of used. The affect of this is that those of us who like too be precise in our language and can't except that language isn't stationery are dragged along against hour wills and literally loosing sleep over it.
I'm a linguist, so I'm a descriptivist. In a context like this, sometimes I'll offer trivia about specific definitions, especially when they're technical jargon, and I'll happily correct someone...
I'm a linguist, so I'm a descriptivist. In a context like this, sometimes I'll offer trivia about specific definitions, especially when they're technical jargon, and I'll happily correct someone if an error changes the meaning of whwt they've said. But if a word is widely used in a certain way or is readily understood in a certain way in context, that's what the word means now, and dictionaries are only there to do their best to capture a snapshot of that.
The "errors" in your comment are either widely popular things that are part of the language (but just treated with disdain by certain people who want language to never change or see knowing the "right" alternatives as a sign of prestige) or simple spelling errors (linguists usually don't really care about spelling, since it's not really language in the same way as how you actually use words).
Also somehow the "fixed typo" annotation makes your comment way funnier lol
I only used it that way because the comment I was responding to did. They already had an understanding of that word, so I could quickly and easily continue the thought by sticking with it, rather...
I only used it that way because the comment I was responding to did. They already had an understanding of that word, so I could quickly and easily continue the thought by sticking with it, rather than risking miscommunication by switching to a different word. Would they think I was correcting them? Referring to a similar but slightly different situation? Easier to avoid the issue and just continue using the previously established phrase.
Oh god, what a harrowing story. I am so, so glad they did not let her have her children unsupervised, or she might have taken them out with her to punish her husband.
Oh god, what a harrowing story. I am so, so glad they did not let her have her children unsupervised, or she might have taken them out with her to punish her husband.
Damn, this reads like a real-life version of Gone Girl. While this article clearly is in favour of the father/husband, it shows enough testimonials that suggests that there aren't really any good...
Damn, this reads like a real-life version of Gone Girl.
While this article clearly is in favour of the father/husband, it shows enough testimonials that suggests that there aren't really any good people here, just at best one mixed-bag.
After reading through this, my main feeling is of sadness. The girls, the husband, even the (crazy) wife, should deserve something better. And there's enough blame to go round..
After reading through this, my main feeling is of sadness. The girls, the husband, even the (crazy) wife, should deserve something better. And there's enough blame to go round..
This sounds like the easiest defamation suit in history.
Really boils my piss the way gossip-flingers will big themselves up with this journalistic lingo "the reporting of the story" as if they do anything resembling journalism. No fact-checking, no verification, no competing perspectives, spinning new accusations (at the guy's kids!) in real time. And when criticism (or worse) comes knocking the 'citizen journalist' is gone, suddenly it's just 'just a normal person sharing their opinions'.
It's this entire species of personality on social media who self-appoint as experts and don't seem to realise that they are making entertainment, not education or politics or journalism.
The loss of journalism as a profession - which includes a lot of what you cite here: getting statements from counter-parties (not the same as "bothside"ing), not inserting oneself into the story, etc. I think there were a lot of reasons to not trust "the media" but I've always respected reporters and we can't really function as a society without them.
I don't even really know what can be done at this point, it seems like the entire profession has collapsed and the vestiges of it (substack, etc.) aren't sufficient to replace what was lost.
This is a terrible story, and I think the author is much more sympathetic to the father than I end up being. Video evidence is referred to repeatedly, but rarely described. One of the few clear descriptions we get is Allan calling Catherine a "fat loser". There is testimony from the girls and from Allan that Catherine pushed him to this sort of behavior, and that may be the case, but we don't actually get an explanation of what caused him to use that sort of insult, especially where his young daughters could hear. We don't actually get a clear depiction of his side of the story, despite the length of this article. We just hear that Catherine said he was bad, but actually, it was Catherine who was bad. I understand not wanting to go through that, not wanting to shred your privacy any more than it's already been shredded, and even that it may have been the author of the piece's choice, rather than the father's, to focus the article as they did. But still, an article was published, which is an invitation to opine on the subject. And with the limited information I have, it seems like those poor girls didn't actually have any safe, stable parent in their lives.
There's also a possibility - albeit, remote - that Catherine wasn't lying, and wasn't abusive. It's possible that the girls are lying now, because they know that their father is their only living parent and they want to stay on his good side. Perhaps she did attempt to inform her daughters in a more compassionate way and was thwarted. That's not a great fit for the facts laid out in the article, and I don't actually think it's likely to be the case, but my point is that the story is still quite murky and this article doesn't do much in the way of adding clarity.
So what is the article trying to do? Clear a name? Advocate against cyberbullying? Advance a solution? It seems that it must be advocating against cyberbullying and toxic social media campaigns, because I see no names cleared and I don't see a solution suggested anywhere. I'm not sure it's effective at that advocacy. Even if Harvey hadn't posted those TikTok videos, even if strangers weren't harassing the family, this would still be a terrible and sad story. The experience they had with the family court system is heartbreaking on its own, and again, unclear who is actually a victim and who is an abuser, aside from the obviously innocent children. There are no obvious solutions as to how any of that could be improved.
Ultimately I come away from this article seeing it as simply exacerbating the issue of this family's infamy, and leaving me sad and full of questions that have no answers. I hope other readers got something more positive out of it than I did.
It's possible that my own family's experience with an incorrect version of our story being made popular in the news and on social media is coloring my reaction to this. Our experience was extremely different and people were largely supportive of us when it happened - although we did have a few extremely painful interactions - but it still pained us deeply that false information was being spread. I spent quite a lot of time and effort during a painful and exhausting time doing what little I could to correct the story as much as possible, and share the truth as we knew it. I would not have wanted an article with so few of my own words published. When, in fact, I did contact a journalist who was willing to publish our side of the story, I made sure to be as clear an thorough about our side as possible, and emphasized how important it was to me that the article be specific about the truth. I know that not everyone wants the same things that I and my family do, and that the situations were quite different, but that brings me back to wondering what the family in the article does want, and how well the article served that purpose.
I hope that one day, those girls have the opportunity to have their own truth heard, if that's what they want. I hope that they have the opportunity to be forgotten and live quiet lives of obscurity, if that's what they want.
It seems that the most damning narrative for the father was already published, repeatedly, through social media and tabloids running with incomplete facts. This article is in response to the sensation created by those articles.
Additionally, that the article doesn't spend a lot of time slinging mud at a dead person lends credibility. The mature people in these situations don't run to the Internet the same way the more manipulative folks do.
Also, from the article:
As someone who used to do volunteer child advocacy for children in foster care, and testified in many dependency hearings, you don't see that very often. A judge getting a report and immediately suspending contact, including supervised contact is rare.
I'm sure they could have cited any number of things in that report to completely tank the mother's reputation, but they took the high(er) road.
But it does sling mud at her. It calls her manipulative, abusive, and toxic, repeatedly. It gives quite a lot of details about her actions as well. I'm quite convinced that she was terrible. The fact that she released her children's therapy records cements that for me, and that is indisputable. It's the lack of detail about anyone else's actions that leaves me with questions.
I don't see how explaining the thought process that lead you to "fat loser" is any more defamatory than insisting someone faked their own death and is siphoning off their childrens' inheritance to live on while they may lose the home they grew up in.
I mean, you can't try and clear up someone's name or the facts in this sort of situation without communicating that they aren't a great parent or potentially person. But you don't need to air the private details, which very well might be traumatic for the kids. Especially since it sounds like much of the toxicity centered on the mother's fixation on them as well as how she treated her adopted and biological daughters differently.
I'll say again: courts almost never halt supervised contact, even if the contact is limited to supervised visits at a social workers office with the monitor on the other side of a one way mirror. That the court made those decisions in response to the reports backs up the claims that her behavior was harmful to the children. It wasn't even a one off. As the court learned more, it strengthened the separation from her.
Edit: and the children's attorney was also targeted by the mother, and they were likely appointed an attorney by being old enough to have one to represent their interests in the matter. So whole I have a dim view of a father who volunteers at work to be out of the house his children are being abused in, it doesn't sound like his poor behavior was targeted at the girls.
I don't understand what you're trying to convince me of here? I've already agreed that it seems the mother was terrible. Am I missing something?
But it does air private details! It talks about the eldest daughter sleeping on the floor and being punished for stealing a candy bar. It's just selective with them. It doesn't need to describe the videos of Allan being cruel, but it does. Then it says that we don't understand the context, but doesn't clarify the context at all.
When I first commented, I had suspicious yet neutral opinion of the father. His worst sin could be absenteeism and he could otherwise be a well-meaning, caring father. He could be equally toxic and abusive as the mother. He could be even worse. The article clarifies nothing. But the more I think about it, and how far out of the way they had to go to omit details that could either clear his name or muddy it further, the more I find myself thinking they must have been damaging or he would have wanted them included.
I did not read your original comment as particularly neutral, but we all bring our own biases to the table.
You can't think of any reason why the father would omit details about his wife who abused their daughters and committed suicide, other than it must be covering up his behavior? It could be not wanting to look vindictive. It could be to protect the kids. There's a difference between commenting on things that are already public or semi public in the kids lives, but I'm sure there are many details about the abuse the kids received that they haven't processed and isn't known in their support circle.
There is no public interest in the story, no right for the court records involving abuse of minors to be publicly available. Sometimes we have to live with incomplete information. Personally, I find the behavior of the court corroborating, as some who had been involved in family court proceedings quite a bit.
But to each their own.
Edit: because it might be lost in the conversation, my point is that you can release just enough information to make a point or clear a name, without beating a dead horse or crossing a line to being petty given the situation.
It's not details about his wife I'm confused about, it's details about himself.
Exactly, like those videos, which are already public and which he did not comment on.
I am not asking for the court records to be made available. I am not asking for explanations for anything that wasn't brought up in the article. There were many things brought up in the article that went unexplained. Why bring them up if not to explain them? Either explain them if there is a good explanation, or omit them entirely. That they were included by the author and the father did not insist on explaining them is baffling and suspicious to me. The only explanation I can think of is that they couldn't be omitted due to public awareness, but couldn't be explained because....? What finishes that sentence if not "the father is abusive too."?
Corroborating to what? The court didn't rule that the dad is a pretty good guy. They ruled that the mother was dangerous. Again, you'll get no argument out of me.
Their explanation is that she would provoke him to these outbursts, and given the transcripts it seems like he was clearly baited to be caught on a recording. The only explanation he could give would be detailing her behavior that provoked the outbursts, which is what could be seen as petty or divulge information damaging to the kids.
The court awarded him custody. They don't typically do that to wife beaters or abusers when they have the facts. And given the amount of third party testimony and evidence, reports, and that the wife herself was a litigator, I don't have any reason to think that she was disadvantaged in bringing facts to the court.
From the same article:
That seems equally private to me. I understand that the father didn't say that, but he must have read this article before it was published and understood what would be in it and how it would be painted. Hell, it's titled "A Wife's Revenge from Beyond the Grave". He still agreed to participate in the article and to be quoted for it, so he can't be that opposed to the article being petty. And he did say:
Which doesn't seem like someone trying to avoid speaking ill of the dead.
It doesn't seem that his daughter is upset with stories about times her mother was cruel being publicized. She's volunteering information to the journalist.
As far as awarding him custody, I'll admit that you have more experience here, but I can only see this proving that she was abusive, not really saying anything about the father. It makes it less likely that he was abusing the girls, as that would have probably come up, but it doesn't mean he wasn't abusing Catherine. It's also possible that he was abusing the girls and her abuse just overshadowed his, although I recognize that as being unlikely. Psychology is not a hard science. They didn't run abuse tests on the girls in a lab. I am very open to the possibility that I'm drawing incorrect conclusions from limited information about this aspect, though, and I welcome corrections.
Really, I welcome corrections about the whole case. I would love to believe that these girls are now with a safe parent who is doing his best to provide them with a good home. I hope that they're in a place where time and therapy can begin to heal them, and I would love to believe that they're in the best possible place for that. I just don't come away from this article with that impression, and the more I sit with it, the less I believe it.
just a small note: I don't know if it's true for this specific news outlet but at many publishers the author rarely has control over the final title/headline/summary. The editor is usually tasked with editorializing... and this happens minutes before publishing or soon after if the article is not performing well :/
Fair enough. I can replace that with other examples if the point needs reinforcement.
From my experience in custody cases, when there are allegations of abuse from both parents, the court has to weigh several factors. 1) the suitability of one or both parents to continue to parent, 2) to what extent, and 3) to what extent they can minimize infringing on parental rights.
This case had exactly that issue; both parents claimed to suffer abuse from each other and both parents had evidence. In the case of the father, he had evidence of abuse targeting the daughters, which would carry special weight.
In setting custody courts don't like absolutes, because that usually isn't balancing the rights or interests of the parties. It's not uncommon that two adults bring out toxic behavior in each other, which spills over into harm to the children, but individually one or both are fine. The courts job is to tease out these details, set custody that minimally disrupts the children's established parenting relationships, protects the children, and protects both parents parental rights.
The court would have needed compelling evidence to not only cut off all contact with the mother, but to do so while completely flipping the established parental relationship, i.e., Dad was out of the house most of the time and now is the sole provider.
To someone who has been involved in these cases, that is rare.
Victims of abuse have complicated relationships with what aspects of the abuse is most private or harmful. I wouldn't try and armchair quarterback that.
But more to the point, journalists, real journalists, don't give editorial rights to their subjects in exchange for interviews. He might participate to try and clear his name without unduly disclosing private details or giving a laundry list of accusations against the dead.
It maybe he did, and it wasn't included in the article. Unless the article discloses that he had right of review prior to publication, then I would assume he did not. But like many people smeared by social media, he was hopeful that he could set the record straight, at least enough to find a job again.
Your description continues to sound damning to the mother without necessarily being exonerating to the father, to me.
Certainly not editorial rights to the point of changing the story, or including something that conflicts with established fact, but is it really that uncommon to let the primary subject look over the article and clarify anything that seems murky? The person who interviewed me in that situation is very much a real journalist, and that seemed like a very natural part of the process. I'm sure if I'd demanded he rewrite half of it or take out my commentary, he probably would have refused, but I still got to make sure that I didn't feel misrepresented.
I do acknowledge it's extremely possible that the father did try to give more information and the author of the article didn't include it, but that's even more baffling to me! That's so much more interesting than listing all the colors of paint the family was harassed with.
Edit: I really, truly hope that isn't the case. If it is, I think the author is doing a serious disservice to this poor man.
We can't know without asking the author, but journalism 101 is don't interview someone who puts conditions on what you can write about them.
There is a standard for what details are put in articles by journalists, and many reason that laundry lists of actions could be omitted for ethical reasons, brevity, clarity, or relevance. But we don't know what we don't know.
I don't understand what you mean. Exonerating in what sense? Unless I misremember, your original comment raised fears that he was abusing his daughter's, e.g., they might be saying they don't miss their mom because he is their sole parent, but that he is otherwise a source of fear or concern. But the behavior of the court seems to support the notion that he is a sound father who is not abusing them. If he wasn't, at a minimum he would likely have court ordered services like parental counseling with product oversight from CPS.
I'm not saying that I think the author would have agreed beforehand to include anything and everything the father wanted said about himself, just that I would expect he be given the opportunity to clarify if he felt that he was misrepresented. I'm addressing two possibilities here, neither of which violate the standards of journalistic ethics but both of which are baffling to me for different reasons.
Scenario one - the father did not explain his own behavior, read the article, saw how glaring that omission was, but did not offer clarification for ????? reasons. We know those reasons aren't that he doesn't want to talk about the subject at all, because he agreed to be interviewed for the article.
Scenario two - the father did explain his own behavior, but the author chose not to include that for ????? reasons, but did describe several really boring sounding family photos that don't really add to our understanding of the situation at all.
You mention that the courts don't like absolutes, that they strongly consider parental rights, and that it's not uncommon that parents are toxic while together but as individuals they are fine parents. It seems entirely possible to me that they could have considered her behavior to be obviously harmful, and believed his behavior to only be harmful when exacerbated by her behavior. This could mean his behavior is still harmful in a number of ways. It's possible the court was right, but the girls are still afraid of him. It's possible the court was wrong and he's still harmful even though the mother isn't around. It's also possible that he was never harmful to the girls except insofar as their witnessing what he did to their mother, who he was horribly abusive to. These are only possibilities, and I don't think any of them are particularly likely. I just don't think the evidence of the court removing custody from the mother says as much about the father as you seem to.
You misunderstand. It's not that they severed contact with the mother. It's that they granted sole custody to the father. If neither was fit, the state could investigate, and CPS could pursue termination of parental rights for both. Or if the father exhibited concerning behavior around the mother, it would be normal for the court to assign the father to court mandated services or counseling with occasional check-ins with the court. That this didn't happen makes it seem likely that the court didn't have any evidence of him being abusive to the daughters, or his anger with his wife spilling over to the daughters or crossing certain lines that would make him generally unfit.
Frankly, this possibility chasing feels a lot like the social media persecution the guy already went through.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think there are several important differences. One, I didn't hear about this guy from a random TikTok that he didn't even know about. I heard about him from an article that he chose to participate in. An article invites thoughts and questions. Two, I'm not directing these questions at him. I hope he never knows that I'm asking them. If, for some reason, I was in a situation where it did seem remotely appropriate for me to ask him these questions, I wouldn't late them with hate and vitriol, I would ask them as gently as possible. Three, I'm not making any claims about him aside from claims the article made. I've got questions, but I've left open all of the possibilities that I can think of. I think that makes a pretty significant difference.
The corollary here is that publicly commenting also invites thoughts and questions, which I've articulated.
Your premise seems to be that simply asking all the questions, and leaving open all the possibilities is somehow neutral or fair. But questions inform and shape their answers and discussion. When one ignores a preponderance of evidence and spends a preponderance of words on edge cases of possibilities not as well supported by the data, it doesn't feel neutral or open minded.
In your original comment you opine that the article didn't exonerate him, wondered what the point of the article was, and questioned if the girls had a safe parent. In fact, most of your paragraphs are questioning the evidence supporting the father and examining unsupported hypotheticals where the mom wasn't abusive.
Ignoring the court rulings, the many experts and third parties, etc, to examine edge counter cases about the mom, while also questioning the point of any article that doesn't completely paint the father in a glowing light seems to be chasing a narrative more than the truth. It feels like a version of "I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking questions" trope used by political talking heads.
But those are my thoughts and my opinions, based on this article and your public comments.
Yeah, that's fine, I vitality l clearly don't have a problem with you doing that. I've engaged with you and didn't compare your actions to that of a hate mob.
I don't agree that we have a preponderance of evidence. We have court rulings and expert testimony that lacked evidence of a negative thing, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's also certainly not evidence itself. It's just nothing. The article doesn't mention, for example, expert testimony that he is a good father. I am not saying it would need to, just giving an example of something that would be evidence.
I'm aware that my questions shape their answers, which is why I've filled them with qualifiers. I've acknowledged when things are possible but very unlikely. I've acknowledged when something isn't what I believe but isn't ruled out by the information presented. I mean all of that sincerely.
My questions don't arise from the fact that the father isn't "painted in a glowing light", it's that he's not painted in any light. I want his side of the story. That's missing from the article. I don't understand why it's missing. It seems weird and suspicious to me. I can't make it any clearer than that. I don't know if continuing to go back and forth on this is bringing either of us anything positive.
I appreciate your thoughts and opinions, though, and welcome any you have in the future.
I think a fundamental difference in outlook here is that you don't view the court rulings as evidence, while I do. You are looking for the evidence that the court had access to in making its decision. Which is fair, but impossible in cases with minors. I, too, would prefer to have primary data. However, I also have experience in a profession where I must give credence to court rulings, at least to some extent. That, paired with my volunteer experience with family court, I suspect, gives me a different view of the facts.
I absolutely view them as evidence. Strong evidence, of the thing that it is clear they are evidence of, which is that the mother was not a safe person for them to be with. I just don't view them as evidence that the father was anything other than safer than the mother. I am not looking for evidence that the court had access to in making its decision, but it is an example of something else that I would accept as evidence.
The evidence that I'm really curious about, though, that I could very easily have access to if things just went slightly differently, is the father's own testimony.
CPS investigated accusations against the dad and didn't push for services. Likewise, the dad received custody without court mandated services.
The court doesn't go, "well neither of you is fit but the kids have to go somewhere, so off you go." If the father wasn't fit, there would have been more involved in the court proceedings.
That means there wasn't evidence that he was unfit or unsafe. I don't disbelieve that, I take it strongly into account. I also acknowledge that it is possible to be unsafe or abusive in ways that do not leave a clear evidence trail, especially when the situation is very complicated. I think it's extremely unlikely that he was not a much better parent than the mother. That still leaves room for quite a few possibilities.
My personal opinion is that a comment that spends 90% of it's words on fringe possibilities that would require specific assumptions, such as an investigation missing something or a form of abuse that is hard to document, isn't particularly neutral. Much the same way that a news segment that spends 90% of its time covering the one climate study with a null result doesn't seem neutral.
Perhaps important to discuss with the appropriate care and handling, but requires good framing and presentation to not seem biased.
My comment is only focused on that specific aspect because it's the part that you've seemed the most interested in. I'm following your lead here. My earlier comments were very long and touched on several other aspects, I'd be happy to drill down further into any of those if you're interested.
I'm focusing on your initial comment that spent the majority of its words hypothesizing about the mother and "just asking the questions" about the father. I cited the court rulings as indicators as to why that felt misplaced in terms of allocation of concern.
I definitely spent more of my original comment questioning the purpose of the article, if it exacerbated the situation the family is in, and my own experience with falsehoods being spread on social media than I did speaking about the mother or father at all. In fact, I originally only ask the questions about the father or mother at all to indicate the ways in which I feel the article failed at one possible purpose, being to clear the father's name.
If I say that an article fails to make clear the issue of climate change because it only discusses polar ice melt during the spring months which is a normal time for ice to melt, and the article didn't explain why this particular ice melt was abnormal, but I don't doubt that there is an issue with the polar ice caps melting I just don't understand why the article left out that critical information, that's not climate change denial.
Well, I can't speak to the intent of the author of the article. But to my reading it definitely seems like it is in response to the social media witch hunt, and is attempting to provide better researched counter narrative. I e., show the complexity and ambiguity of the situation and dispel the white knighting that was happening in defense of the mother. I also suspect the father participated as an opportunity to add depth to his role as being not a villain or not just a villain as portrayed. That and highlight the retraction/apology so that maybe future employers will see that and this article and hire him.
And I don't feel that it worked at providing a counter narrative. The research appears to be there, but the narrative is not. All it provided was a villain, not a coherent story. It's missing characterization for any other main character.
Does a counter narrative have to be diametrically opposed to the original, or simply different, orthogonal?
I do find it to be a successful counter narrative. It changes the story from clear victim and villain, to possible villain(s) and characters with many flaws. Not every story has a hero. Sometimes it's all shades of grey.
Practically speaking, being able to change the internet record and narrative from "the father is an inhuman monster" to "the father is deeply flawed" seems like a pretty substantial change.
Simply different is fine, but it should be complete. Or rather, have all of the components of a story. Plot beats, setting, characters. It should explain all of the aspects of the original story, woven together in a new way. If it just leaves huge chunks unexplained, it's not successful.
I suppose that is subjective. I think it successfully changes the public narrative, especially ending on the apology video from the TikToker. I don't think it needs to be exhaustively complete to change people's minds, or at least change the first impression for me googlers. Looking at other comments on the thread, it seems successful in channeling negative attention towards the witch hunt, rather than solely at the father.
I don't think the story will ever be complete, if for no other reason than the motivations of the mother to commit suicide are forever gone, and that was a major facet that made the story so salacious to the public.
Fair enough.
I also imagined this possibility while reading the article. I don't doubt that the article is not biased in favor of the father in some ways, but the article also reflects on that when it says the the truth is probably somewhere between her and his side of the story.
I think this story does the job of presenting the evidence in a more impartial way (or at least presenting an alternative view) than the articles that were written before it. The article cannot undo the damage that the existing narrative has caused. Beyond documenting the other side of the story I think this article does a good job at showing some of the problems in contemporary life. It's a warning about trusting single sources of information and it's a warning about what it is like to be infamous.
I hope that this article is close enough to the truth to bring some closure to their lives. It would be very horrible if this article was more concealing than revealing
Unfortunately it seems, nowhere. That's my struggle. Maybe there are other articles out there, but in this one, we have almost no description of events from the father. Just that he was gone, and he was nervous about having kids. No explanation of how she manufactured the moments that she caught on video to smear him. Very little description of her abuse, none of her abuse towards him. Even the text message that's held up as damning could very easily be from someone who is genuinely being abused and is lamenting the fact that they can't prove it.
To be clear, I don't think the information in this article is false. I just think too much is missing for it to succeed at any goal that I can think of for it. It doesn't seem like a false experience for the girls has been depicted here. I'm just seeing so little of their words at all, and it's not like they're in a position to speak completely freely. That's what I meant when I said that I hope, if they choose, they'll have the ability to have their own truth heard. I hope that when they have the freedom, they will also have the platform, if that's what they want.
If I'd heard more from the father to clear his own name, I might not have the concerns I have that the girls are not able to speak freely right now. Again, I highly doubt (though don't rule out completely) that they're lying about their mother, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying to placate their father. He doesn't say anything to make that seem unlikely, either.
If someone was going to publish an article directly quoting some of the worst things I'd ever said to someone in a moment of extreme emotional distress, it would be a condition of my participation in that article that I get to explain the full context and specifically what put me in that frame of mind. Had she called their adopted daughter a "fat loser" and he was simply using her same wording? Or did he just believe that was the best way to hurt her? What specifically in that moment led him to want to hurt her in that way? None of that is any of my business, except that they decided to use that specific quote in the article that someone like me was then expected to read. I find the lack of an answer troubling. I can't imagine why someone would agree to have only that much of the story published.
They mention that there are other videos. Of what? What's the context behind them? We're told by the father and the daughter that the father never kicked her, but what did happen? Was he even there? I wouldn't even question this omission - it's easy enough to leave something at "didn't happen" if it didn't - except that it adds to the list of instances where I'm told that the previously spread story is wrong, but not what the correct story is. All I'm told is who the villain is. I can't help but wonder why there isn't more detail. If the goal of the article was just to highlight the horrors of the social media bullying without necessarily correcting the record - due to a desire for privacy or pain at rehashing the situation - the author could have focused more on the bullies and less on the deceased. The primary villain of the story wasn't Harvey, it was Catherine. Again, that could have been the author's choice, but Allan still chose to participate in the article.
When I spoke with a journalist about my family's story, it was understood as a condition of our participation that we would get to read the article before it was published. The fact that we were correcting previously erroneous reporting made us very sensitive about that. The things being said about my family weren't even bad, they were just not true. The people who believed them made an effort to be kind to us, not cruel. I can't imagine that an attorney who had just been maligned so horribly would be any less concerned about the way that he's portrayed. Either the author went completely rogue in an unacceptable way, or Allan made choices about what to leave out. I don't understand those choices.
Thanks for your comment. It is really insightful. I've also lived through some tragic experiences as a child which could be considered abuse. When I read "on another occasion made Ally go outside alone after dark to “clean the garden” in the middle of winter" it made me think of many childhood memories. Of course, I have happy memories growing up too but I also remember doing confusing and meaningless labor. I don't say this to say this made me who I am today because I think that is incorrect thinking: abuse is always unjustified.
I say this because I think there are few perfect parents. In my case it was one parent who came up with "brilliant" discipline opportunities which were probably copied out of 1970s parenting book but which were actually abuse. I think that parent came up with new rules so that more punishment could be administered at a steady rate. But I could easily see two parents doing this. Especially because they both have high-stress jobs and I imagine they don't treat each other well. But, from a purely probability perspective, it's more likely that just one parent was the main abuser. I'm speculating that Allan has no backbone: a doormat but not abusive. In the very least he enabled the abuse to continue for years(!) As far as we can see, he didn't try to get help.
But I also wonder... how. common. this. is. In my own lived experience, the experiences in this article don't seem that extreme. The extreme part to me is all the stuff at the edges: the dropbox, the suicide, and the media. We wouldn't know about this story without these extreme things. It would just be something unknown.
I don't think my life would have been better if my parents divorced--but maybe it would have been better if one of my parents was less spineless. I don't think Allan or Catherine are far abnormal American parents. I think their story is more common than not but the litigation and their careers made them more incompatible and explosive with each other.
I don't think all parents are psychotic. I imagine that somehow most parents are able to work semi-cohesively in a positive way. I imagine that it is something that does not come naturally but it is something that people have to learn and work on.
A leavening factor in lynch mobs, in the act of a community deciding to go after one of its own, was they usually knew that person. Personally. The target they'd chosen, for whatever reason, wasn't a stranger. It was Jim who runs the farm over there, or Jill, who operates the coffee shop.
Social media has completely removed that leavening factor. Now you can lynch strangers. And further, do it from the comfort of your own home. You get to feel "engaged" and "involved", you can "seek justice" and "right wrongs" all without lifting your ass off the couch.
If Jim from the farm had transgressed, had committed social crimes so onerous that the community (his community) decided to ostracize him, they arrived at that decision collectively. Amongst people they knew, about a person they know. Personally. They'd weigh that. It'd go into the mix with the rest of whatever Jim might or might not have done. People would verify, would push back. Perhaps not always, but sometimes. Because they're all in a community, and know each other, or know people who know the principals in whatever scandal was being considered.
That doesn't exist online. Everyone's a stranger. They don't see people as actual human beings. They see them as imaginary constructs similar to actors. After all, these "people" just appear on their phones and computer monitors, like cast members in a "reality" show. Not as real people, like someone they see in the coffee shop or sit across from in a meeting.
And they all want the dopamine hit of engagement. Of "doing something."
I despite "content creators" because this is one of the things they do. It's one of the types of "content" they create. They want engagement, and for more than just the momentary dopamine hit of being involved. They want monetary egagement too. Engagement with a creator is often financially rewarded by the platforms that host the posts and videos. And those who own accounts that count millions of unique views on a weekly basis are often further rewarded by the marketing industry with sponsorships and product tie-ins and so on.
So you have bored people looking for engagement, for a cause; and "creators" financially incentivized to provide that engagement.
Reporters, actual real reporters, with training and ethics and everything, understand accountability and evidence. The article I just read, for example; the reporter tracked down well more than a dozen actual people. Who were actually involved in this whole mess. Asked them questions, got their take on the situation, interviewed them, challenged them at least a little in some places.
And then reported what they said. Reported what the court record or some other document said. Not a transitory "post", but actual documents that were prepared formally, with an eye towards honesty and accuracy. Certainly anything submitted to a court is going to be more trustworthy than a transitory "post" on social media.
What did the "content creator" do? Barely more than his equally lazy audience. He had some videos and posts (all accessible from his computer), and he edited and linked them into his own vlogging stuff where he flogged the mob, and dialed up the engagement by picking a side and demonizing the other.
At no point did he verify, investigate, or consider. He just ran with what he had. And he didn't even do it journalistically.
All the mainstream media sources that piled into this mess, that pile into any situation, you'll notice if you pay attention they don't say "I think X happened" or "I feel Y should happen." Instead, they quote people. They attribute statements and positions to someone who holds it.
A reporter, an actual real reporter, is a neutral observer. Which is something you rarely encounter these days. Much less consider. In fact, a lot of people seem to consider it some sort of fantasy construct; who could be "neutral?"
The power of the internet is everyone's online, and it only takes "everyone" deciding to point themselves at you for you to then have a platform. Used to be, you had to get past a gatekeeper to have a platform. Now, if you go viral, presto you have a platform to millions of people. You can be anyone, with zero knowledge of legality or ethics or morality or anything else, and command the attention of millions; simply because you're funny or cute or engaging.
But neutrality was, and could be again, an essential part of our news process. The tictoker took a position, and pushed it. Based on those easily accessible posts he got from the mom in this case. He didn't investigate the other side or do anything approaching "reporting." He simply found what he knew would qualify as content for "his audience" and threw it out there to rake in views, which let him rake in payment. And while doing so, made sure to frame everything as "I think X" and "we should do Y."
He openly stated he felt "we" should punish Allen.
That's lynching. Just because they didn't have a rope to string him up doesn't change the fact. They destroyed his life. Literally. We live in a capitalistic society. The store doesn't give you food just because you're hungry. The doctor doesn't treat your wound because you're injured. The landlord (or bank) doesn't rent (or sell) to you simply because you're homeless.
Everyone wants money or they tell you to take a hike. And this guy, Allen, can't make any anymore because the tiktocker dragged his name through the mud so badly that within seventy-two hours of the whole tiktok driven "scandal" breaking wide across the mediascape, Allen's firm said "get the fuck away from us" to Allen. For fear of the mess damaging their business, their ability to make money.
And Allen can't get hired anywhere else. Why? Because social media. That's the whole reason. Allen could start suing everyone who refuses to hire him, or even prepare a court verified "case" of material that proves he's not a monster, but they'd all have the same defense and same reasons for not hiring him.
He's still guilty according to social media. People troll for those dopamine hits of "righteous fury" all the time. And he's still getting death threats and "fuck off" emails and all that even now. Search him and what pops up? All of this stuff. Clients, customers of clients, they can find all that. They can learn of it and connect it to a guy who works at their lawyer's law firm, and start "asking questions."
No court is going to require even a law firm (or any employer) to have to fight a constant battle to defend an employee. To have to constantly defend to a client or customer of a client or even the wide world why they employ Allen (or any "problematic" person as so deemed by social media".
It's easier for them to just cut their losses and hire some other candidate. Someone without social media baggage. So the time keeps ticking and Allen keeps not having an income, all because some "content creator" needed content to fuel his own desire for money (and power; lots of people really get off on the knowledge that they can say something and then legions of fans/followers go forth and do it.)
All because some jackass "content creator" found "content" and threw it up online to benefit himself. Not to report it, not to investigate or verify it, but to profit from it. He wielded the power of his effortless platform to destroy a life. And he's not the only one. Lots of people run around online trying to destroy people all the time. For all the reasons you can imagine, and more besides. Many of those people have an audience who will often join any bandwagon that forms.
They all revel in the lynching. Chasing the dopamine dragon, shooting the validation of the mob straight into their veins. Sitting back on the couch with a dreamy smile on their face, as they tap tap tap on their phone and glory in "we did it!" with the rest of the mob.
And while they look for the next person to destroy. Thump thump thump on their arm, looking for a vein. Ahhhh, there's that validation. Fuck that guy. Yeah, that guy. The one the content creator on my screen is demonizing. Yeah, fuck him. Fuck him good. Oooohh, feels good to be so right about what an asshole that guy is.
Bliss.
This is just sad and disturbing. I never heard of the case before, but an entire family was ruined by it. Those poor girls are just... Damn. Allan lost his job and is struggling to get another, meaning they'll likely lose their house soon. Though it'd be wise to move anyway, since everyone knows where they live and who they are. But even if they move, thanks to social media, people at those girls' school are guaranteed to find out at some point.
I sincerely wonder if they can move to another country and get a new name. That might honestly be the only way for the family to really recover. He was absolutely right: once the first version of the narrative is out, it becomes fact in public opinion. Even the apology video from Harvey won't help, because it's basically guaranteed it won't get as many views as the entire campaign against him.
This is why I always hate people trying to paint situations as black and white. There's always two sides to every story, and in this day and age, it's far too easy to ruin lives.
If the dad ever hopes to find a new job, he's pretty much stuck working US-based jobs because the entire legal profession is tied to state-issued licenses. Being a litigator (as opposed to a transactional lawyer) would make it even harder because litigation isn't conducted the same way in the US vs foreign countries. Of course there are exceptions, but generally, it's not a profession that translates well abroad.
yeah unless he's practiced international law or he's a tax attorney or in some other field of law that could turn into an expat-focused business abroad, his profession really does limit his options. Even moving within the US might be difficult depending on specifics of his practice.
Being a victim of a social media smear campaign—regardless of the truth of the allegations—ought to be a protected class in employment law, like race and sex, but temporary instead of permanent.
How far do you extend that? If someone is smeared in social media as a child abuser, and the allegations are true, do you really want their employment as a school teacher to be protected?
I agree that the status quo is a problem, but I do think the veracity of allegations, as well as their specific ramifications for that person's field of work, should be taken into account when deciding whether or not they can continue on in it. I don't know what the mechanism for that would be. I don't think we have a good mechanism for protecting them as a class without those considerations either, though. If your boss can't fire you because the internet thinks you're an abuser, they'll just fire you because of a "decline in your quality of work" which only people who can afford expensive lawyers will be able to argue back against.
If the allegations prompt the school to launch an independent investigation and they're found to be true, then that'd be grounds for dismissal with cause. However, reputational harm from rumors would be an illegal reason to dismiss an employee.
Isn't this also true about traditional protected classes as well?
Absolutely it is! It's a huge problem!
I think this is expecting employers to have a lot of resources that aren't often at their disposal. If you run a small daycare, say 10 employees most of whom do childcare, and the person who deals with HR is qualified to handle W-9s and making sure people get their allotted breaks, who is expected to be qualified to independently determine if an employee has abused children? It's not like they can question witnesses and subpoena records, even if they had the expertise to analyze those things. If they wait for the police to do them, they risk leaving children with someone who may be dangerous for years.
It's a terrible problem, I don't deny it, and again, the status quo is not fine. The best solution that I can think of is to strengthen the social safety net, so if someone does lose their job unfairly (or even irrelevantly. If you're cruel and emotionally harmful to your children but haven't broken any laws, that's no reason you can't be an accountant or a pipefitter or work in waste management or something ) they can still continue to function.
Strongly agree with your point about the social safety net. I'm a UBI proponent, myself.
Though in the specific case of a daycare manager, I'd treat one concerned person calling in about an employee far more seriously than 10 people making similar allegations. The former is cue for closer supervision, if not dismissal; the later will be marked as "smear campaign, nothing to see here."
I think you may have misread what I wrote. 10 people wasn't the number of accusers, it was the size of the hypothetical business, with the point being that they wouldn't have the manpower to investigate regardless of how credible the claims seemed.
I think we may have talked past each other. What I intended to focus on is that I'd treat it as a rule of thumb that multiple allegations in a short window are more likely to be entirely fabricated than a single allegation or just two but spaced apart.
Fine, but isn't that a bit of a non-sequiter anyway? What do you expect an employer with no resources to do about the allegation that they're taking more seriously? In a practical sense. Investigate how?
Just a quick note: "smearing", by definition, is ruining a reputation by false accusations.
In this context that's clearly not how the word is being used -- the comment GenuinelyCrooked was responding to began with "Being a victim of a social media smear campaign—regardless of the truth of the allegations", which clearly indicates that they consider a "social media smear campaign" to be something that can be undergone when the allegations are true as well. Since (unlike "slander") "smear" is not a legal term, it's not super useful to correct someone when they're using it the same way as others in the conversation and it's clear that everyone understands what they mean.
So it sounds like your saying its another example of people all ways using the wrong words when their are already the proper words avaliable witch they could of used. The affect of this is that those of us who like too be precise in our language and can't except that language isn't stationery are dragged along against hour wills and literally loosing sleep over it.
edit - fixed typo
I'm a linguist, so I'm a descriptivist. In a context like this, sometimes I'll offer trivia about specific definitions, especially when they're technical jargon, and I'll happily correct someone if an error changes the meaning of whwt they've said. But if a word is widely used in a certain way or is readily understood in a certain way in context, that's what the word means now, and dictionaries are only there to do their best to capture a snapshot of that.
The "errors" in your comment are either widely popular things that are part of the language (but just treated with disdain by certain people who want language to never change or see knowing the "right" alternatives as a sign of prestige) or simple spelling errors (linguists usually don't really care about spelling, since it's not really language in the same way as how you actually use words).
Also somehow the "fixed typo" annotation makes your comment way funnier lol
I only used it that way because the comment I was responding to did. They already had an understanding of that word, so I could quickly and easily continue the thought by sticking with it, rather than risking miscommunication by switching to a different word. Would they think I was correcting them? Referring to a similar but slightly different situation? Easier to avoid the issue and just continue using the previously established phrase.
Oh god, what a harrowing story. I am so, so glad they did not let her have her children unsupervised, or she might have taken them out with her to punish her husband.
Holy shit. Don't be put off by the length warning - it is long, but there's no filler.
Holy shit. My life is a cakewalk next to that.
Damn, this reads like a real-life version of Gone Girl.
While this article clearly is in favour of the father/husband, it shows enough testimonials that suggests that there aren't really any good people here, just at best one mixed-bag.
After reading through this, my main feeling is of sadness. The girls, the husband, even the (crazy) wife, should deserve something better. And there's enough blame to go round..
Jeez. Those poor kids.
TikTok is a stain on society... Why do people like that exist?