So either you're a total scumbag for saying it yourself, or an incompetent shithead for okaying a statement to be published about the rape allegations against your director without having read it...
In the wake of the piece, Millennium Films CEO Avi Lerner released a controversial statement to THR in which called the Atlantic article "agenda driven fake news." He also said he would allow Singer to continue as director.
The statement was widely criticized, and Lerner later told THR that crisis PR guru Howard Bragman had written the statement and Lerner said he OK'd it without reading it.
So either you're a total scumbag for saying it yourself, or an incompetent shithead for okaying a statement to be published about the rape allegations against your director without having read it first. TBH, I don't know which is worse, Mr. Lerner.
Basically. I was literally amazed when I saw that. Why would you do that? And why would you admit to doing it? From a PR point of view, you should say, “Look, I was wrong. Here’s what I meant to...
Basically. I was literally amazed when I saw that.
Why would you do that? And why would you admit to doing it? From a PR point of view, you should say, “Look, I was wrong. Here’s what I meant to say.”
But either way, you’re right, he’s a bad person for keeping Singer on because he thinks it’ll make him more money vs what the bad PR he gets for keeping him is going to cost.
No. The place to convict these people is courts of law, not public opinion. Weaponised PR via emotive accusation is a slippery slope (the real kind, not the fallacious).
But either way, you’re right, he’s a bad person for keeping Singer on because he thinks it’ll make him more money vs what the bad PR he gets for keeping him is going to cost.
No. The place to convict these people is courts of law, not public opinion. Weaponised PR via emotive accusation is a slippery slope (the real kind, not the fallacious).
Ideally, yes. But the conviction rate for these type of charges is so low it’s ridiculous. Courts are also notoriously hostile to sexual assault victims. I have no problem with someone who’s...
Ideally, yes. But the conviction rate for these type of charges is so low it’s ridiculous. Courts are also notoriously hostile to sexual assault victims. I have no problem with someone who’s gotten nowhere with the court making what happened known through other methods, like vetted and checked articles about it.
They're so low (in part) because they place a certain bar of required evidence, because the impact on the accused is so huge if they're convicted. IMO lowering that bar to the level of the court...
They're so low (in part) because they place a certain bar of required evidence, because the impact on the accused is so huge if they're convicted.
IMO lowering that bar to the level of the court of public opinion is not the answer, primarily because in my mind (and for pretty much everything except sexual assault cases the minds of just about everyone) it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than imprison 1 innocent man. Public opinion will happily convict 100 innocent people because it's topical.
I believe the answer is to solve the other reasons the conviction rate is so low: remove barriers for reporting, and fix the courts' approach to testimony (like banning victim blaming jury opinion poisoning).
Solve for the system, not the anomaly. If there have been that many accusations and they're true, fixing the court system would presumably have allowed for at least one to turn into a conviction.
Solve for the system, not the anomaly.
If there have been that many accusations and they're true, fixing the court system would presumably have allowed for at least one to turn into a conviction.
So either you're a total scumbag for saying it yourself, or an incompetent shithead for okaying a statement to be published about the rape allegations against your director without having read it first. TBH, I don't know which is worse, Mr. Lerner.
Basically. I was literally amazed when I saw that.
Why would you do that? And why would you admit to doing it? From a PR point of view, you should say, “Look, I was wrong. Here’s what I meant to say.”
But either way, you’re right, he’s a bad person for keeping Singer on because he thinks it’ll make him more money vs what the bad PR he gets for keeping him is going to cost.
No. The place to convict these people is courts of law, not public opinion. Weaponised PR via emotive accusation is a slippery slope (the real kind, not the fallacious).
Ideally, yes. But the conviction rate for these type of charges is so low it’s ridiculous. Courts are also notoriously hostile to sexual assault victims. I have no problem with someone who’s gotten nowhere with the court making what happened known through other methods, like vetted and checked articles about it.
They're so low (in part) because they place a certain bar of required evidence, because the impact on the accused is so huge if they're convicted.
IMO lowering that bar to the level of the court of public opinion is not the answer, primarily because in my mind (and for pretty much everything except sexual assault cases the minds of just about everyone) it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than imprison 1 innocent man. Public opinion will happily convict 100 innocent people because it's topical.
I believe the answer is to solve the other reasons the conviction rate is so low: remove barriers for reporting, and fix the courts' approach to testimony (like banning victim blaming jury opinion poisoning).
In general, I agree but in this particular case there have been many accusations over a period of decades.
Solve for the system, not the anomaly.
If there have been that many accusations and they're true, fixing the court system would presumably have allowed for at least one to turn into a conviction.
They should get james gunn. He'd do a better job anyway.