tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post2383057038597455744..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Kansas City "Super Lawyer" Craig O'Dear, of Bryan Cave firm, has plenty to say about our reporting on the Ashley Madison Web site -- and his appearance therelegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-12493879763742750002016-12-08T11:15:54.877-06:002016-12-08T11:15:54.877-06:00LS
you say "You might be among some who thin...LS<br /><br />you say "You might be among some who think I'm just slashing and burning my way through this story. If you knew what has gone on behind the scenes, you would know that is not the case." Yet if you are deciding to not run stories because you "believe they had legit excuses/explanations." how does this series of stories meet the stink test of the publics right to know?<br /><br />The parallel you draw between your case and the case of people who spent money to look at a web site is false. You were brought on charges for a crime. You were afforded due process and you had a remedy afforded to you to address said crime and well established precedents to prove or disprove your complicity. In your narrative of people in this series of stories, you alone serve as the arbiter of "justice". You decided who to report on when you decide what a legit excuse is. How is that the same thing?<br /><br />Your version of journalism in this case is tabloid at best, cruel and unnecessary for certain. These are not public figures, these are not people accused of a crime and these are not people that who deserve your public judgment, as you are simply not qualified or responsible for their actions or for them to account to you for their thoughts. O'Dear is a fine example. He reasons sound valid, his story is sincere and by all accounts he is a good guy (if you can ignore that he is a lawyer). Your story, now that we know the details and his, simply serves as a post to embarrass him. His wife (ex wife, whatever) doesn't deserved to be named or publicly linked to this, his kids dont either.<br /><br />Here is a modest proposal...why not scour hacked medical records and report on who has had STD's, has substance abuse problems or mental illness? Those are just as relevant, the source data would be just as ethical to use and you would be able to open up your "reporting" to so many other people. If you need, I can send some of these hacked files over to you too.<br /><br />The problem with these stories is they undermine all of your other work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-49370414448044112782016-12-07T20:49:55.284-06:002016-12-07T20:49:55.284-06:00@7:46 =- Innocent people/victims have their names ...@7:46 =- Innocent people/victims have their names in newspapers and on TV news all the time. Many of them might prefer to have their names kept out of the press, but if a reporter/editor feels it should be there, it will be there. <br /><br />Do you think I like having news accounts of my incarceration spread all over the Web and numerous print/TV news outlets? No, I don't. But the accounts are out there, many of them with false or misleading information, and I was 100 percent a victim. There were no lawful grounds to arrest me, but my mugshot can be found all over the place. <br /><br />I disagree on a couple of your key points. I don't believe I cast spouses and children in a negative light. And I certainly am not condemning the AM customers. I could write an op-ed piece that condemns them, but I have't done that. Instead, I've kept my reporting about as straightforward and middle-of-the-road as you can get. <br /><br />I agree it's a touchy subject, one that must be handled carefully. That's why I give everyone a chance to respond, and you see that Craig O'Dear did respond. I could give you several names -- probably a half dozen or so -- who have responded to me privately, explained their situations, and I have not reported on them because I believe they had legit excuses/explanations.<br /><br />You might be among some who think I'm just slashing and burning my way through this story. If you knew what has gone on behind the scenes, you would know that is not the case.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-67882792841793242222016-12-07T19:46:14.532-06:002016-12-07T19:46:14.532-06:00You are correct that I don't like your "r...You are correct that I don't like your "reporting" of the Ashley Madison story. You seem intent on embarrassing people who haven't hurt anyone other than their families. I am not condoning what these men intended (even if one believes their claims that they were framed, just curious, etc - I don't buy that). But your condemnation of them serves only to hurt them. I really dislike your running photos of innocent spouses and children and including names. They did not ask for that treatment and public humiliation. You call it journalism. I call it muckraking.<br /><br />Generally, I find your blog entertaining, and you do bring some very valid concerns to light. I just don't like to see innocent people who never intended to be public figures (spouses and children) cast in such a negative light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-2840767820469072072016-12-07T06:58:32.611-06:002016-12-07T06:58:32.611-06:00@8:04 --
Why don't you explain what you mean ...@8:04 --<br /><br />Why don't you explain what you mean by "trashing" somebody? I think that's what most of us would call "journalism." I reported that Mr. O'Dear's name was on the Ashley Madison customer list, which it is -- and he doesn't deny it. He then asked that I run his response in full, and I did. His response included a number of claims that do not match the facts, including thinly veiled threats to sue me for publishing accurate information. He also read all kinds of claims into my post that aren't there, so I responded to certain points. <br /><br />Don't know how that amounts to "trashing" anyone. But it makes me think you are short on knowledge about journalism. You just don't like the Ashley Madison story seeing the light of day, and I get that. Your agenda is clear.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-38135198617333072502016-12-06T20:04:35.151-06:002016-12-06T20:04:35.151-06:00So you normally trash the guys that do not respond...So you normally trash the guys that do not respond to your invitation to respond. And when somebody does respond, you trash him. And you wonder why most won't respond....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-369778833794459352016-12-06T14:07:27.599-06:002016-12-06T14:07:27.599-06:00@1:26 -- O'Dear might be a decent guy, and may...@1:26 -- O'Dear might be a decent guy, and maybe other AM guys I've reported on are decent guys, too. It's not my job to make a determination whether they are decent or not. It's to show that, despite their smarts, success (and, maybe, decency) they still signed on for a Web site that promotes extramarital affairs. If privacy was a big concern for O'Dear, he should have thought of that before signing up with a sleazy outfit like Ashley Madison.<br /><br />If you think engaging in journalism makes one a "dick," I'm not sure why you are reading this Web site. Surely, there is something else more suited to your tastes.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-20246232922921558582016-12-06T13:26:31.339-06:002016-12-06T13:26:31.339-06:00Odear seems like a decent guy, asking for privacy ...Odear seems like a decent guy, asking for privacy only. Roger - don't be a dick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-62988616054293786222016-12-05T17:26:43.708-06:002016-12-05T17:26:43.708-06:00Oh Dear, O'Dear is not a happy camper!Oh Dear, O'Dear is not a happy camper!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-65719991362757718252016-12-05T16:00:45.728-06:002016-12-05T16:00:45.728-06:00Methinks Mr. O'Dear is threatening you. That&#...Methinks Mr. O'Dear is threatening you. That's pretty much No. 1 in the lawyer's bag of tricks, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-86782773620382912422016-12-05T15:08:24.493-06:002016-12-05T15:08:24.493-06:00Will be interesting to see if Mr. O'Dear actua...Will be interesting to see if Mr. O'Dear actually sues you. He doesn't have a case, but if you know the judge (as he probably does), you don't have to have a case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-64217270218614314582016-12-05T14:50:54.757-06:002016-12-05T14:50:54.757-06:00Sounds like the Super lawyer is super pissed!Sounds like the Super lawyer is super pissed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-17757831806240021912016-12-05T14:37:27.042-06:002016-12-05T14:37:27.042-06:00I just dont get it. You do real work with your ef...I just dont get it. You do real work with your efforts against corrupt elected officials. Those people have put themselves in the public domain. Yet you target people because they work in law or have somehow found a way to be successful in life, even if you have never met them...you write to embarrass them. Or worst, profit from them (through page views).<br /><br />You will likely claim these are powerful people and that "we" have a right to know what they do in the personal life. You will probably respond that they hold roles in society that require them to judge others...so we should judge them. <br /><br />This is bogus reasoning. These people are simply living their private lives and if they look at a website, watch porn, drink too much or practice dishonesty (in your opinion) in their personal lives...you get to be the judge. Roger there is no justification for what you are doing to these people...other than being cruel and using a bully pulpit.<br /><br />You will say "I am not implying anything" or "I am not trying to embarrass, bully or harass." I am simply reporting that their names appear. My readers can be the judge.<br /><br />This again is bogus. You purposely tag and use SEO to make sure people other than your core readers will find this information. You go out of your way to publicly use what is private, personal and embarrassing information to shame, humiliate and embarrass. You optimize these posts so that anyone search for a person cant help by to find and see your sensational headlines.<br /><br />You are worse than the people you rail against on this bloq. You are worse than the people who took your house, because you had a business relationship with them. You are worse than the judges who have decided against you, because thats what the system does...it decides. You are worse than your brother who you believed screwed you, He didn't. He was looking out for you and worried about you. He loves (ed) you.<br /><br />You are hitting people who are vulnerable, who have done less than nothing to you personaly and you are writing about them to simply cause them pain. <br /><br />Causing them to bare pain, will not relieve yours.Ira Stottlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-28491652937250268502016-12-05T13:01:08.273-06:002016-12-05T13:01:08.273-06:00Sounds like Mr. O'Dear did not find your repor...Sounds like Mr. O'Dear did not find your reporting too endearing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com