media matters

[MDlaxfan76]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

[Seacoaster(1)]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

[youthathletics]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

[Seacoaster(1)]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

Please explain how CBS is potentially liable for Herridge's work in 2017 at Fox?

[youthathletics]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

Please explain how CBS is potentially liable for Herridge's work in 2017 at Fox?

For what she potentially brings or has already brought to table, that she also brought in 17' and is now in court over. I certainly would not want the light shone on my business for something that may be determined sus'. Layoffs make that decision easy.

[MDlaxfan76]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

They wouldn't be subject to anything, they have zero liability.

Nor any reputation damage...based on this matter.

Herridge may have all sorts of other issues worthy of separation, but protecting a source wouldn't be one. Indeed, firing a journalist for protecting a source would be a major reputation issue.

I think you should use your head, but you're not doing so...so far.

[MDlaxfan76]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

Please explain how CBS is potentially liable for Herridge's work in 2017 at Fox?

For what she potentially brings or has already brought to table, that she also brought in 17' and is now in court over. I certainly would not want the light shone on my business for something that may be determined sus'. Layoffs make that decision easy.

Do you imagine that's a cogent answer?

What exactly would the liability to CBS be?

She may have all sorts of 'baggage' she "brings or has already brought to the table" but protecting a source under 1st Amendment is not a liability. It's a positive in journalistic circles.

So, let's speculate what other things might have been "brought" that hiring someone knowing of such would create a liability issue at the event of such hiring or from ongoing actions...eg sexual harassment, or plagiarism, or perjury or falsifying reporting or just generally being a jerk. But not protecting sources.

[youthathletics]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

They wouldn't be subject to anything, they have zero liability.

Nor any reputation damage...based on this matter.

Herridge may have all sorts of other issues worthy of separation, but protecting a source wouldn't be one. Indeed, firing a journalist for protecting a source would be a major reputation issue.

I think you should use your head, but you're not doing so...so far.

No duh.....they wouldnt be liable for anything prior to her arrival. Ask yourself why she is in court right now.....does Paramount want that? The answer to that question is why I say what I do.

[Seacoaster(1)]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

Please explain how CBS is potentially liable for Herridge's work in 2017 at Fox?

For what she potentially brings or has already brought to table, that she also brought in 17' and is now in court over. I certainly would not want the light shone on my business for something that may be determined sus'. Layoffs make that decision easy.

Respectfully, you’re not making any sense under the circumstances. She left FNC in October 2019 — over four years ago. The lawsuit is literally part of the cost of being in this space.

[MDlaxfan76]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

They wouldn't be subject to anything, they have zero liability.

Nor any reputation damage...based on this matter.

Herridge may have all sorts of other issues worthy of separation, but protecting a source wouldn't be one. Indeed, firing a journalist for protecting a source would be a major reputation issue.

I think you should use your head, but you're not doing so...so far.

No duh.....they wouldnt be liable for anything prior to her arrival. Ask yourself why she is in court right now.....does Paramount want that? The answer to that question is why I say what I do.

Try explaining more exactly "why" you think "she is in court right now" and how that specific "why" would be a problem for CBS.

She received and published information from a confidential source and refuses to say who that source is...unless Paramount doesn't want anything to do with journalism any more, they should expect that to happen from any of their investigative journalists, Herridge being just one of many.

Nature of the beast of investigative journalism.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But Natty told us it was because Paramount laid off 800 people. Seems she me have a mole in places that help us understand stuff behind the curtain.

Umm, what? Seriously, what is your point here?

The article has nothing to do with her separation from CBS, right?

As an attorney, would you want her on your staff if she is entangled in litigation, which may also encompass you business?

The events involved in that matter don't have anything to do with her time at CBS, don't create ANY liability for CBS.

She'd have to publish something new at CBS based on a new set of information from a confidential source...and if CBS approved such publication they would then take on the issue of protection of confidential sources...but they would be making that call. Which they do all the time.

Can she be a productive reporter while involved in a legal protection of confidential sources? Happens all the time.

Her leaving CBS is most likely unrelated to protecting confidential sources. Lots of potential other reasons. Not all of them complimentary to her.

I don't think a media employer would be warranted firing an employee/reporter for protecting her sources through interposition of the First Amendment -- you would shed good journalists like a sinking ship, and rightly so. Media companies carry the risk of this sort of litigation regularly and cannot simply separate employees who get into a legitimate quagmire due to "being a journalist." Since, as MD says, this has to do with her work for a prior employer, I will say I am doubtful that being caught up in this litigation is any part of the thinking that separated her from CBS/Paramount.

You do like a little conspiracy, don'tcha?

No, I don’t. But I also use my head. To think she doesn’t carry liability for current employer is just being silly. Why would they intentionally subject themselves to this? It’s a lose - lose for them. Cut their ties and move on.

They wouldn't be subject to anything, they have zero liability.

Nor any reputation damage...based on this matter.

Herridge may have all sorts of other issues worthy of separation, but protecting a source wouldn't be one. Indeed, firing a journalist for protecting a source would be a major reputation issue.

I think you should use your head, but you're not doing so...so far.

No duh.....they wouldnt be liable for anything prior to her arrival. Ask yourself why she is in court right now.....does Paramount want that? The answer to that question is why I say what I do.

Try explaining more exactly "why" you think "she is in court right now" and how that specific "why" would be a problem for CBS.

She received and published information from a confidential source and refuses to say who that source is...unless Paramount doesn't want anything to do with journalism any more, they should expect that to happen from any of their investigative journalists, Herridge being just one of many.

Nature of the beast of investigative journalism.

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.ed ... ntext=mslj

[Kismet]

CBS has a literal bank of lawyers who are all expert in this stuff - I'd be floored if there is any kind of connection.
A more likely situation is that, given Paramount's latest dismal financial disclosures and a possible merger with Warner Discovery that they are cutting costs which is why the layoffs occurred in the first place- Herridge is likely fairly well compensated and was the most financially beneficial given that her portfolio is quite narrow. and she has not been breaking big stories of late.

No conspiracy. I'm sure YA has an ample supply of others that he can foist on the rest of us.

[Typical Lax Dad]

A Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) employee working on artificial intelligence said the company's Copilot Designer image generator is creating violent and sexual images, and the company is not taking the appropriate actions.

The tool, previously known as Bing Image Creator, has shown demons and monsters next to terminology for abortion rights, teenagers with assault rifles, underage drinking and drug use, and sexualized images of women, according to Microsoft AI engineer Shane Jones. CNBC, which reported the story, said it has recreated the images on its own.

“It was an eye-opening moment,” Jones said. “It’s when I first realized, wow, this is really not a safe model.”

Microsoft has not yet responded to a request for comment from Seeking Alpha.

Jones reported his findings internally in December, but Microsoft referred him to OpenAI, the creator of the AI tool DALL-E 3 used for the Copilot Designer image generator. When he did not hear back from OpenAI, Jones posted on LinkedIn and asked the startup to take down DALL-E 3.

[jhu72]

A Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) employee working on artificial intelligence said the company's Copilot Designer image generator is creating violent and sexual images, and the company is not taking the appropriate actions.

The tool, previously known as Bing Image Creator, has shown demons and monsters next to terminology for abortion rights, teenagers with assault rifles, underage drinking and drug use, and sexualized images of women, according to Microsoft AI engineer Shane Jones. CNBC, which reported the story, said it has recreated the images on its own.

“It was an eye-opening moment,” Jones said. “It’s when I first realized, wow, this is really not a safe model.”

Microsoft has not yet responded to a request for comment from Seeking Alpha.

Jones reported his findings internally in December, but Microsoft referred him to OpenAI, the creator of the AI tool DALL-E 3 used for the Copilot Designer image generator. When he did not hear back from OpenAI, Jones posted on LinkedIn and asked the startup to take down DALL-E 3.

... AI

[Typical Lax Dad]

A Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) employee working on artificial intelligence said the company's Copilot Designer image generator is creating violent and sexual images, and the company is not taking the appropriate actions.

The tool, previously known as Bing Image Creator, has shown demons and monsters next to terminology for abortion rights, teenagers with assault rifles, underage drinking and drug use, and sexualized images of women, according to Microsoft AI engineer Shane Jones. CNBC, which reported the story, said it has recreated the images on its own.

“It was an eye-opening moment,” Jones said. “It’s when I first realized, wow, this is really not a safe model.”

Microsoft has not yet responded to a request for comment from Seeking Alpha.

Jones reported his findings internally in December, but Microsoft referred him to OpenAI, the creator of the AI tool DALL-E 3 used for the Copilot Designer image generator. When he did not hear back from OpenAI, Jones posted on LinkedIn and asked the startup to take down DALL-E 3.

... AI

Has achieved consciousness. Made those relationships out of its own mind.

[PizzaSnake]

More content for YA and C&S?

“Into the depleted field of journalism in America, a handful of websites have appeared in recent weeks with names suggesting a focus on news close to home: D.C. Weekly, the New York News Daily, the Chicago Chronicle and a newer sister publication, the Miami Chronicle.

In fact, they are not local news organizations at all. They are Russian creations, researchers and government officials say, meant to mimic actual news organizations to push Kremlin propaganda by interspersing it among an at-times odd mix of stories about crime, politics and culture.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/busi ... in-us.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

More content for YA and C&S?

“Into the depleted field of journalism in America, a handful of websites have appeared in recent weeks with names suggesting a focus on news close to home: D.C. Weekly, the New York News Daily, the Chicago Chronicle and a newer sister publication, the Miami Chronicle.

In fact, they are not local news organizations at all. They are Russian creations, researchers and government officials say, meant to mimic actual news organizations to push Kremlin propaganda by interspersing it among an at-times odd mix of stories about crime, politics and culture.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/busi ... in-us.html

The media doesn’t influence people or tell them what to do.

[youthathletics]

More content for YA and C&S?

“Into the depleted field of journalism in America, a handful of websites have appeared in recent weeks with names suggesting a focus on news close to home: D.C. Weekly, the New York News Daily, the Chicago Chronicle and a newer sister publication, the Miami Chronicle.

In fact, they are not local news organizations at all. They are Russian creations, researchers and government officials say, meant to mimic actual news organizations to push Kremlin propaganda by interspersing it among an at-times odd mix of stories about crime, politics and culture.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/busi ... in-us.html

[youthathletics]

George catching some well deserved shade: https://x.com/BigFish3000/status/176739 ... 57388?s=20

[runrussellrun]

the infotainment industry is weird.

What IS up with all the fake....YES.....fake news about Aaron Rogers and the horrible killings of children in Connecticutt.

According to Aaron, it IS all lies. all B.S.

besides the obvious "pen mitier than sword" and comments from children (trans) about how easy it is to be manipulated, what IS the real deal ?

Rogers statement is the complete opposite, of what the infotainment story.

help us out.


(Hint: Creeps who disparage a great American like former Gov. Ventura.......