OT - Gottlieb being Gottlieb | The Boneyard

OT - Gottlieb being Gottlieb

Are we allowed to be fair? I know nothing about this story other than what Skiblets linked, but is a broadcaster/reporter a slimeball because they get a story wrong? Wouldn't we need to know whether he believed that what he said was true, and whether it was reasonable to have such a belief based on where he got the story from, to speak badly of him? Because if the standard for reporters was "be right 100% of the time," no one would ever break a story.
 
businesslawyer said:
Are we allowed to be fair? I know nothing about this story other than what Skiblets linked, but is a broadcaster/reporter a slimeball because they get a story wrong? Wouldn't we need to know whether he believed that what he said was true, and whether it was reasonable to have such a belief based on where he got the story from, to speak badly of him? Because if the standard for reporters was "be right 100% of the time," no one would ever break a story.
Expand ...
Not when it comes to Gottlieb
 
uconngb said:
Not when it comes to Gottlieb
Expand ...
America in 2022 in a nutshell. If we don't like someone, everything they do is terrible and if we do like someone, everything they do is o.k.

Not picking on you gb, and you might even be kidding, but that's my point exactly. Gottlieb may be a slimeball, and he may have been a slimeball in this instance, but that conclusion is set forth where all the linked story tells you is that he got a story wrong and his apology was good enough for the plaintiff.
 
businesslawyer said:
Are we allowed to be fair? I know nothing about this story other than what Skiblets linked, but is a broadcaster/reporter a slimeball because they get a story wrong? Wouldn't we need to know whether he believed that what he said was true, and whether it was reasonable to have such a belief based on where he got the story from, to speak badly of him? Because if the standard for reporters was "be right 100% of the time," no one would ever break a story.
Expand ...
A slime ball vs A reporter
The former hears a salacious story and broadcasts it usually for shock value. A real reporter ( mostly extinct ) coborates the story from a reliable source before printing or commenting on it.
Reprinting or commenting on a story printed or broadcast uncoborated is just a bad.
That’s why we essentially no longer have a real press . It requires integrity and values .
 
.-.
When Gottlieb himself says

“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”

He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.

Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
 
NJHusky said:
When Gottlieb himself says

“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”

He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.

Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
Expand ...
I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that he unknowingly reported false info.
 
Last edited:
NJHusky said:
When Gottlieb himself says

“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”

He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.

Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
Expand ...
I'm not a Gottlieb fan but the full quote supports @businesslawyer's contention.

"Upon further vetting of my sources, a review of the lawsuit filed against me in this matter and a direct conversation with Casey himself, I have learned that the conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did," Gottlieb wrote. "My ultimate investigation into this matter confirms that Casey Close did, in fact, communicate all offers to Freddie Freeman and the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms."
 
Get a Job said:
I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that the unknowingly reported false info.
Expand ...
I will add we may not believe in the sincerity or accuracy of Gottlieb's statement, he may not even have sources for all we know, but our opinions are different than trying to distort statements to support our opinions when those statements can easily be disproven.
 
fleudslipcon said:
I will add we may not believe in the sincerity or accuracy of Gottlieb's statement, he may not even have sources for all we know, but our opinions are different than trying to distort statements to support our opinions when those statements can easily be disproven.
Expand ...
Indeed. I was merely commenting on the meaning of the words on the page.
 
.-.
NJHusky said:
When Gottlieb himself says

“conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did,”

He is admitting he knowingly reported false info. Not sure how there is more than one way to read that.

Gottlieb is lucky Close is a better guy than he is and was magnanimous enough to accept a retraction and apology. Could have probably gotten a decent payout if he played it out.
Expand ...
Absolutely disagree that your interpretation is the only way to read it. Stating "that there is no credible basis" is very different than stating "at the time I reported it there was no credible basis." It is an admission that now, at the present time, he knows there would be no basis for reporting the story. I don't see how you can conclude from that that he knew at the time there was no credible basis. The words he used now were vetted by lawyers as part of the settlement. They were selected carefully.
 
fleudslipcon said:
I will add we may not believe in the sincerity or accuracy of Gottlieb's statement, he may not even have sources for all we know, but our opinions are different than trying to distort statements to support our opinions when those statements can easily be disproven.
Expand ...
This. As I keep saying, Gottlieb may be a slimeball and he may have made it up. But nothing in the linked article requires that conclusion.
 
businesslawyer said:
Are we allowed to be fair? I know nothing about this story other than what Skiblets linked, but is a broadcaster/reporter a slimeball because they get a story wrong? Wouldn't we need to know whether he believed that what he said was true, and whether it was reasonable to have such a belief based on where he got the story from, to speak badly of him? Because if the standard for reporters was "be right 100% of the time," no one would ever break a story.
Expand ...

Gottlieb has shown time and time again that he doesn't have much integrity. I get that you aren't familiar with the guy or this story, but I would recommend you do some reading before attacking other users for calling the guy out for being a piece of garbage.
 
Rico444 said:
Gottlieb has shown time and time again that he doesn't have much integrity. I get that you aren't familiar with the guy or this story, but I would recommend you do some reading before attacking other users for calling the guy out for being a piece of garbage.
Expand ...
I have said repeatedly that he may or may not be a slimeball. My only point is that he was called a slimeball based on a story that did not support that conclusion. You have made my point exactly, though, so thank you very much. You don't like the guy, so it's o.k. to assume that anything negative said about him is true. Well done.
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
I have said repeatedly that he may or may not be a slimeball. My only point is that he was called a slimeball based on a story that did not support that conclusion. You have made my point exactly, though, so thank you very much. You don't like the guy, so it's o.k. to assume that anything negative said about him is true. Well done.
Expand ...

He either made up what he tweeted or passed along what he was told without doing any kind of digging to see if it's true. At the absolute best he showed laziness and slopiness, but like @huskyjawz said he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt due to his long past of doing incredibly shady things, like when he stole his roommate's credit card back in college.
 
businesslawyer said:
I have said repeatedly that he may or may not be a slimeball. My only point is that he was called a slimeball based on a story that did not support that conclusion. You have made my point exactly, though, so thank you very much. You don't like the guy, so it's o.k. to assume that anything negative said about him is true. Well done.
Expand ...
It's not like this is the first time the guy ever made a mistake and is being labeled a slimeball for it.

His track record of narcism runs as deep as his days at OSU stealing peoples credit card info. So even if it was an "honest" mistake where he was unknowingly given and then published false information, the fact that he has shown he will do / say what ever serves him most, makes it hard to believe he didn't completely make it up or neglected to do proper journalistic due diligence on the info.

Whether he knew or not, the guy certainly is a slimeball and this doesn't help that reputation regardless of the facts.
 
Get a Job said:
I have no dog in this fight, but Gottlieb categorically stated that he unknowingly reported false info.
Expand ...
Not to be a lawyer on this, didn't see where he said "unknowingly". That is lot different than saying "the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms." after the fact in response to the law suit.

Also, he never said that he didn't know at the time of the tweet that it was false or didn't recklessly disregard information (or easily accessed information like calling up to confirm with the people involved) that would show it was false.
 
He’s slime.

Has a history of slime and used his bully Twitter pulpit to post not one but two defamatory tweets against a baseball agent with a pretty respectable track record.

He was asked to delete the tweets. He didn’t.

Agent and his agency file a lawsuit and all of a sudden Doug goes ahem, back to his ‘sources’ and finds the information to be false.

He could have done this research after the agent protested and before the lawsuit was filed. He did nothing. Only until he saw a messy lawsuit and big $$ losses coming did he check with his ‘sources’ and back down. He’s slime


It should be noted the Freeman still has the same agent.
 
.-.
Skiblets said:
He’s slime.

Has a history of slime and used his bully Twitter pulpit to post not one but two defamatory tweets against a baseball agent with a pretty respectable track record.

He was asked to delete the tweets. He didn’t.

Agent and his agency file a lawsuit and all of a sudden Doug goes ahem, back to his ‘sources’ and finds the information to be false.

He could have done this research after the agent protested and before the lawsuit was filed. He did nothing. Only until he saw a messy lawsuit and big $$ losses coming did he check with his ‘sources’ and back down. He’s slime


It should be noted the Freeman still has the same agent.
Expand ...

I thought he fired Close?
 
Husky68 said:
Not to be a lawyer on this, didn't see where he said "unknowingly". That is lot different than saying "the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms." after the fact in response to the law suit.

Also, he never said that he didn't know at the time of the tweet that it was false or didn't recklessly disregard information (or easily accessed information like calling up to confirm with the people involved) that would show it was false.
Expand ...
Fair enough. I take back that he "categorically" stated that he "unknowingly" passed on false information. I maintain, however, just like @businesslawyer and @fleudslipcon are saying, that Gottlieb is clearly implying that he didn't know it was false when he tweeted it.

"Upon further vetting of my sources, a review of the lawsuit filed against me in this matter and a direct conversation with Casey himself, I have learned that the conduct I alleged did not occur and that there is no credible basis for stating that it did," Gottlieb wrote. "My ultimate investigation into this matter confirms that Casey Close did, in fact, communicate all offers to Freddie Freeman and the sources I relied on were incorrect, in no uncertain terms."

If the bolded text does not unequivocally indicate that he now knows something he didn't know before, I don't know what does.

Now, to repeat, I am not defending Gottlieb. He might be completely lying. I don't really care. I am just defending my reading comprehension.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
Businesslawyer's actually making a pretty uncontroversial point.
Expand ...
Strong disagree there. I don't find Doug Gottlieb being a slimeball and Doug Gottlieb knowingly or unknowingly reporting a false story to be mutually exclusive. I think that's just another bullet point on the growing list of issues with Doug Gottlieb and is a perfect representation of who he is
 
The level of irrationality and people misrepresenting other people's words on this thread is approaching that of the infamous Diarra Brothers thread.
 
Rico444 said:
I thought he fired Close?
Expand ...
Not according to the article

‘Gottlieb also tweeted on June 29 that Freeman had fired Close. However, Excel remains Freeman's listed agency, according to the players' association’
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,510
Messages
4,579,686
Members
10,488
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom