Why did TMZ remove David Miscavige's name from the Scientology Going Clear story?

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Why did Harvey Levin and TMZ remove David Miscavige's name from the Scientology Going Clear story?

From Scientology Bullocks: WHY DID TMZ'S HARVEY LEVIN REMOVE DAVID MISCAVIGE'S NAME FROM THEIR SCIENTOLOGY PIECE?

http://scientologybollocks.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/why-did-tmzs-harvey-levin-remove-david.html

Please go the above for his full story and analysis.

Screen cap provided by Scientology Bullocks:

Screen%2BShot%2B2015-01-30%2Bat%2B04.12.12.png



Thus, the original sentence --

We've confirmed Rathbun did indeed lie, but his position -- which he discussed in the deposition -- is that he lied to protect the Church and cover up its misdeeds. Rathbun says he was an executive in the Church at the time and did not want to squeal on alleged misdeeds of Church leaders.

was changed to --

We've confirmed Rathbun did indeed lie, but his position -- which he discussed in the deposition -- is that he lied to protect the Church and cover up its misdeeds. Rathbun says he was an executive in the Church at the time and did not want to squeal on alleged misdeeds of Church leader David Miscavige.

I have confirmed that, as stated in the above Scientology Bullocks post, the sentence has been changed back and as of this writing currently states:

We've confirmed Rathbun did indeed lie, but his position -- which he discussed in the deposition -- is that he lied to protect the Church and cover up its misdeeds. Rathbun says he was an executive in the Church at the time and did not want to squeal on alleged misdeeds of Church leaders.

http://www.tmz.com/2015/01/29/scien...ologist-nicole-kidman-tom-cruise-going-clear/

attachment.php







 

Attachments

  • tmz-001.PNG
    tmz-001.PNG
    24.9 KB · Views: 200

Techless

Patron Meritorious
I think they could've gotten away with just removing the 's' from leaders and saying the church leader...?
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Something has been fishy regarding TMZ and the way they report on Scientology for the last several years, IMHO. On most other stories they're not reserved at all, and often they scoop other outlets. But with Scientology stories they seem to whisper instead of shout. It's like they keep one hand behind their back.

Perhaps DM has some leverage on Levin? I don't know the reason, but something is going on. If I remember correctly TMZ was also quite reserved with all Tom and Katie break-up stories. Usually that kind of event is right up their alley for balls to wall reporting and commentary.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=932265&wteid=932265_TMZ's_Troubleshooter


Beckerman reviews TMZ on TV's content daily at the 12:20 p.m. run-through, checking for propriety issues and other legal red flags, then again at 1 p.m. when the episode first airs in certain markets. He describes this part of his job as "litigation avoidance." Contrary to what almost everyone assumes, TMZ is sued very infrequently: once every eight months, if that, Beckerman estimates.

................

The TMZ legal team is cautious, he insists, flagging "anything that would be susceptible to defamation or privacy claims, valid or not." Citing the time and money lawsuits devour, as well as the bad publicity they can bring, Beckerman says, "Any litigator will tell you that as soon as you're sued, you lose." He sits back. "I really take pride in TMZ having so few lawsuits."

The Lamar Odom crack-denial story is just the kind of story that would have to be thoroughly vetted. "If it's not true, it's defamatory and will get you sued and you could lose," Beckerman says, noting that the repercussions to Odom's career and reputation would be momentous. The vetting process involves questioning the reporters about their sources, getting independent confirmation of facts, and contacting the accused party. "Of course they're probably going to deny it, but you have to go to them anyway, and include their denial" in the story, he says.



.............

Possibly their inability to actually communicate with Miscavige and/or his spokesperson made them decide to take his name out.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=932265&wteid=932265_TMZ's_Troubleshooter


Beckerman reviews TMZ on TV's content daily at the 12:20 p.m. run-through, checking for propriety issues and other legal red flags, then again at 1 p.m. when the episode first airs in certain markets. He describes this part of his job as "litigation avoidance." Contrary to what almost everyone assumes, TMZ is sued very infrequently: once every eight months, if that, Beckerman estimates.

................

The TMZ legal team is cautious, he insists, flagging "anything that would be susceptible to defamation or privacy claims, valid or not." Citing the time and money lawsuits devour, as well as the bad publicity they can bring, Beckerman says, "Any litigator will tell you that as soon as you're sued, you lose." He sits back. "I really take pride in TMZ having so few lawsuits."

The Lamar Odom crack-denial story is just the kind of story that would have to be thoroughly vetted. "If it's not true, it's defamatory and will get you sued and you could lose," Beckerman says, noting that the repercussions to Odom's career and reputation would be momentous. The vetting process involves questioning the reporters about their sources, getting independent confirmation of facts, and contacting the accused party. "Of course they're probably going to deny it, but you have to go to them anyway, and include their denial" in the story, he says.



.............

Possibly their inability to actually communicate with Miscavige and/or his spokesperson made them decide to take his name out.

Ahhhh I see. TMZ has a dedicated lawsuit avoidance policy. Can't say I blame them. In their line of work lawsuits can be constant and devastating to their bottom line.
 
Top