[Rolling Stone] Fake Accounts Fueled the ‘Snyder Cut’ Online Army
- Thread starter Precious Tritium
- Start date
- Status
24 hours for a investigative piece is pretty damn slim. If there were several other emails, that's another thing. But as a 'gotcha', posting a screenshot of 2 emails 24 hours apart and before the piece was released isn't much of one. Especially considering we have no proof of correspondence.
He said they lied. They proved they didn't, that's a fuck up.
It can be a completely miscommunication problem, still a fuck up though.
Yep normally if there were multiple attempts it'd be nested level of replies
It's eerily similar to threats, if anything. But I don't know how these things work in journalism, so I might be very much so fucking off base, I admit.
Good lord
He didn't accuse them of not giving him enough time
He accused them of lying that they ever contacted him
Though I imagine now he'll switch gears to exactly that.
He didn't accuse them of not giving him enough time
He accused them of lying that they ever contacted him
Though I imagine now he'll switch gears to exactly that.
So what is the new narrative here. Rolling Stone didn't actually care about Ray Fisher's statements, which is why...they reached out to him several times with days until their deadline and nobody in Hollywood works past 5pm? And Ray Fisher's statements aren't wrong because....they reached out to the wrong agents?
See, I wouldn't call that tweet as them proving they didn't yet.
There's a scenario where Fisher and his reps truly didn't get their emails(for instance, another poster above mentions the email was to Fisher's booking agent, not his publicist), and thus both parties were still saying the truth.
because I only see two emails and therefore these are the only two emails that exist?
You can literally see the first email forwarded and there's only one level of reply.
Twit says they have sent multiple emails, maybe they started sending emails for comment to anyone representing Fisher when his publicist didn't respond.
The tweet literally says 1 of several emails. Also mentions reps as in multiple people probably got these emails.
Has the story been updated with a comment? Honestly asking. Because these sorts of stories typically are edited if a key person in the piece wishes to offer their position. I am skeptical there are currently any obstacles present that are preventing this.
As far as the booking agent being contacted instead of a publicist or manager, and this chain of emails only having two emails in it. Leads me to believe this a tertiary attempt to get a response from anyone. These aren't rookie journalists.
Furthermore - even if the issue was not enough time, that's not what Fisher said in his tweet. He denied being contacted at all and called the behavior dangerous.
As far as the booking agent being contacted instead of a publicist or manager, and this chain of emails only having two emails in it. Leads me to believe this a tertiary attempt to get a response from anyone. These aren't rookie journalists.
Furthermore - even if the issue was not enough time, that's not what Fisher said in his tweet. He denied being contacted at all and called the behavior dangerous.
Or maybe the simpler explanation is they knew the managing agent was unlikely to respond but used this for plausible deniability.
I'm taking myself off this discussion and thread. The amount of intensity by some people here to get a "gotcha" and corner a PoC actor, who painted a target on his own back by speaking up about abuse against execs, who basically at this point might as well be Hollywood pariah already, while the article itself is piling in on trying to discredit him at all cost is too much for me. By the time this ends and everything's out in the open, I might end up standing on the wrong hill all along, but to be part of such discussions feels very depressing and not what I joined this site for.
This is not the simpler explanation. The simpler explanation is not that they couldn't find the time to write a response given multiple prompts, and that this was an intentional move by the nefarious writers and editors at Rolling Stone.
At this point we only know that he declined to comment. We don't, however, know with 100% certainty whether the neglected to comment, or refused to comment, or opted not to comment, or chose not to comment, or made no comment, or had no comment, and until we know for sure, it's pointless to speculate any further.
So they knew he'd decline to comment so they emailed someone else to set up a decline to comment
That's not the simplest explanation at all. That's a "conspiracy theory" explanation.
Rolling Stone was playing 3D chess-they knew he wouldn't respond-that's why they asked him to respond!
They knew the reps wouldn't be able to reach out in time making it an automatic decline to comment. Since they're both on Twitter, they could have DM'd him on Twitter if they got no response through reps. And note the email thing only says reps, they never tried direct reach out either. And if they're emailing reps, it comes down to which ones. If they never reached out to the one that mattered, publicist which all statements would run through, it's effectively not reaching out at all.
People really twisting themselves in knots or reaching for excuses here in search of validation or in the name of denial. This is the state of how people consume news and information in 2022.
Peoples lives and careers, also, Mr. Drive-By. In an industry where reputation is everything. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, it was to correct an injustice. A millionaire director was given 3 chances and millions of dollars to use the biggest most iconic superhero characters as he saw fit, and dammit, he deserved a fourth chance and a few million dollars more.
As someone who occasionally gets contacted by reporters for comments, more than 24 hours is an extremely generous amount time to give someone to comment. He could have simply said "They posted the article before we had a chance to respond" instead he went with they lied.
Seriously. I know a lot of this veered towards conspiracy theory ages ago, but do people really think journalists give you days to comment on a story?
Jesus, I went for a walk and when I come back this has turned into an even bigger clusterfuck for Snyder and now Fisher.
Wonder what tomorrow will bring.
Wonder what tomorrow will bring.
Yes what a fall from grace for... *checks notes*... Martin Scorsese.
Ray Fisher responds back to Rolling Stone. Confirms team was contacted but now disputes deadline for response.
let's remember this is Rolling Stone's recent history
Let's check what's wrong with that email.
1. It was sent on a Sunday.
2. It was sent to two members of a talent agency. One of those only deals with brand partnerships. The other a talent assistant when on a location shoot.
3. The article mentions all the parties (and likely sources) so they spent plenty of time gathering their inputs while they try to briefly send to two agents that would be unlikely to look or even respond.
Let's check what's wrong with that email.
1. It was sent on a Sunday.
2. It was sent to two members of a talent agency. One of those only deals with brand partnerships. The other a talent assistant when on a location shoot.
3. The article mentions all the parties (and likely sources) so they spent plenty of time gathering their inputs while they try to briefly send to two agents that would be unlikely to look or even respond.
lmao
Not gonna comment on the he said she said thing but this story is getting very, very weird.
He never said they never contacted him
"Neither myself, nor anyone on my team, EVER "declined to comment to Rolling Stone.""
He said his team never declined to comment.
They did, but now it's turning into "How much of a lead time" did Fisher actually get to respond.
let's remember this is Rolling Stone's recent history
Let's check what's wrong with that email.
1. It was sent on a Sunday.
2. It was sent to two members of a talent agency. One of those only deals with brand partnerships. The other a talent assistant when on a location shoot.
3. The article mentions all the parties (and likely sources) so they spent plenty of time gathering their inputs while they try to briefly send to two agents that would be unlikely to look or even respond.
1. So what. Story was being published on a Monday. They had a full day to respond.
2. So did they send it to the wrong person? That isn't an argument that has been raised by Ray.
3. How long is an appropriate amount of time for a reporter to wait for comment? 48 hours? A week?
Okay, it's become apparent that this article is salacious gossip and propaganda. I retract my earlier comments.
Not responding is declining to comment, you can get cute with the semantics but that's generally understood by management/publicists as it relates to journalists.
- Status