Joe Francis is a disgusting sleaze (and that’s putting it nicely) - Page 3

SVZ · August 6th, 2006, 09:23 PM

It's public domain because it's captured outdoors, apparently that's legal. I notice in reality tv shows if they film people outside they don't always blur out the faces.

Zee · August 6th, 2006, 09:27 PM

Right- the reality shows blur out the people without release. For profit- no release potential litigation.

Been to a few sites that filmed reality shows. They had posted signs indicating that it was possible to be filmed and appear on air without compensation. If you entered the site- you concurred. Wonder if they have something similar when they film GGW.

SVZ · August 6th, 2006, 09:29 PM

Wait...reality shows are for profit though aren't they?

I guess when the cast interacts with people they have to sign releases. In any case the chicks who appear in the videos do sign releases according to the article.

calendargurl · August 7th, 2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva

Why did Paris Hilton know who had made him, at gunpoint, simulate sodomy on himself with a dildo??

B/c this Darnell guy was a "friend" of hers too and he was also blackmailing her with some videotapes or photos or her own.

DitaPage* · August 7th, 2006, 12:16 AM

execute him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by calendargurl

B/c this Darnell guy was a "friend" of hers too and he was also blackmailing her with some videotapes or photos or her own.

Oh, but I thought the only thing Paris had to hide from the world was her unwanted sex tape that she didn't really want to do. She's so full of shit, this bitch.

pacific breeze · August 7th, 2006, 01:40 AM

I'm assuming that most people on GR understand what professional ethics are. But just for the record, I'd like to briefly explain what they mean to journalists.

First and foremost, a journalist -- at least in Canada -- cannot belong to a political party. I have never belonged to any political party in my life. Secondly, journalists are not allowed to express their personal opinion in news stories or features. Only columnists or op-ed writers are permitted to express their personal/political opinions, and those are usually supported by evidence. Generally, their pictures are included and/or it is made clear that they are stating their opinion and that it is not necessarily fact. The line of distinction is clear.

Thirdly, most journalists are educated professionals who have worked long and hard to establish their career and reputations. They are not about to throw them away to spout an opinion in the media when it is expressly forbidden for them to do so unless they fall into the above categories. And there are also legal considerations.

Fourthly, speaking about myself, I am not an American citizen -- I cannot vote in the U.S. -- and I am expressing my opinions on an Internet forum, which is NOT a professional news organization. Nor do I work for any American or Canadian news outlet at the moment, I am freelance.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my stating my opinion at GR even if I am a journalist. I, like the majority of my colleagues, are professionals who can separate our personal and business lives. What I say here under a moniker is obviously very different than what I would write/say in public media.

That's what being a professional is about. Doctors may not like their patients, but they generally treat them anyway -- it is the same with professional journalists. After 25 years, I know the rules and I follow them.

It is a sorry statement about the state of politics south of the border -- and more recently in Canada -- that many of these journalistic rules are broken, almost exclusively by partisan columnists and TV talking heads, most of whom are not professional journalists and should not be confused as such. That many of those self-titled "journalists" are of the ultra-right-wing persuasion comes as little surprise; it is business as usual to pass propaganda off as news in those circles. Fortunately, the majority of journalists do not stoop to these tactics and the whole shouldn't be judged by the actions of a few, most of whom aren't real journalists anyway.

And for the record, I have never been a political reporter or columnist, nor do I wish to be. If I was, I would not voice any opinion that I could not back up with hard evidence, just as I do here. My training as a journalist and my respect for my readers' critical thinking skills would always take precedence over any personal opinion that I might hold. That is my professional obligation and I take it very seriously.

Mel1973 · August 7th, 2006, 10:29 AM

Ick. This man is sick. The young girl who let him ply her with shots (at 18 years old? Isn't that illegal?) until she was willing (as a virgin??) to show the tits, the poon and then use a dildo on her virinal poon and then to allow this piece of shit to screw her?? Don't really buy her story either. However, even if it is only partly true, he should be locked up where the sodomization would be real and probably not nearly as gentle as he was with himself using that pink dildo.

I agree with the person who said that it isn't just this dirtbags' fault. These are drunken girls that they pay with panties and trucker hats. This is pretty rampant with him - any female that sees him and/or his crew should know to run for cover when they see this sick fuck heading their way.

GoldDust77 · August 7th, 2006, 11:27 AM

"Disgusting sleaze" is paying that grotesque dude a compliment. Just looking at a picture of that oily creep makes me feel the need to take a shower. He's in need of a good ass-kicking.

Bellatheball · August 7th, 2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

Unlike politicians, especially the current U.S. administration.

So reporters are not fair game for blanket criticism but the government is? Just checking to make sure I understand the rules.

That aside, the most disturbing thing about this is the way the reporter suggests Generation Next views themselves and the prospect of Big Brother. I would hope that reality shows and videos haven't dampened the concern about big government meddling into our personal lives. I seriously hope they aren't so AWish that they are willing to let anyone and anything tape them at all times. How sad and scary is that?

pacific breeze · August 7th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatheball

So reporters are not fair game for blanket criticism but the government is? Just checking to make sure I understand the rules.

That aside, the most disturbing thing about this is the way the reporter suggests Generation Next views themselves and the prospect of Big Brother. I would hope that reality shows and videos haven't dampened the concern about big government meddling into our personal lives. I seriously hope they aren't so AWish that they are willing to let anyone and anything tape them at all times. How sad and scary is that?

Not sure what you mean by "blanket criticism" or how you inferred that from what I wrote, but the role of the fifth estate -- the media -- has traditionally been to act as a watchdog. People who are up to no good often call that "criticism" because they are of the opinion that the press should only be used for their own purposes. Ideally -- and of course we do not live in an ideal world but nonetheless as a journalist and a teacher (of journalism among other forms of writing) -- all journalists should strive to meet their professional responsibilities. Otherwise, you can't really call yourself a professional, you're just another asshole with an opinion.

The standard of responsible journalism has always been to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Certain forces are trying to pervert that, but that remains MY ethical standard. Journalists are not, and should not ever think, that they are paid to represent the interests of the powerful or anybody else, for that matter. Their job is to report and investigate and present the findings -- whatever they may be.

Bad journalists should be driven from the profession, just as a bad doctors shouldn't practice medicine. Nobody, or no profession, is immune from criticism. However, with the advent of the Internet and blogs, just about anybody can and does call themselves journalists even if they don't have the faintest idea of what that involves. A lot of the bad behavior that results is one reason why people tar all journalists with the same brush. Would you view somebody who hung out a shingle saying they were a doctor but who'd never been to medical school in the same light you would view a doctor with 20+ years of school under his/her belt? Of course not, and it's the same for journalists. Most people don't know what a real journalist is/does and that's why these charlatans can get away with it.

DirtyPool · August 7th, 2006, 01:48 PM

sorry but i don't hold journalists in the same regard as i would medical doctors. lol! your profession was ruined many years ago so no amount of moral righteousness under the disguise of "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" will change that. reporters need the meat of the story at all costs in order to make a paycheck and if you don't subscribe to that code or the agenda of the fifth column then you'll probably end up a "freelance" reporter.

ang · August 7th, 2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

I doubt she had the millions of dollars he has to pursue it through the courts.

Yeah, but at least he would've got hauled off to jail for the night. She is making it sound like he really assaulted her & then the cop even told her that he'd love to arrest Francis, but she didn't have him do it. Something there doesn't add up.

pacific breeze · August 7th, 2006, 06:59 PM

I agree, but I think it has more to do with not being taken off the story than the fact that it didn't happen. She wanted to pursue the story to the end and she couldn't do that if she had him charged. I personally would have charged him, but obviously she didn't.

ang · August 8th, 2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

I agree, but I think it has more to do with not being taken off the story than the fact that it didn't happen. She wanted to pursue the story to the end and she couldn't do that if she had him charged. I personally would have charged him, but obviously she didn't.

seems like having him arrested would have gotten her just as much, if not more publicity than her article.

pacific breeze · August 8th, 2006, 12:39 PM

Hmm...editors don't tend to think that way. Better to do the story, then let the chips fall. Anyway, I don't understand why it's so hard to believe he roughed her up. He has a history of doing this sort of thing and just because someone doesn't press charges doesn't mean something didn't happen.

Millions of crimes go unreported every year, including serious crimes such as rape.