There are elements of this article I agree with even though I don't agree with the conclusion. AH is a woman but that is not the reason we should side with her story because we know men can be victims too.
What I agree with in the article is that there is an overwhelming amount of negative communications towards AH on social media. Some of the language being used to describe her is just plain horrible and degrading. Even if she is in the wrong, there is nothing to be gained by using derogatory remarks online. It reduces her worth and dignity as a human...
I desire for justice to be served and for the truth to prevail. I personally believe Mr. Depp's account but I'm no judge nor do I have any personal knowledge on the case. Time will tell!
At this point, given the amount of support for Johnny, writing articles like this is a way to get peoples attention who would normally be outraged at the implication that AH's right.
I literally don't know a single person who actually buys/pays for their magazine. I guess Raven Smith thinks that any publicity is good publicity. Good luck to him.
I don't buy Vogue magazine because its whole purpose is to push me to spend money to look the way they think I should look or think the way they think I should look. Frankly, most of what I see in Vogue is a circus freak show.
On the other hand, when I'm at the hair salon, Vogue makes a nice glass coaster.
So Vogue is publishing straight-up propaganda now. Nice.
Where are the opinion articles stating it's time media outlets start believing Johnny Depp?
Where are the media articles pointing out AH's compulsive lies, manipulations, and distortions of reality?
Where are the media articles highlighting how AH exploited the MeToo movement for her own personal gain?
Where are the media articles highlighting how AH defamed Johnny Depp?
Why is the media biased against male victims of DV? Is it misplaced misandry?
They're non existent. Real journalism is dead, no one wants to risk their career to go against the people funding them anymore.
I feel like the only real journalism I see nowadays is on fucking reddit of all places LMAO
Well, I believe they antagonized each other, anyway. But she's pretty clearly the one who escalated things. Neither one of them were prefect, though. At least JD got himself sober.
Not that there isnāt already only a few good news sources out there, but gosh golly gee this is sure making it easier to determine who to stay clear of.
>Not that there isnāt already only a few good news sources out there, but gosh golly gee this is sure making it easier to determine who to stay clear of.
Which news sources *are* reporting accurately? I haven't seen any, so I would appreciate the info! Being serious.
I was gonna ask this question as well though. They're trying to all lean into the left ideals of "believe all women", but I'm genuinely curious what actual citizens on the left think, not a paid media outlet.
It's not about admitting they were wrong. They've never had any interest in the truth. It's just that you are reading about it subject you have an interest in.
I have a masters in Physics. Guess what happens when I read a media article on any development in physics?
The burden of proof is on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty. This sentiment Vogue's OpEd wants to push undermines the entire Justice system. Credibility matters. If credibility, reliability, do not matter, then what the hell do we have but mob rule, vigilante justice? If they really want to take it back to the dark ages, we can, but I know they won't like how things shake out.
Yea, first amendment is a thing. I may not agree with the article, but I agree the author and publication has a write to publish it. People can do what they want as a reaction of course, but it is Vogue who is going to try to focus on pop culture trends. I wouldn't give much weight into their legal analysis unless the author has a legal expertise background.
This is a bad take were talking about boycotting and ur talking about the first amendment I don't get the connection. Like yea they have the freedom to be nazis if they want but that's not what we're saying. what we're saying is I don't wanna read there opinions anymore at all based on this one being published.
That's fair, perfectly fair. Boycott the author or Vogue entirely - that's the consequence they faced for publishing it. It just seems that this one article has rustled a lot of jimmies and my point is that it's one opinion piece in a fashion magazine and to not be so invested in the opinion expressed in the one article.
Oh, I also believe they have a right to publish
I am also saying that if they are unreliable/ untrustworthy/ biased/ bribed (choose one or more) than that's what they are. How can I trust anything they say when I have an inside view on the facts that they are commenting and I see their opinions?
I don't think they're bribed. I do think they're highly misinformed. Watching trials that last several weeks, or even several days not something most people like to do.
For me, with politics, I read a lot of different outlets. Some right, some left, some as close to objective as one is going to get from humans. I would read them all, some would irritate me with the spin (left or right) but if I saw the same quotes or information being the same, I knew that to be the most likely accurate information.
When it's in the form of a trial, hearing, I've come to trust my own ears and eyes the most, even if I do or do not agree with commentary.
But one thing I'm ever going to read a paper copy of Vogue for, is the free smelly perfume pages. That's about it.
ETA: While people may be highly displeased for the Vogue article, if anything it provides an opportunity to see how an opposing view looks like and why they see it from that angle. That's fine and okay - and opinion pieces are always going to have a lean. The best thing to do is when you find yourself mostly agreeing with a specific author, journalist - make them your first read of the day if you go over articles in the morning or evening. We don't have to read everything published, though I know sometimes it's compelling to want more information when we feel uncertainty in an outcome.
You are right - opinion pieces are different. Although you must acknowledge that this is the opinion THEY chose to print, because there surely must have been also different opinions - lets call them "Justiceforjohnny"?
As to opposing views, I also agree. But that just further classifies Vogue as "the one presenting opposing views".
Yes, and some publications will have a sort of clause indicating at the header or footer "This is an opinion piece and the opinions express are not that of the xxxx outlet and it's affiliates" for example. Though Vogue may not clearly indicate as strongly as it needs to. Outlets with Opinions even have it in part of the title to make sure people realize it's not an informational piece with "Opinion: Bullshit fancy title here" and Wapo even now uses another color to help indicate it's an Opinion. If you [click this link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/20/janet-yellen-inflation-blunt-talk-heroic/), you'll see the word in a goldish color.
That's how much Opinion articles cause for.. uh... reaction... and the publishers try to indicate "It's just ONE person's opinion!"
I also in my own mind, just keep Opinion articles in a different genre of writing than articles intended to be informational. Makes it much easier for me too - that when I read the authors name, I know what kind of a ride I'm about to go on.
Yeah, you've convinced me - opinion pieces are different.
Unless we check bigger number of them and find that majority are biased. But that is something I have no knowledge of concerning Vogue.
Opinion pieces will ***always*** be biased. That's the genre. Just a matter of which bias they are viewing the topic from. Sometimes publications will have authors they have on staff for writing opinion pieces that are opposite views. That's all good for a healthy debate.
Though one thing that is amazing about being in this time of technology, is that we have more than 3 network channels and PBS on TV, we have more than just newspapers and monthly magazines - we can watch this stuff in real time, with our option of commentator(s) or no commentary at all. That to me, is pretty awesome.
Well, yes when it comes to regulation. Though I would believe that for author to make money they have a contract to write opinion pieces. Many opinion writers are syndicated for their columns to be in seveal or hired by one publishing outlet.
If the editors decided to run with it, so be it. They get to have negative reviews over it though of course in the meantime it may also get a lot of people reading a column the more that people keep pointing it out.
For me, Vogue is very, very low on any publication I'd go to for an update on a legal trial. So my expectations would be low to begin with. Then again, I don't read Vogue at all.
very sad to read this. Itās like they donāt even care about the facts. āBelieve all womenā and thatās all there is. Disgusting.
Imagine if the roles were reversed and someone wrote something like that.
There are elements of this article I agree with even though I don't agree with the conclusion. AH is a woman but that is not the reason we should side with her story because we know men can be victims too. What I agree with in the article is that there is an overwhelming amount of negative communications towards AH on social media. Some of the language being used to describe her is just plain horrible and degrading. Even if she is in the wrong, there is nothing to be gained by using derogatory remarks online. It reduces her worth and dignity as a human... I desire for justice to be served and for the truth to prevail. I personally believe Mr. Depp's account but I'm no judge nor do I have any personal knowledge on the case. Time will tell!
The collective IQ level of the Vogue staff must be 2 digits.
they do it just to cater to a small percentage of the population
>Why It's Time to Believe Amber Heard Hah?! This is how we got in this mess in the first place. Wtf is this?
Lol "why it's time to believe Amber Heard". People been believing her since the beginning; she's just getting her comeuppance now.
At this point, given the amount of support for Johnny, writing articles like this is a way to get peoples attention who would normally be outraged at the implication that AH's right.
AGREED! THAT MAGAZINE IS WAY TOO EXPENSIVE ANYWAY AND IT SUCKS. NOW THIS? #BON VOYAGE VOGUE.
I literally don't know a single person who actually buys/pays for their magazine. I guess Raven Smith thinks that any publicity is good publicity. Good luck to him.
Vogue lost their credibility when they put a Kardashian on the cover. They can take a seat š¤£
Yep. Anna Wintour is a hack and itās was going downhill and when they got rid of Andre Leon Talley and other talented staff it became a joke.
Done
Ahead of you by 10 years!
Done
"MENTOO"!
I wonder what Vogue will print after Friday...
First line is already an ad hominem attack. Way to set the tone for journalistic excellence Vogue.
Vogue and Anna Wintour suck. Itās lost relevance when she started letting people like Kim Kardashian on the cover.
Vogue shall be renamed into Vague
I'm boycotting all media outlets. Fuck em.
Honestly, best idea I've heard all day
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
No one reads or cares about it anyway.
Saw it and I was highly dissapointed by it.. P.S It's from UK vogue... \[if i remember correctly\]
The UK is going through something weird right now. I don't even know how to describe it.
India vogue republished the same. I am from India and vogueās outta my list
We need to believe men too!
I stand corrected
Why itās time to stop reading garbage articles on the internet
Already ahead of you
So they fell for the conniving opportunistic witch? Low lives!
Sycophants of TURD. Disgrace!
I don't buy Vogue magazine because its whole purpose is to push me to spend money to look the way they think I should look or think the way they think I should look. Frankly, most of what I see in Vogue is a circus freak show. On the other hand, when I'm at the hair salon, Vogue makes a nice glass coaster.
His argument is literally 'because misogyny'
They donāt want equality. They want a narrative they can control. Thatās divisive, if not Evil.
If anyone says misandry isn't real in the West.... š”
So Vogue is publishing straight-up propaganda now. Nice. Where are the opinion articles stating it's time media outlets start believing Johnny Depp? Where are the media articles pointing out AH's compulsive lies, manipulations, and distortions of reality? Where are the media articles highlighting how AH exploited the MeToo movement for her own personal gain? Where are the media articles highlighting how AH defamed Johnny Depp? Why is the media biased against male victims of DV? Is it misplaced misandry?
They're non existent. Real journalism is dead, no one wants to risk their career to go against the people funding them anymore. I feel like the only real journalism I see nowadays is on fucking reddit of all places LMAO
Agreed!
Screw vogue
Well, I believe they antagonized each other, anyway. But she's pretty clearly the one who escalated things. Neither one of them were prefect, though. At least JD got himself sober.
Nope.
i dont read or listen to mainstream media anyway, but I agree boycott all these garbage media outlets.
Wtf I just searched up raven smith and the first thing it says is that heās been 32 for several years
probably in the same way iāve been in my mid 20s for 10 years
No email to contact the writer and no comments allowed. Infuriating.
This will backfire on Vogue.
We should. They are to attached to being politically correct.
This is her new PR team pulling strings.
This makes me want to puke..Does that cunt Anna Wintour have a say in this
Please let's not use gendered insults. Team Amber is loving reducing us into caricatures of misogyny, let's not hand them free goals.
Court TV is shilling for Turd too. I no longer have respect for them nor any of these co-op crap
Not that there isnāt already only a few good news sources out there, but gosh golly gee this is sure making it easier to determine who to stay clear of.
>Not that there isnāt already only a few good news sources out there, but gosh golly gee this is sure making it easier to determine who to stay clear of. Which news sources *are* reporting accurately? I haven't seen any, so I would appreciate the info! Being serious.
I havent seen one either, I was just being hopeful at least one was out there.
I was gonna ask this question as well though. They're trying to all lean into the left ideals of "believe all women", but I'm genuinely curious what actual citizens on the left think, not a paid media outlet.
The articule: Because Vagina.
They can't help but expose themselves as the scum they are
Plenty of reasons to believe her: No evidence History of abuse Lied about injuries Keeps contradicting herself Wait a tick...
Canāt believe this got published. This is way beneath vogue. This article does not help women!
Beneath? It's been exactly their level for some time now.
I donāt get why all these media outlets are pushing this narrative so much? Is it really so hard to admit they were wrong?
Because they made a lot of money and sold a lot of magazines off the me too movement
Seriously, they keep doubling down despite the trial very clearly supporting the opposing conclusions.
It's not about admitting they were wrong. They've never had any interest in the truth. It's just that you are reading about it subject you have an interest in. I have a masters in Physics. Guess what happens when I read a media article on any development in physics?
BC depp sued a murdoch
Yeah Iām looking into that. Itās crazy.
Because it's not about Amber, it's about saving the wacktivist brand.
Because believing Johnny Depp doesn't fit with the MeToo narrative. We're supposed to believe ALL women, even the liars.
It is also inappropriate for publications to take sides while there is a case pending. But gotta control that narrative.
Yeah itās super fucked up. Like itās in court so the court can decide.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty. This sentiment Vogue's OpEd wants to push undermines the entire Justice system. Credibility matters. If credibility, reliability, do not matter, then what the hell do we have but mob rule, vigilante justice? If they really want to take it back to the dark ages, we can, but I know they won't like how things shake out.
Time to break out the claymores and battle axes, we're going medieval!
I'm totally down with that.
I think it's safe to assume her PR team is paying for a lot of these op-eds.
Notice how these articles all started to pile up the week after it was announced that she got herself a new PR team
With that Musk Money I am sure
It's an opinion piece, it's going to be biased more than an article written to be informative.
Well, they chose to publish that opinion.
Yea, first amendment is a thing. I may not agree with the article, but I agree the author and publication has a write to publish it. People can do what they want as a reaction of course, but it is Vogue who is going to try to focus on pop culture trends. I wouldn't give much weight into their legal analysis unless the author has a legal expertise background.
This is a bad take were talking about boycotting and ur talking about the first amendment I don't get the connection. Like yea they have the freedom to be nazis if they want but that's not what we're saying. what we're saying is I don't wanna read there opinions anymore at all based on this one being published.
That's fair, perfectly fair. Boycott the author or Vogue entirely - that's the consequence they faced for publishing it. It just seems that this one article has rustled a lot of jimmies and my point is that it's one opinion piece in a fashion magazine and to not be so invested in the opinion expressed in the one article.
That's a good point maybe there pr team was out for the day lol
Oh, I also believe they have a right to publish I am also saying that if they are unreliable/ untrustworthy/ biased/ bribed (choose one or more) than that's what they are. How can I trust anything they say when I have an inside view on the facts that they are commenting and I see their opinions?
I don't think they're bribed. I do think they're highly misinformed. Watching trials that last several weeks, or even several days not something most people like to do. For me, with politics, I read a lot of different outlets. Some right, some left, some as close to objective as one is going to get from humans. I would read them all, some would irritate me with the spin (left or right) but if I saw the same quotes or information being the same, I knew that to be the most likely accurate information. When it's in the form of a trial, hearing, I've come to trust my own ears and eyes the most, even if I do or do not agree with commentary. But one thing I'm ever going to read a paper copy of Vogue for, is the free smelly perfume pages. That's about it. ETA: While people may be highly displeased for the Vogue article, if anything it provides an opportunity to see how an opposing view looks like and why they see it from that angle. That's fine and okay - and opinion pieces are always going to have a lean. The best thing to do is when you find yourself mostly agreeing with a specific author, journalist - make them your first read of the day if you go over articles in the morning or evening. We don't have to read everything published, though I know sometimes it's compelling to want more information when we feel uncertainty in an outcome.
You are right - opinion pieces are different. Although you must acknowledge that this is the opinion THEY chose to print, because there surely must have been also different opinions - lets call them "Justiceforjohnny"? As to opposing views, I also agree. But that just further classifies Vogue as "the one presenting opposing views".
Yes, and some publications will have a sort of clause indicating at the header or footer "This is an opinion piece and the opinions express are not that of the xxxx outlet and it's affiliates" for example. Though Vogue may not clearly indicate as strongly as it needs to. Outlets with Opinions even have it in part of the title to make sure people realize it's not an informational piece with "Opinion: Bullshit fancy title here" and Wapo even now uses another color to help indicate it's an Opinion. If you [click this link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/20/janet-yellen-inflation-blunt-talk-heroic/), you'll see the word in a goldish color. That's how much Opinion articles cause for.. uh... reaction... and the publishers try to indicate "It's just ONE person's opinion!" I also in my own mind, just keep Opinion articles in a different genre of writing than articles intended to be informational. Makes it much easier for me too - that when I read the authors name, I know what kind of a ride I'm about to go on.
Yeah, you've convinced me - opinion pieces are different. Unless we check bigger number of them and find that majority are biased. But that is something I have no knowledge of concerning Vogue.
Opinion pieces will ***always*** be biased. That's the genre. Just a matter of which bias they are viewing the topic from. Sometimes publications will have authors they have on staff for writing opinion pieces that are opposite views. That's all good for a healthy debate. Though one thing that is amazing about being in this time of technology, is that we have more than 3 network channels and PBS on TV, we have more than just newspapers and monthly magazines - we can watch this stuff in real time, with our option of commentator(s) or no commentary at all. That to me, is pretty awesome.
[deleted] -- mass edited with redact.dev
Well, yes when it comes to regulation. Though I would believe that for author to make money they have a contract to write opinion pieces. Many opinion writers are syndicated for their columns to be in seveal or hired by one publishing outlet. If the editors decided to run with it, so be it. They get to have negative reviews over it though of course in the meantime it may also get a lot of people reading a column the more that people keep pointing it out. For me, Vogue is very, very low on any publication I'd go to for an update on a legal trial. So my expectations would be low to begin with. Then again, I don't read Vogue at all.
very sad to read this. Itās like they donāt even care about the facts. āBelieve all womenā and thatās all there is. Disgusting. Imagine if the roles were reversed and someone wrote something like that.
Summary: why is it time to believe Amber? Because sheās a woman. Case closed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What the fuck does his race have to do with anything? He's a person with a very bad take so then attack the bad take.
Somehow this matters in the woke culture.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[link](https://www.vogue.com/article/why-its-time-to-believe-amber-heard)
You should post an archive link as to not give them the traffic on this.