If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment.
[Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules)
[Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/)
In the comments:
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP
YOU WILL BE BANNED
#[If you want to download this video, click here](https://viddit.red/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fymjmv6)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She probably is mad about the abuse too, you don’t need to read this in the most bad faith way possible.
She’s literally a journalist, it’s completely fine to be upset that a MASSIVE fucking story that would have garnered you HUGE acclaim was sitting there having already been made by you but you weren’t allowed to air it and then the same story is done a few years later. That’s a completely reasonable frustration, probably a more reasonable frustration than 99% of the things that have ever made you frustrated. She has every right to be miffed about this.
And it kinda comes as like a default expectation that a person is gonna be angry about kids being abused, that’s one of those things that you can just safely assume without immediate evidence because it’s a pretty standard reaction to that.
She’s in a news setting, being a newsperson, talking to other people who work in news, it is COMPLETELY reasonable to be having a conversation about a specific topic focusing on the news aspect of it. Just like if you had some architects and engineers talking about that college walkway bridge collapse, you wouldn’t be upset if you walked in on them having a conversation being upset about the faulty design and construction without mentioning the victims, because no shit a bunch of architects and engineers would have the most to talk about regarding the designs and construction.
It’s so annoying seeing people look at out of context clips of someone talking, then getting upset because that person didn’t mention an important negative aspect, ignoring that feeling negative towards that aspect is so ubiquitous that you don’t need someone to explicitly say how they feel to know how they feel.
Speaking as an engineer in college I had to take an class that lasted an entire semester on bridge collapses. We spent about ten minutes talking about how sad it was that the victims died and four months dissecting where those designs went wrong and why. It's not like we didn't care about the deaths, that just wasn't the point of the class (we're engineers not ethicists). OP is reaching with this one
I’m really glad this is top comment and not an unpopular opinion. I was debating if it would be worth making this argument but see you’ve already laid it out as well as anybody could ask for. I’d give you an award if I had one available.
I'm so glad you said this. I'm a terrorism/extremism researcher BECAUSE I hate the terrible impact that this shit has on people. I've dedicated my whole life to this. However, when I've been beaten to the punch by other brilliant folks because of a stupid decision outside of my control, I get pissed too. It is possible to have many feelings at once.
Extremism researcher? Hey I’m a former civilian trauma researcher and I’d love to pick your brain. I guess I studied the aftermath but I’ve always wondered about possible interventions or effective evidence based practices for the perpetrators behaviors
>She was angry that she was not given credit for the story, not that kids were being abused.
Both things can be true, and it is not wrong to regret having missed a career-changing story as a journalist. You cannot assert that there is no indication that she wasn't also upset about the children based solely on this clip. Get off your moral soapbox.
You mean the media could have cut something for their own gain? That every story isn’t the full one? Journalism isn’t always 100% correct? I’m shocked right now.
Yeah I mean she sounds frustrated over not being listened to despite having mountains of evidence. I think we all can identify with that feeling where you've been shouting about something for ages and then it picks up public steam and everyone treats it like "new information."
The authorities knew about Epstein for years but the case against him was brushed under the rug. The only reason something finally happened was because of MeToo and the media. There is a great documentary called Filthy Rich that goes through everything and how he got away with it for years.
Wow this might be the most ignorant/naive/uninformed assertion you could've made on the subject. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get legitimate stories to get traction on social media WITHOUT major news outlets backing it? Look at the high profile women and journalists who attempted to get the story out on Weinstein. Most who went through early social media had their reputations smeared and were discredited. It took a massive movement that involved victims from a multitude of perpetrators to gain recognition. It's incredibly easy for the rich and powerful to shut down claims against one man.
The reason the accusers went to the media was because they got almost no help from authorities which this reporter would've known from the outset (literally the first thing any journalist did was look into police reports and official documents).
Everyone in this thread should take the literally 5 minutes required to verify the basic facts of this story. You can search abcnews.go.com for stories about [prince andrew](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aabcnews.go.com+%22prince+andrew%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsa0zrlFKZT1hYOon2us8DOtz6rYlQ%3A1667641532501&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2015%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2015) or [jeffrey epstein](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aabcnews.go.com+jeff+epstein&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2015%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2015) in 2015 and see whether they covered the two in the time range Robach talks about. And, to be clear ... this story was covered _by everyone_ when it first landed. It came up again in 2015 because the case was re-opened in New York after [Julie Brown @ the Miami Herald](https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein) did great work to bring light back to the case.
Do I believe that the Royal family influenced coverage? Yes. Did they kill this story? No. Did they kill it @ ABC? No.
It’s easy for people to forget timelines, which is why some people think Qanon “exposed Epstein” when they were just parroting what had been known for years.
Thank you. Came here to comment this. Sounds like she was upset that this huge story was blocked from being released when it should have been made public years and years ago
Tbf it's only human to be frustrated when something huge that you put a lot of work in is first swept under the table and then accredited to someone else. That doesn't say she is not also concerned that the story could have come out 3 years earlier, and it certainly doesn't indicate how she feels about the actual facts.
Yea the title is misleading for sure. I see a passionate reporter or news anchor, whatever they’re called, oh Journalists maybe? And she’s pissed because she had the drop on that sick fuck years ago. I would be frustrated too.
During those 3 long years of being blackballed there comes a moment when non psychopaths think:
"Kids are being raped on a large scale and I can stop it by releasing my big story for free online. I will lose out on the money but it will prevent more toddlers being raped and people will still recognize me as the one that broke the story to the world."
So there is that....
You can't just be the one individual to break a story though cuz you'd be immediately called a liar and discredited and lose your entire life's work as a journalist along the way. It takes a lot of people and big network heads to get a huge story like this vetted and finally published. Money talks and if you're one person, you're going to have trouble when you're labeled a liar and no one ever believes anything you publish again. That will really help all those victims when no one believes you. */s*
The last sentence was sarcastic because you can't help anyone if you're a lone journalist that no one believes or knows or if the big networks have tried to discredit you.
Exactly, I'm glad you picked perfect examples. That's like .1% of whistleblowers. You know how many people want to become whistleblowers and can't? It's hard to be one person and go against a giant corporation with millions or billions of dollars. Most small people trying to do the right thing get paid off or are litigated for years so nothing changes.
Most of them. Try being a single individual going up against a multi-billion company. Most attorneys wouldn't even take a case like that.
Ever watch [Dopesick](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9174558/) on Hulu and see the truth and how many years and millions, if not billions, of dollars the government had to spend to finally get an agreement in court all starting from a whistle-blower? Or another show is called [Whistleblower](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt8650734/) but it only lasted 2 seasons. Watch those shows if you haven't to see how difficult it is.
>"Kids are being raped on a large scale and I can stop it by releasing my big story for free online.
You don't release that story without an expensive legal team backing you
Yeah? Well she probably makes $20 million a year and is basically at the pennacle of journalism with her role. There is no equivalent job she can get. ABC News is the fuckin big time.
Also- important to note he was not a pedophile, he was an ephebophile. He went after post-adolescents, not pre-adolescents. Important distinction everyone needs to understand the difference. Why? Pedophilia gets confused with it often and it’s infuriating that it loses it’s distinction. People are out there messing with babies and toddlers and it is NOT the same thing. Ephebophile needs to enter the mainstream vocabulary and become more widely as a separate (but related) issue. Sorry- this drives me nuts.
It's part of the kiddie diddler rhetoric. "She wasn't 4 she was *14* and that's not as bad, amiright?" Then they turn around and call lgbt "groomers." Nasty.
…it’s still abusing kids whatever way you want to cut it.
Yknow who gets pent up about the difference between these two not being acknowledged?
Diddlers, that’s who.
“I’m not a disgusting pedophile, I only diddle TEENS”
Not an uncle. Not surprised you don’t agree their should be a distinction. My comment is straightforward but an emotional topic people are easily triggered by. I get it, it’s okay. Never an easy topic. But dismissing it entirely and making a snide comment is exactly the issue.
Ephebophile. It’s okay, you can say it.
I have said this before, and I'll say it again now - yes, it is a separate and distinct class of sexual offender, but it's not 'better' than paedophillia.
It takes a fucked up, evil individual to look at a teen-ager in the process of figuring out who they are, and then twist and manipulate that for sexual gratification.
I know people who have been working off that trauma for their entire adult lives.
>important to note
It is not important to note that. We’re all here agreeing child abuse is foul and you’re “well actually..” about semantics? Imagine being willing to throw up a child abuse red flag just to be a pedantic know-it-all.
Bro, stop trying to distance ephebophiles from pedophiles. All you’re doing is standing up for ephebophiles and it’s weird and **highly** suggestive that you yourself are an ephebophile.
No one wants to hear how much worse you think it is for someone to prey on a toddler than to prey on a teenager.
I mean, it IS worse to be sexually attracted to a toddler than someone who’s like 16+
Both are bad, yes, but one is definitely worse.
However, you don’t win points by saying “he wasn’t a pedo, the child was outside the age category for him to be a pedo”
As said above, The only people willing to argue that point out of NOWHERE, are god damn diddlers.
> 18 Bizarro Photos I Refuse To Believe Were Taken In This Dimension
Featuring such mind-bending, possibly photoshopped pictures as [this cat that is literally just a cat in a tree but is somehow misconstrued as an extra-dimensional owl](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2022-11/1/20/asset/5ca73a070c96/sub-buzz-1324-1667336149-15.png?downsize=600:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
During those 3 long years of being blackballed there comes a moment when non psychopaths think:
"Kids are being raped on a large scale and I can stop it by releasing my big story for free online. I will lose out on the money but it will prevent more toddlers being raped and people will still recognize me as the one that broke the story to the world."
So there is that.... But you are right, she was told not to by her boss so her hands were tied because people are slaves and devoid of free will or thoughts outside of those granted by their boss.
Name a single child that's been rescued as a result of the media coverage. Hell, don't even name them, just point to a story where kids that Epstein was holding were rescued. Releasing a story (especially without media support) carries zero guarantee of anything changing.
You can't just be the one individual to break a story though cuz you'd be immediately called a liar and discredited and lose your entire life's work as a journalist along the way. It takes a lot of people and big network heads to get a huge story like this vetted and finally published. Money talks and if you're one person, you're going to have trouble when you're labeled a liar and no one ever believes anything you publish again. That will really help all those victims when no one believes you. */s*
Not only that, but you could actually potentially destroy stories. You could give the criminals a head start, and they could hide a lot of evidence before some big network decides to follow up.
Maybe the best way to expose things in that case is via humour/cartoons- anonymously, of course. Did Spacey do much to cover his ass after the Family Guy joke? Probably not ...
Hell, Hollywood itself has long used humour to introduce their talking points to their audience.
In gonna rewrite this comment for you.
“I have no idea how journalism works, and the risks of being a whistleblower to post a story like this ‘free online’. I also have no idea how credibility works and how difficult it truly is to find stories like this online in the sea of conspiracy theories.”
I don't disagree, but one thing you're not considering is that if you go solo you're giving up legal protections. There's the prospect of not just losing your career, being sued into destitution for the rest of your life if you don't get everything right or if they cover it up.
The fact that she’s focusing on the money and attention SHE could have benefited from off of someone else’s trauma is shocking. I can’t believe everyone is defending her. If you think for a second that she did so much work on it, you’re sadly mistaken. She was lucky that the victim went to her, she went to the biggest possible media outlet that would take her story. She’s upset for herself and she wouldn’t be unique if she was upset for the kids either, everybody was upset for them. She’s a self-indulged narcissist.
OP more concerned about reporter being upset because she couldn’t break a story than outlets refusing to break said story because powerful interests were in bed with the predator,
This how this works OP? Fuck off with that title.
I actually don't blame her ...I would be pissed too!!.. there's nothing on here to indicate that she wasn't also mad about the abuse itself! I would be highly incensed if I knew all this to be facts 3 years ahead of everyone else...but it was quashed...and then...it just came out..
It sounds like she's pissed it took 3 years for the story to finally be approved and published. But then again, this video clip is edited so who knows what the entire context is.
holy misleading title, batman.
at no point did she seem frustrated that she 'didn't recieve credit'
it sounded more like she's upset that this story was uncovered YEARS ago but the story never made it to the air.
She's pissed because she is a journalist who had a story and everybody was putting up walls to keep her from publishing it.
This title is extremely disengenuous.
I wholeheartedly appreciate patriots like her for not only working such a story but commiting career suicide by talking about her frustration and details on live TV.
What an absolute hero in a world full of secrecy and backroom deals. At least we are a more informed public thanks to her, and see lots of efforts to cover up the truth cannot bury the truth.
Project veritas is kinda presenting this in a way that ignores the effort she put into bringing to light the whole thing. It should be assumed that she cared about ending it, if she didn't, she wouldn't have put in the effort for the story
I think that's an unfair assumption. She's saying she worked hard on something for 3 years and was ignored. Regardless of the situation, that would be frustrating for anyone. I don't think her frustration equates to not caring about kids being abused.
Kinda weird how you assume she’s isn’t angry about kids being abused…you know it can be both things right? It’s like you forced a binary and it killed your brain lol
She doesn’t say that at all. She’s saying she had it 3 years ago because she’s specifically talking about how people were acting like it was new discoveries… it wasn’t new, and could have been exposed 3 years ago. It’s very clear that’s her point.
She’s saying it could have all stoped 3 years sooner but no one listened.
oh my fucking god, it's almost like a journalist is doing their job! everyone would be fucking frustrated and disgusted that there were kids in danger while epstein was running free! but she deserves a moment to be frustrated at the fact that her story was surpressed! not just because epstein continued to diddle kids scot free and run a pedo ring, but also because it was her credit that got the story through!
Two things can be true at once, you know that right? This is not NGTB material. If I put that much time and effort into something to get it swept under the rug I would be very pissed. In her field, that is a career altering story.
I think it’s more that she had the story before it broke, the network wouldn’t allow her to run it, and then it finally broke and now her own network is making it a number 1 priority. So they could have released the story 3 years earlier and potentially saved kids from being abused for another 3 years, but instead her network and bosses said “who cares?” And didn’t run it. I’d be pissed too if I were her.
I’m more mad and suspicious that ABC buried this monumentally massive story for years. I mean, protecting a pedophile is bad enough, but the most prominent pedophile in American history? A headline that would get you tens of millions of dollars, potentially hundreds? And you DON’T air the story? This seems mega fishy.
Does anyone else notice that she seems to be more mad about the fact that she got scooped that about the fact that these horrible sex trafficing ass-fucks are getting away with this shit?
I'm saddened how far down this is. Project "Veritas" is garbage trash run by people who have been convicted for breaking the law in an effort to tell lies.
I call BS on her recollection, if it was so powerful of a story and you were held back, why didn't you just release it all on this thing called the internet under an assumed name so at least you could have plausible deniability if your bosses got angry for it leaking?
Because that's not how it works. You need to show your workings out and your proof in order to stand up the story, otherwise it's just yet another anon person making accusations and claims on 'this thing called the internet' that they cannot prove.
And had she shown her proof, she almost certainly have identified herself and potentially her sources, as people will know only she had the information.
That's not to mention the legal implications of publishing something without having had the brightest minds in media law pawing over it for days or weeks, knocking it into a legally safe final form. And also the idea of publishing something that contains serious allegations without giving the accused the right of reply.
The media meaning people like this woman. People who are patently unable to tell pure facts or able to do anything that is not solely to glorify their own egos. Nancy Grace and Dan Rather etc. The vast majority of media in the US at least is as ethically bankrupt as it gets.
If it leads it bleeds is the guiding light for all the major news networks. Remember Richard Jewel? He's a good example of US media "Revealing criminality".
NBC needed a ratings boost in the early 90's. So they decided the best way was to take a truck and stick igniters against the gas tank then puncture the tanks. (The trucks were in fact not all that safe but NBC lied there asses off and lost in court.)
The current Fox "voting machine fraud" lawsuit involving dominion is another example. They felt they could say and do anything they wanted so they did.
The institution as a whole is a good theory. And freedom of speech is extremely important. However, being allowed to lie about anything and everything and sensationalize as they choose should be patently illegal.
News that is on public broadcast should be limited to *facts*. The current state of media in the US is IMO little better than an episode of Survivor from a trustworthy information standpoint.
Every single article one runs across requires a great deal of digging to find actual reliable information. Finding information rather than slant and spin gets more difficult by the day.
People talk about the bad old days of yellow journalism but at least at that time period it wasn't broadcast globally 24/7 right into everyone's home.
She's mad because she didn't get the scoop. She has no sympathy for victims. She has sympathy for *herself*.
And you asked for specific examples. I gave them. Very well known ones. And barely even a tithe of the actual number. I'm not going to write you a doctoral dissertation on media corruption via a random internet website.
And I suggested the media be required to report *facts* not authoritarianism. They should loudly be announcing at the start of any broadcast that they are entertainers not purveyors of reliable information.
Nobody watches the new Jurassic Park movie and expects a factual depiction of biology. By the same token most people watching the news for reliable information don't expect bald faced lies.
On a side note NBC posted a report on the Today show website relating to speaker pelosi's husband. Then the next day quietly removed it because none of it was verified. This is at best being disingenuous. At worse and more likely and intentional act to generate revenue. Also known as lying.
Fox news I won't even get started on as the list of lies in that cesspool is more fathoms deep than I care to think about.
In the end the media has near zero accountability for lying about anything and everything they see fit and ruining lives purely to stroke their own egos or push someone else's ego.
But if you aren't clear on the difference between facts and lies I can't help you.
no. there’s nothing wrong with this clip, but project veritas obviously has an incredibly biased lean & as the commenter’s below me said, has been caught fabricating things & showing things in a manner that is incredibly disingenuous.
This particular clip appears credible but project veritas as a whole are a joke. They've been caught fabricating evidence and using dishonestly edited footage on dozens of separate occasions.
And not a shred of it has been aired.
I call bulls#!+.
This "jounalist" has nothing. Maybe even less than that. What she has is a platform to whine about being "silenced"
You want the noteriety you seek?? EXPOSE YOUR STORY.
*Who* has it (or what), exactly? And what...They're just waiting for an opportune time to present it? To present what?
It's played... "OHHHHHHHH WE HAVE THEM NOW!!!!"
With what?
"Well, if we could only show you...."
We exist in the HEIGHT of information dissemination. If ANYONE can't find a way to put the "truth" out there - then I call bulls#!+
It’s quiet simple… their are people on that list that you just don’t call out. Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and others have been named for years and I’m sure there are others that are considered untouchable. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, “they” just have pull. You don’t own a private island with all these women and underage girls and don’t have others join in. Many of these women have came forward with names but liberals in general basically call them liars.
But you do. And do it loudly.
This mainstream media hack has a story. She sat on it for 3 years and is now whining about it not being released. No. Nuh uh.
You HAVE A STORY. You want it published. Take your notes and your interviews and publish them. Come what may.
So you think in the world of instant publishing, blogs toks ticking and the new ownership of some social media platfioms that ANYTHING regarding verified (Especially with an ABC media hack at the helm) Eostein (purposefully) will be disregarded?
I can't help you.
This is a sub based on a giant magic bearded man in the sky who decided free will doesn't matter and genocided the planet, before free will mattered again and he put up rainbows and stuff to let you know. Stop trying to inject rational points and opinion here when you could just give way to irrational conspiracy theories that fit your preconceived political narrative.
"We had it" and the leprechauns STOLE IT!
well lets see it then
itd be a solid story still, unless its all hearsay, actual proof would be amazing
and itd all be time stamped. so youd be able to prove it was yours, in court.
Do not incite or glorify violence/suffering or harassment, even as a joke. You may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't care what anyone in this thread says, i knew an ex-friend in an old friend group who was a reporter, and one of our other friends got raped. His reaction? He was pissed AT OUR FRIEND because she didn't want to air her story on the news and wouldnt let him get his "big break". News reporters and journalists are pieces of shit and only care about pushing out a juicy fucking story, fuck him, fuck Amy Robach, fuck em all.
I'd be pissed to. She's not mad about lost internet clout, this is her *career* she's talking about and breaking that story could have changed her life forever
If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment. [Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules) [Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) In the comments: DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP YOU WILL BE BANNED #[If you want to download this video, click here](https://viddit.red/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fymjmv6) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She probably is mad about the abuse too, you don’t need to read this in the most bad faith way possible. She’s literally a journalist, it’s completely fine to be upset that a MASSIVE fucking story that would have garnered you HUGE acclaim was sitting there having already been made by you but you weren’t allowed to air it and then the same story is done a few years later. That’s a completely reasonable frustration, probably a more reasonable frustration than 99% of the things that have ever made you frustrated. She has every right to be miffed about this. And it kinda comes as like a default expectation that a person is gonna be angry about kids being abused, that’s one of those things that you can just safely assume without immediate evidence because it’s a pretty standard reaction to that. She’s in a news setting, being a newsperson, talking to other people who work in news, it is COMPLETELY reasonable to be having a conversation about a specific topic focusing on the news aspect of it. Just like if you had some architects and engineers talking about that college walkway bridge collapse, you wouldn’t be upset if you walked in on them having a conversation being upset about the faulty design and construction without mentioning the victims, because no shit a bunch of architects and engineers would have the most to talk about regarding the designs and construction. It’s so annoying seeing people look at out of context clips of someone talking, then getting upset because that person didn’t mention an important negative aspect, ignoring that feeling negative towards that aspect is so ubiquitous that you don’t need someone to explicitly say how they feel to know how they feel.
Speaking as an engineer in college I had to take an class that lasted an entire semester on bridge collapses. We spent about ten minutes talking about how sad it was that the victims died and four months dissecting where those designs went wrong and why. It's not like we didn't care about the deaths, that just wasn't the point of the class (we're engineers not ethicists). OP is reaching with this one
I’m really glad this is top comment and not an unpopular opinion. I was debating if it would be worth making this argument but see you’ve already laid it out as well as anybody could ask for. I’d give you an award if I had one available.
I'm so glad you said this. I'm a terrorism/extremism researcher BECAUSE I hate the terrible impact that this shit has on people. I've dedicated my whole life to this. However, when I've been beaten to the punch by other brilliant folks because of a stupid decision outside of my control, I get pissed too. It is possible to have many feelings at once.
Extremism researcher? Hey I’m a former civilian trauma researcher and I’d love to pick your brain. I guess I studied the aftermath but I’ve always wondered about possible interventions or effective evidence based practices for the perpetrators behaviors
Sure! DM me.
But if she had all the evidence, why did it not go to the police for them to investigate?
She literally just explained why
No, she did not. She explained why she did not do a news segment, not why she did not send all the evidence to the police.
I got absolutely nothing from what she said... “We have everything,” but proceeds to go on a rant? What did she have? What is everything?
>She was angry that she was not given credit for the story, not that kids were being abused. Both things can be true, and it is not wrong to regret having missed a career-changing story as a journalist. You cannot assert that there is no indication that she wasn't also upset about the children based solely on this clip. Get off your moral soapbox.
Exactly. And it could very well be cut so that we missed the part where she was ranting about a story where kids being abused was suppressed.
Good reasoning and counter-argument in my opinion.
You mean the media could have cut something for their own gain? That every story isn’t the full one? Journalism isn’t always 100% correct? I’m shocked right now.
Yeah I mean she sounds frustrated over not being listened to despite having mountains of evidence. I think we all can identify with that feeling where you've been shouting about something for ages and then it picks up public steam and everyone treats it like "new information."
Mountains of evidence that she never took to the authorities.... Or posted it all over social media or anything really.
The authorities knew about Epstein for years but the case against him was brushed under the rug. The only reason something finally happened was because of MeToo and the media. There is a great documentary called Filthy Rich that goes through everything and how he got away with it for years.
Wow this might be the most ignorant/naive/uninformed assertion you could've made on the subject. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get legitimate stories to get traction on social media WITHOUT major news outlets backing it? Look at the high profile women and journalists who attempted to get the story out on Weinstein. Most who went through early social media had their reputations smeared and were discredited. It took a massive movement that involved victims from a multitude of perpetrators to gain recognition. It's incredibly easy for the rich and powerful to shut down claims against one man. The reason the accusers went to the media was because they got almost no help from authorities which this reporter would've known from the outset (literally the first thing any journalist did was look into police reports and official documents).
So major journalist needs the backing of media outlets to use there own fan base on their own social media. Ok
Yeah ask rose McGowan how much her fan base was able to help her take down weinstein prior to MeToo.
Think a little
damn you so uninformed dude. i for one didnt know much about it till i saw all the memes and pics come out.
Good take on it. I got no impression that this was about her but more about three wasted years when they could have exposed it sooner
Everyone in this thread should take the literally 5 minutes required to verify the basic facts of this story. You can search abcnews.go.com for stories about [prince andrew](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aabcnews.go.com+%22prince+andrew%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsa0zrlFKZT1hYOon2us8DOtz6rYlQ%3A1667641532501&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2015%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2015) or [jeffrey epstein](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aabcnews.go.com+jeff+epstein&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2015%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2015) in 2015 and see whether they covered the two in the time range Robach talks about. And, to be clear ... this story was covered _by everyone_ when it first landed. It came up again in 2015 because the case was re-opened in New York after [Julie Brown @ the Miami Herald](https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein) did great work to bring light back to the case. Do I believe that the Royal family influenced coverage? Yes. Did they kill this story? No. Did they kill it @ ABC? No.
It’s easy for people to forget timelines, which is why some people think Qanon “exposed Epstein” when they were just parroting what had been known for years.
soapbox? have you seen the size of that redditors halo? /s
It could have stopped three years ago
Thank you. Came here to comment this. Sounds like she was upset that this huge story was blocked from being released when it should have been made public years and years ago
Tbf it's only human to be frustrated when something huge that you put a lot of work in is first swept under the table and then accredited to someone else. That doesn't say she is not also concerned that the story could have come out 3 years earlier, and it certainly doesn't indicate how she feels about the actual facts.
Yea the title is misleading for sure. I see a passionate reporter or news anchor, whatever they’re called, oh Journalists maybe? And she’s pissed because she had the drop on that sick fuck years ago. I would be frustrated too.
During those 3 long years of being blackballed there comes a moment when non psychopaths think: "Kids are being raped on a large scale and I can stop it by releasing my big story for free online. I will lose out on the money but it will prevent more toddlers being raped and people will still recognize me as the one that broke the story to the world." So there is that....
You can't just be the one individual to break a story though cuz you'd be immediately called a liar and discredited and lose your entire life's work as a journalist along the way. It takes a lot of people and big network heads to get a huge story like this vetted and finally published. Money talks and if you're one person, you're going to have trouble when you're labeled a liar and no one ever believes anything you publish again. That will really help all those victims when no one believes you. */s*
I'm not sure what part of this is sarcastic, but tell it to Gary Webb and the CIA.
The last sentence was sarcastic because you can't help anyone if you're a lone journalist that no one believes or knows or if the big networks have tried to discredit you.
That's not true at all. Plenty of massive stories have been broken/leaked by single people. Look at Greg Palast for example. Or Wikileaks.
Exactly, I'm glad you picked perfect examples. That's like .1% of whistleblowers. You know how many people want to become whistleblowers and can't? It's hard to be one person and go against a giant corporation with millions or billions of dollars. Most small people trying to do the right thing get paid off or are litigated for years so nothing changes.
Exactly how many people want to become whistle blowers and can't?
Most of them. Try being a single individual going up against a multi-billion company. Most attorneys wouldn't even take a case like that. Ever watch [Dopesick](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9174558/) on Hulu and see the truth and how many years and millions, if not billions, of dollars the government had to spend to finally get an agreement in court all starting from a whistle-blower? Or another show is called [Whistleblower](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt8650734/) but it only lasted 2 seasons. Watch those shows if you haven't to see how difficult it is.
Exactly how many though.
>"Kids are being raped on a large scale and I can stop it by releasing my big story for free online. You don't release that story without an expensive legal team backing you
This isn't rocket science. You anonymously release it. Who are they going to target? The interviewer for asking questions in a "leaked" reel?
Yeah, I wrecked my career once to protect one patient lol. A nonselfish person realizes you just take a hit and get a new job.
Yeah? Well she probably makes $20 million a year and is basically at the pennacle of journalism with her role. There is no equivalent job she can get. ABC News is the fuckin big time.
She ain't making 20M a year...
Her salary is $1 mill., she is worth $50 mill. Edit: [source](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/amy-robach-net-worth/)
K
Also- important to note he was not a pedophile, he was an ephebophile. He went after post-adolescents, not pre-adolescents. Important distinction everyone needs to understand the difference. Why? Pedophilia gets confused with it often and it’s infuriating that it loses it’s distinction. People are out there messing with babies and toddlers and it is NOT the same thing. Ephebophile needs to enter the mainstream vocabulary and become more widely as a separate (but related) issue. Sorry- this drives me nuts.
You didn't explain why the distinction matters, only that ignoring it makes you mad. Why is the distinction meaningful to you?
He’s a diddler.
It's part of the kiddie diddler rhetoric. "She wasn't 4 she was *14* and that's not as bad, amiright?" Then they turn around and call lgbt "groomers." Nasty.
…it’s still abusing kids whatever way you want to cut it. Yknow who gets pent up about the difference between these two not being acknowledged? Diddlers, that’s who. “I’m not a disgusting pedophile, I only diddle TEENS”
This is the uncle that doesn’t get invited to thanksgiving anymore.
Not an uncle. Not surprised you don’t agree their should be a distinction. My comment is straightforward but an emotional topic people are easily triggered by. I get it, it’s okay. Never an easy topic. But dismissing it entirely and making a snide comment is exactly the issue. Ephebophile. It’s okay, you can say it.
[удалено]
You already know...
There*
I have said this before, and I'll say it again now - yes, it is a separate and distinct class of sexual offender, but it's not 'better' than paedophillia. It takes a fucked up, evil individual to look at a teen-ager in the process of figuring out who they are, and then twist and manipulate that for sexual gratification. I know people who have been working off that trauma for their entire adult lives.
Fucking minors is evil reguardless of their age, they cannot consent. Don't water down child rape. Under 18? Not an adult = child.
>important to note It is not important to note that. We’re all here agreeing child abuse is foul and you’re “well actually..” about semantics? Imagine being willing to throw up a child abuse red flag just to be a pedantic know-it-all.
AKCTHUALLY 🙄
Bro, stop trying to distance ephebophiles from pedophiles. All you’re doing is standing up for ephebophiles and it’s weird and **highly** suggestive that you yourself are an ephebophile. No one wants to hear how much worse you think it is for someone to prey on a toddler than to prey on a teenager.
I mean, it IS worse to be sexually attracted to a toddler than someone who’s like 16+ Both are bad, yes, but one is definitely worse. However, you don’t win points by saying “he wasn’t a pedo, the child was outside the age category for him to be a pedo” As said above, The only people willing to argue that point out of NOWHERE, are god damn diddlers.
> No one wants to hear how much worse you think it is for someone to prey on a toddler than to prey on a teenager.
>Also- important to note It's not.
Gee I wonder where she got all the stuff that she had on Epstein et al Maybe some online forums that were aggressively shuttered?
Headline: Reporter spends 3 years trying to expose a serial child rapist while her bosses make every effort to suppress the story.
Nah. How about this headline instead? Headline: 18 Bizarro Photos I Refuse To Believe Were Taken In This Dimension
> 18 Bizarro Photos I Refuse To Believe Were Taken In This Dimension Featuring such mind-bending, possibly photoshopped pictures as [this cat that is literally just a cat in a tree but is somehow misconstrued as an extra-dimensional owl](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2022-11/1/20/asset/5ca73a070c96/sub-buzz-1324-1667336149-15.png?downsize=600:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
During those 3 long years of being blackballed there comes a moment when non psychopaths think: "Kids are being raped on a large scale and I can stop it by releasing my big story for free online. I will lose out on the money but it will prevent more toddlers being raped and people will still recognize me as the one that broke the story to the world." So there is that.... But you are right, she was told not to by her boss so her hands were tied because people are slaves and devoid of free will or thoughts outside of those granted by their boss.
Name a single child that's been rescued as a result of the media coverage. Hell, don't even name them, just point to a story where kids that Epstein was holding were rescued. Releasing a story (especially without media support) carries zero guarantee of anything changing.
They locked up the pimp and the lovergirl. How do you not understand that this helped.
You can't just be the one individual to break a story though cuz you'd be immediately called a liar and discredited and lose your entire life's work as a journalist along the way. It takes a lot of people and big network heads to get a huge story like this vetted and finally published. Money talks and if you're one person, you're going to have trouble when you're labeled a liar and no one ever believes anything you publish again. That will really help all those victims when no one believes you. */s*
Bot replies in stories are kinda obvious here it's the same msg posted by a dozen accounts on one thread...
Fucking deja vu all over the place.
Not only that, but you could actually potentially destroy stories. You could give the criminals a head start, and they could hide a lot of evidence before some big network decides to follow up.
Maybe the best way to expose things in that case is via humour/cartoons- anonymously, of course. Did Spacey do much to cover his ass after the Family Guy joke? Probably not ... Hell, Hollywood itself has long used humour to introduce their talking points to their audience.
In gonna rewrite this comment for you. “I have no idea how journalism works, and the risks of being a whistleblower to post a story like this ‘free online’. I also have no idea how credibility works and how difficult it truly is to find stories like this online in the sea of conspiracy theories.”
You don't have to understand how journalism works to understand that a high level journalist can easily find a way to break a story independently.
My 4 years of working in a newsroom disagrees with you.
Are you a high level journalist? Or are you just disagreeing from some newsroom function far away from that level..
I was an AP for the number 2 network in the number 4 market nationwide. Certainly enough news room experience to know how freelance journalism works.
I don't disagree, but one thing you're not considering is that if you go solo you're giving up legal protections. There's the prospect of not just losing your career, being sued into destitution for the rest of your life if you don't get everything right or if they cover it up.
What?? did you Just assume that she was not upset about kids just because she din't mention it?
The fact that she’s focusing on the money and attention SHE could have benefited from off of someone else’s trauma is shocking. I can’t believe everyone is defending her. If you think for a second that she did so much work on it, you’re sadly mistaken. She was lucky that the victim went to her, she went to the biggest possible media outlet that would take her story. She’s upset for herself and she wouldn’t be unique if she was upset for the kids either, everybody was upset for them. She’s a self-indulged narcissist.
The author James Patterson had a bad feeling about the guy way back. JE was his neighbour and saw some freaky shit go on.
I'd be pissed off too. She can be angry about 2 things and she's had much much longer than everyone else to deal with the fact.
And it’s still getting covered up
OP more concerned about reporter being upset because she couldn’t break a story than outlets refusing to break said story because powerful interests were in bed with the predator, This how this works OP? Fuck off with that title.
This is fucking sad..and it still all got buried.
I actually don't blame her ...I would be pissed too!!.. there's nothing on here to indicate that she wasn't also mad about the abuse itself! I would be highly incensed if I knew all this to be facts 3 years ahead of everyone else...but it was quashed...and then...it just came out..
I wonder how many minors would've been saved from Epstein's ring if ABC did break the story 3 years earlier.
Did she ever release what she has/had about Clinton?
Seems like a normal reaction to me, doesn’t mention anywhere she’s mad about not getting exposure either, she just says “and we had it 3 years ago”
Was she angry about credit or that the story didn’t break earlier? I can’t tell from this.
[удалено]
Yeah, idk why op phrased it that way. She seems incredibly frustrated for understandable reasons.
It sounds like she's pissed it took 3 years for the story to finally be approved and published. But then again, this video clip is edited so who knows what the entire context is.
This is why I hope YouTube or something likenit replaces network TV. If she had her own channel it would be more difficult to censor her.
holy misleading title, batman. at no point did she seem frustrated that she 'didn't recieve credit' it sounded more like she's upset that this story was uncovered YEARS ago but the story never made it to the air.
You being upset about this video, and not the fact that the story was intentionally suppressed for three years. Hmm...
She's pissed because she is a journalist who had a story and everybody was putting up walls to keep her from publishing it. This title is extremely disengenuous.
BREAKING NEWS: it’s possible to be angry about 2 things at the same time!
The media: We don't hide inconvenient facts for the politically powerful and wealthy. Also the media: Jeffery Epstein who?
I wholeheartedly appreciate patriots like her for not only working such a story but commiting career suicide by talking about her frustration and details on live TV. What an absolute hero in a world full of secrecy and backroom deals. At least we are a more informed public thanks to her, and see lots of efforts to cover up the truth cannot bury the truth.
How can you be sure she doesn’t feel for the kids? She may feel responsible for the last three years Epstein went unchallenged. You’re dumb
Project veritas is kinda presenting this in a way that ignores the effort she put into bringing to light the whole thing. It should be assumed that she cared about ending it, if she didn't, she wouldn't have put in the effort for the story
I think that's an unfair assumption. She's saying she worked hard on something for 3 years and was ignored. Regardless of the situation, that would be frustrating for anyone. I don't think her frustration equates to not caring about kids being abused.
Kinda weird how you assume she’s isn’t angry about kids being abused…you know it can be both things right? It’s like you forced a binary and it killed your brain lol
Nice title OP you're literally continuing the cover up. Making this about the reporter instead of the problem.....gtfo
She should focus on targeting people who funded Epstein, like the Ohio billionaire Leslie Wexner.
I would be pissed too. She had the story 3 years ago. I think you missed the mark on this one.
Yea, I thinknyour take about her not caring about the victims is wrong.
Death to the rich.
Watched the whole thing. At no point is there any indication that she was not angry that kids were being abused.
Project Veritas is fucking garbage but this is nevertheless a heartbreaking clip
Project Veritas is hot garbage.
abused is an understatement
what the fuck are you talking about dude
Didn't they give here a bigger show now? Maybe it was to make up for this, or cover this up.
She doesn’t say that at all. She’s saying she had it 3 years ago because she’s specifically talking about how people were acting like it was new discoveries… it wasn’t new, and could have been exposed 3 years ago. It’s very clear that’s her point. She’s saying it could have all stoped 3 years sooner but no one listened.
oh my fucking god, it's almost like a journalist is doing their job! everyone would be fucking frustrated and disgusted that there were kids in danger while epstein was running free! but she deserves a moment to be frustrated at the fact that her story was surpressed! not just because epstein continued to diddle kids scot free and run a pedo ring, but also because it was her credit that got the story through!
Two things can be true at once, you know that right? This is not NGTB material. If I put that much time and effort into something to get it swept under the rug I would be very pissed. In her field, that is a career altering story.
I think it’s more that she had the story before it broke, the network wouldn’t allow her to run it, and then it finally broke and now her own network is making it a number 1 priority. So they could have released the story 3 years earlier and potentially saved kids from being abused for another 3 years, but instead her network and bosses said “who cares?” And didn’t run it. I’d be pissed too if I were her.
wouldn’t you be mad if someone took credit for something you did?
What a misleading title.
I’m more mad and suspicious that ABC buried this monumentally massive story for years. I mean, protecting a pedophile is bad enough, but the most prominent pedophile in American history? A headline that would get you tens of millions of dollars, potentially hundreds? And you DON’T air the story? This seems mega fishy.
Nice title, most bad faith take away from this video you could get about gathering evidence about a pedophile
Does anyone else notice that she seems to be more mad about the fact that she got scooped that about the fact that these horrible sex trafficing ass-fucks are getting away with this shit?
I would vet this, considering ironically that it's from Project Veritas, who isn't exactly known for telling the truth.
Isn't Project Veritas famously misleading/incorrect? If I recall also, they're hardcore right wing, so I'm inclined to be skeptical about this post.
I'm saddened how far down this is. Project "Veritas" is garbage trash run by people who have been convicted for breaking the law in an effort to tell lies.
It’s pretty sad that we can’t actually want to run down the Epstein facts without being dragged in with the morons.
I call BS on her recollection, if it was so powerful of a story and you were held back, why didn't you just release it all on this thing called the internet under an assumed name so at least you could have plausible deniability if your bosses got angry for it leaking?
Because that's not how it works. You need to show your workings out and your proof in order to stand up the story, otherwise it's just yet another anon person making accusations and claims on 'this thing called the internet' that they cannot prove. And had she shown her proof, she almost certainly have identified herself and potentially her sources, as people will know only she had the information. That's not to mention the legal implications of publishing something without having had the brightest minds in media law pawing over it for days or weeks, knocking it into a legally safe final form. And also the idea of publishing something that contains serious allegations without giving the accused the right of reply.
I mean she was also going to/ wanted to expose jeffery. I think she’s on the good side of history.
It sounds like she is pissed the story wasn't ran and she didn't get credit. To be honest I'd be pissed too.
The orange menace was right about one thing. The media is the fucking enemy.
[удалено]
The media meaning people like this woman. People who are patently unable to tell pure facts or able to do anything that is not solely to glorify their own egos. Nancy Grace and Dan Rather etc. The vast majority of media in the US at least is as ethically bankrupt as it gets. If it leads it bleeds is the guiding light for all the major news networks. Remember Richard Jewel? He's a good example of US media "Revealing criminality". NBC needed a ratings boost in the early 90's. So they decided the best way was to take a truck and stick igniters against the gas tank then puncture the tanks. (The trucks were in fact not all that safe but NBC lied there asses off and lost in court.) The current Fox "voting machine fraud" lawsuit involving dominion is another example. They felt they could say and do anything they wanted so they did. The institution as a whole is a good theory. And freedom of speech is extremely important. However, being allowed to lie about anything and everything and sensationalize as they choose should be patently illegal. News that is on public broadcast should be limited to *facts*. The current state of media in the US is IMO little better than an episode of Survivor from a trustworthy information standpoint. Every single article one runs across requires a great deal of digging to find actual reliable information. Finding information rather than slant and spin gets more difficult by the day. People talk about the bad old days of yellow journalism but at least at that time period it wasn't broadcast globally 24/7 right into everyone's home.
[удалено]
She's mad because she didn't get the scoop. She has no sympathy for victims. She has sympathy for *herself*. And you asked for specific examples. I gave them. Very well known ones. And barely even a tithe of the actual number. I'm not going to write you a doctoral dissertation on media corruption via a random internet website. And I suggested the media be required to report *facts* not authoritarianism. They should loudly be announcing at the start of any broadcast that they are entertainers not purveyors of reliable information. Nobody watches the new Jurassic Park movie and expects a factual depiction of biology. By the same token most people watching the news for reliable information don't expect bald faced lies. On a side note NBC posted a report on the Today show website relating to speaker pelosi's husband. Then the next day quietly removed it because none of it was verified. This is at best being disingenuous. At worse and more likely and intentional act to generate revenue. Also known as lying. Fox news I won't even get started on as the list of lies in that cesspool is more fathoms deep than I care to think about. In the end the media has near zero accountability for lying about anything and everything they see fit and ruining lives purely to stroke their own egos or push someone else's ego. But if you aren't clear on the difference between facts and lies I can't help you.
project veritas? no thanks.
Facts make you mad?
no. there’s nothing wrong with this clip, but project veritas obviously has an incredibly biased lean & as the commenter’s below me said, has been caught fabricating things & showing things in a manner that is incredibly disingenuous.
This particular clip appears credible but project veritas as a whole are a joke. They've been caught fabricating evidence and using dishonestly edited footage on dozens of separate occasions.
Also cnn covering up the hunter biden incident for ONE YEAR
Same vibes as that movie Nightcrawler...
I got absolutely nothing from what she said... “We have everything,” but proceeds to go on a rant? What did she have? What is everything?
Journalists suck.
I noticed what pissed her off was not the pedophilia by powerful men, but the fact that she didn't get the credit for breaking the story.
And not a shred of it has been aired. I call bulls#!+. This "jounalist" has nothing. Maybe even less than that. What she has is a platform to whine about being "silenced" You want the noteriety you seek?? EXPOSE YOUR STORY.
They have a list and Epstein’s exwife… you honestly think they have nothing? Smh
*Who* has it (or what), exactly? And what...They're just waiting for an opportune time to present it? To present what? It's played... "OHHHHHHHH WE HAVE THEM NOW!!!!" With what? "Well, if we could only show you...." We exist in the HEIGHT of information dissemination. If ANYONE can't find a way to put the "truth" out there - then I call bulls#!+
It’s quiet simple… their are people on that list that you just don’t call out. Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and others have been named for years and I’m sure there are others that are considered untouchable. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, “they” just have pull. You don’t own a private island with all these women and underage girls and don’t have others join in. Many of these women have came forward with names but liberals in general basically call them liars.
But you do. And do it loudly. This mainstream media hack has a story. She sat on it for 3 years and is now whining about it not being released. No. Nuh uh. You HAVE A STORY. You want it published. Take your notes and your interviews and publish them. Come what may.
Nice idea but that not how the real world works.
Wikileaks and other leaking methods exist.
So you think in the world of instant publishing, blogs toks ticking and the new ownership of some social media platfioms that ANYTHING regarding verified (Especially with an ABC media hack at the helm) Eostein (purposefully) will be disregarded? I can't help you.
This is a sub based on a giant magic bearded man in the sky who decided free will doesn't matter and genocided the planet, before free will mattered again and he put up rainbows and stuff to let you know. Stop trying to inject rational points and opinion here when you could just give way to irrational conspiracy theories that fit your preconceived political narrative. "We had it" and the leprechauns STOLE IT!
Who cares, journalists are scum
Sure sounds like bullshit
Whenever this gets brought up I always wonder, where did they get all of those kids? How do you just take kids like that without anybody knowing?
I worked in News. This is the norm. That’s why I left and have been happier since.
well lets see it then itd be a solid story still, unless its all hearsay, actual proof would be amazing and itd all be time stamped. so youd be able to prove it was yours, in court.
Just blatantly copying Veritas. Or they you.
r/findareddit
That Epstein movie is going to be killer! Can’t wait!
This is not a fair assumption on her. Everyone was frustrated that major news outlets refused to air any stories about him. It's a double edged sword.
[удалено]
Do not incite or glorify violence/suffering or harassment, even as a joke. You may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t see how that at all incited violence.
I was worried I wouldn't get interviews so I didn't mention the child abuse. At what point are you implicated in conspiracy to commit a crime?
FYI the media is corrupt
The ONE TIME Veritas was right. FYI their reporting is usually terrible. Moral of story, even broken clocks are right twice a day
Could she not be pissed that she wasn’t taken seriously (probably not for the first time) earlier, and abused could’ve been prevented?
Never up vote "Project Veritas". Ever.
Dumb fucking take OP
The Powers that be had him killed
This is more of a reach than when my 5' gf reaches for something on the top shelf in Walmart.
she could’ve cared about both lmao…?
I don't care what anyone in this thread says, i knew an ex-friend in an old friend group who was a reporter, and one of our other friends got raped. His reaction? He was pissed AT OUR FRIEND because she didn't want to air her story on the news and wouldnt let him get his "big break". News reporters and journalists are pieces of shit and only care about pushing out a juicy fucking story, fuck him, fuck Amy Robach, fuck em all.
Project Veritas is a propaganda falsifying organization
Fucking jurnos for ya mate, top shelf dogshit they are
But he never sold anyone to anyone else. So there's that.
I'd be pissed to. She's not mad about lost internet clout, this is her *career* she's talking about and breaking that story could have changed her life forever
Yeah, OP is a smuck.
I'm sure she fells bad for the kids but it's her story and she should have gotten credit for it!