CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Amaris]

Well yeah, I get that. "Evil Corporation stomps on little guy" will always be the more compelling headline, and in a case like this few people who write the stories will go out of their way to find out what the little guy actually did to deserve the stomping. Fortunately for us, we've got people like carlosp and jespah to explain to us in basic English what kind of grand theft LOOORDFIM is engaged in.

Unfortunately, now that I know my blood pressure's gotta go up every time some nimrod makes the story about "C/P attacking fans", and what makes me pop a vein is when AP, RMB or anybody else involved in this nightmare scenario of a production uses it to try to make themselves look innocent, the way RMB did in the article.

Yep, my blood pressure does the same. My sense of fair play and ethics just explodes every time I read the bullshit they spew. If they didn't know what they had done before, they sure as hell know it now, and they know how guilty they are, and they're playing it up in order to either cash in, or get off scot-free. Fuck them, either way. I'll never contribute to anything with RMB's name on it ever again.

I was going to say Alec Peters, also, but then I realized he hasn't accomplished anything of note, so you know, it wouldn't matter anyway.

 

[drt]

Well yeah, I get that.

Heh, sorry, I was agreeing with you and adding a couple of thoughts.

It would be nice (particularly for yours and others' blood pressure) if they didn't get the softball questions that allows them to play the victim card.

 

[MikeH92467]

General assignment reporters often find themselves parachuting into a story and they often don't realize that they are only getting part of the story. This is probably the case here, because Axanar is doing the talking while C/P are (wisely, I think) keeping quiet. While I'm sure this is the best legal strategy PR-wise it gives AP and Co. an open playing field since the reporters probably don't know what they don't know about the contex of the story. Even if someone were to contact a reporter who did a seemingly half-assed job, they've probably moved on since their editor's attitude is likely to be "we already did that story" find something NEW! Of course, if the suit ends with the court dropping the hammer on AP and Co. the stories may be a bit different since it's very possible that you would have new reporters examining why the verdict happened the way it did, leaving people who read the first round of stories spoon fed by Axanar to go WTF?

 

[muCephi]

Heh, sorry, I was agreeing with you and adding a couple of thoughts.

It would be nice (particularly for yours and others' blood pressure) if they didn't get the softball questions that allows them to play the victim card.

oh, I wouldn't say they are getting just softballs. read the comments on that LA times article.

 

[muCephi]

General assignment reporters often find themselves parachuting into a story and they often don't realize that they are only getting part of the story. This is probably the case here, because Axanar is doing the talking while C/P are (wisely, I think) keeping quiet. While I'm sure this is the best legal strategy PR-wise it gives AP and Co. an open playing field since the reporters probably don't know what they don't know about the contex of the story. Even if someone were to contact a reporter who did a seemingly half-assed job, they've probably moved on since their editor's attitude is likely to be "we already did that story" find something NEW! Of course, if the suit ends with the court dropping the hammer on AP and Co. the stories may be a bit different since it's very possible that you would have new reporters examining why the verdict happened the way it did, leaving people who read the first round of stories spoon fed by Axanar to go WTF?

In the case of the LA Times article, I note that the Axanar interviewee, RMB, somehow forgot to mention any of the reasons why there is a lawsuit. So did Mr. Bawden, in the comments. If the press eventually finds a few indicators of a witches' brew going on, then this innocent positioning and invoking the sanctified will of the fans will take on a whole new meaning.

And where is the whole thing about RMB and the investors group that started when that short film titled him (I think it was him) as the head of that group? Did that prove out, or was it false? I missed it.

 

[Jam3s1701]

 

[urbandefault]

In the case of the LA Times article, I note that the Axanar interviewee, RMB, somehow forgot to mention any of the reasons why there is a lawsuit. So did Mr. Bawden, in the comments. If the press eventually finds a few indicators of a witches' brew going on, then this innocent positioning and invoking the sanctified will of the fans will take on a whole new meaning.

Maybe someone should forward a few links and screenshots to the reporter(s), if (s)he were so inclined. The info found there might end up in a fun series of follow-up articles.

 

[Hallgarth]

Axanar Toilet Paper. Gets rid of Klingons like no other.

 

[Noname Given]

General assignment reporters often find themselves parachuting into a story and they often don't realize that they are only getting part of the story. This is probably the case here, because Axanar is doing the talking while C/P are (wisely, I think) keeping quiet. While I'm sure this is the best legal strategy PR-wise it gives AP and Co. an open playing field since the reporters probably don't know what they don't know about the contex of the story. Even if someone were to contact a reporter who did a seemingly half-assed job, they've probably moved on since their editor's attitude is likely to be "we already did that story" find something NEW! Of course, if the suit ends with the court dropping the hammer on AP and Co. the stories may be a bit different since it's very possible that you would have new reporters examining why the verdict happened the way it did, leaving people who read the first round of stories spoon fed by Axanar to go WTF?

Don't they teach Reporters to do a little bit of investigation on their own in Journalism classes anymore? (Hell, Google would have easily turned up a few of the many reasons WHY CBS/Paramount is suing Axanar, but not other fan productions to date.) I mean if the "Reporter" is just going to go let the interviewee in this instance ( RMB of Axanar) tell his side without either trying to get a comment from Paramount; or hell, doing a small bit of digging on his own...How the hell can he call himself a Reporter/Journalist? He comes across like a glorified Blogger.

 

[carlosp]

In the case of the LA Times article, I note that the Axanar interviewee, RMB, somehow forgot to mention any of the reasons why there is a lawsuit. So did Mr. Bawden, in the comments. If the press eventually finds a few indicators of a witches' brew going on, then this innocent positioning and invoking the sanctified will of the fans will take on a whole new meaning.

And where is the whole thing about RMB and the investors group that started when that short film titled him (I think it was him) as the head of that group? Did that prove out, or was it false? I missed it.

I'm trying to stay on top of the studio ownership story; it's difficult to keep tabs on a private company. Regarding RMB's "ownership" role in the studio/warehouse/studio, I'm chalking that up to a third party simply misconstruing his role or misunderstanding something someone told them. It's hardly dispositive, and so far uncorroborated by any other source.

 

[urbandefault]

I don't know about "reporters," but journalism students are being taught, directly or indirectly, that they must "make a difference." I see it every day on TV news programs, talking head shows, and more importantly, the university where I work.

Real, hardcore, old school, investigative journalism seems to be a thing of the past. Today it's all about soundbytes and sensational headlines.

Maybe I'm just an old relic, but I miss the days when a reporter would dig for the truth and fight to get it published.

 

[MikeH92467]

I don't know about "reporters," but journalism students are being taught, directly or indirectly, that they must "make a difference." I see it every day on TV news programs, talking head shows and more importantly, the university where I work.

Real, hardcore, old school, investigative journalism seems to be a thing of the past. Today it's all about soundbytes and sensational headlines.

Maybe I'm just an old relic, but I miss the days when a reporter would dig for the truth and fight to get it published.

The real problem is a lack of resources. News organizations have just enough reporters to barely cover their news hole if everyone comes back with a story. There's simply no time to do in-depth reporting at most places and there's no way a 'fluff' story like this one gets anything more than the most cursory treatment. Yes, there was a time (particularly at CBS) when getting a story on the air was a real accomplishment as you were competing with some of the best journalits in the business who were all struggling to get on the air with real stories.

 

[Amaris]

The real problem is a lack of resources. News organizations have just enough reporters to barely cover their news hole if everyone comes back with a story. There's simply no time to do in-depth reporting at most places and there's no way a 'flugg' story like this one gets anything more than the most cursory treatment. Yes, there was a time (particularly at CBS) when getting a story on the air was a real accomplishment as you were competing with some of the best journalits in the business who were all struggling to get on the air with real stories.

It also doesn't help that they have to beat the blogs and tweets to the viewership.

 

[dmac]

Don't they teach Reporters to do a little bit of investigation on their own in Journalism classes anymore? (Hell, Google would have easily turned up a few of the many reasons WHY CBS/Paramount is suing Axanar, but not other fan productions to date.) I mean if the "Reporter" is just going to go let the interviewee in this instance ( RMB of Axanar) tell his side without either trying to get a comment from Paramount; or hell, doing a small bit of digging on his own...How the hell can he call himself a Reporter/Journalist? He comes across like a glorified Blogger.

I did notice this:
Update: CBS and Paramount have released a statement through a spokesperson: “Talks are ongoing. We continue to be hopeful that we will reach a settlement shortly.”

 

[T'Arwen]

The real problem is a lack of resources. News organizations have just enough reporters to barely cover their news hole if everyone comes back with a story. There's simply no time to do in-depth reporting at most places and there's no way a 'flugg' story like this one gets anything more than the most cursory treatment. Yes, there was a time (particularly at CBS) when getting a story on the air was a real accomplishment as you were competing with some of the best journalits in the business who were all struggling to get on the air with real stories.

Don't forget money. I don't remember if it's Wikipedia or some other article but investigative reporting is more of a gamble than sports or what's happening with the Kardashians. First, journalists don't always get a hit. Even if they do, the process of digging up evidence is a lot slower than in movies. Of course there's glory if you manage to get a big story but there's always the risk of time and money wasted. When some newspapers and magazines shut down (or gone completely online), they're not inclined to take that risk.

 

[carlosp]

I don't know about "reporters," but journalism students are being taught, directly or indirectly, that they must "make a difference." I see it every day on TV news programs, talking head shows, and more importantly, the university where I work.

Real, hardcore, old school, investigative journalism seems to be a thing of the past. Today it's all about soundbytes and sensational headlines.

Maybe I'm just an old relic, but I miss the days when a reporter would dig for the truth and fight to get it published.

I graduated from journalism school 31 years ago, and even then reporters decried the lack of resources for investigative journalism.

Mostly the resources actually means time. It takes time to investigate, and there are tons of dead ends and even more obstacles.

 

[Mark Boeder]

I understand that C/P want to keep this in the legal arena and not fight it out in public, but when the Axanar team is the only side willing to talk to the press, it creates an imbalanced public perception. The resulting echo chamber effect probably has Peters and Burnett thinking their case is a lot stronger than it is. They may be winning in the court of public opinion, but it will have no effect in the legal realm.

 

[carlosp]

I don't think there's any way really to gauge who's winning in the court of public opinion. But either way, public opinion is mercurial, and if CBS/Paramount are smart, they're angling for a settlement that will make plain via evidence and/or admission what it is Axanar did that was wrong so that it's clear to others in the future what territory they should steer clear of.

 

[MikeH92467]

The fact that C/_ is willing to publicly say they are hoping for a settlement shows they are excersizing for more restraint than I ever would. That statement in itself says quite a lot.

 

[Search4]

I suspect they are hoping for a settlement until about three weeks after the release of "Beyond".