Unless he did rape her via intercourse and used the “hope you are on birth control because you rubbed my semen all over you” as cover talking to her. A ton we don’t know obviously.
Xavier Foster removed from team; target of sexual assault investigation
- Thread starter cyIclSoneU
- Start date
Personally I don't know how you could force a drugged/passed out girl to perform oral sex. And I'd be scared of trying to force a coherent girl to perform oral sex, that's just asking to have it bitten.
Once again not making a judgement on this situation, just my deep thoughts.
Once again not making a judgement on this situation, just my deep thoughts.
You’re correct on all of what you said. The newspaper industry was most definitely killed by the internet. Here’s the thing though: (and I’ll admit a somewhat utopian viewpoint on this) You can’t do journalism for free, but when a media company prioritizes profits over quality, important, responsible journalism we will all pay a price eventually.No. This is flat wrong.
Your Comeback Starts Here
LA is a movie. It's a musical. It's a comeback story … your comeback story.
discoverlosangeles.com
Local newspapers (which did 90%+ of the socially useful investigative journalism and reporting that you are correctly noting is gone and bemoaning that fact) used to have two sources of revenue --
(1.) Subscriptions for dead trees thrown on people's doorsteps.
(2.) Advertisers paying for spreads and classifieds.
Newspapers were actually one of the more profitable sectors of the economy from roughly 1950 through to 2000 because they were essentially a series of regional/metro monopolies. I know an old newspaper guy who used to be a bigwig at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and he told me in the 1970s and 1980s they would hire more newsroom staff to write more content because advertiser demand was so high.
Then something happened around 2000. It's called the Internet.
(1.) People stopped paying for news. "Why pay, I can read it online for free." Newspaper people still joke the obituary section might as well be renamed "former subscribers to this paper."
(2.) Again, the Internet. Programmatic ads presented a cheaper and quicker way to "target" your audience than does a classified in a dead tree. I happen to think the "ad tech stack" is mostly nonsense and way overhyped regarding what it can do, but that ad buyers believe in it was sure good for Google.
To put it in blunt terms, the Internet completely ****** newspapers. Most of them failed. This trend is the same throughout the world, too, not just because of the rapacity of American capitalism.
The round of corporate buyouts and consolidations is a result of but not the cause of the destruction of local news. Without outside corporate buyers, even more papers would have failed. This process is what you see in any dying industry -- e.g., outside investors coming in and seeing if they can make it work (they usually cannot) by cutting costs. But the real cause was their revenue sources drying up, which descends from consumer preferences (both of news consumers and the ad buyers) going online and national.
There have been some corners of the media sector that have benefited from this...
-- niche special interest sites, like Cyclone Fanatic, with a small but incredibly loyal following who either pay for the content or are generally very good about supporting advertisers
-- prestige publications in the East Coast (mostly the New York Times and the Washington Post) now able to reach a much larger audience through online subscriptions than they could with paper
Local journalism is dying while the Times and the Post thrive. Heck, there are more subscribers to the New York Times in Toronto -- largest city in Canada -- than there are to the Toronto Star.
Corporate buyouts don't do that. Consumer preferences do. Culture and politics have nationalized and internationalized, which those prestige publications are in great shape to service.
Some one-horse town's newspaper in rural Iowa? Not so much.
You are right this sucks and leads to worse government accountability. But it ain't "the corporations."
It is consumers -- both of news (wanting it for free) and ad buyers moving online.
As the Rolling Stones said, "After all, it was you and me."
I'll meet you halfway with a more generous reading of your point --
Corporations killed local news. It just wasn't the corporations that bought out flailing local papers at fire sale prices and tried to make it work by cutting staff and costs to the absolute bare bones.
It was Google and Facebook teaching people they could have news "for free" and sucking up all the advertising dollars that used to go on dead trees into pixels on a screen somewhere.
I get that and agree, but I don't understand physically how a drugged/incoherent/passed out girl can give oral outside by a dumpster. Then wipe the results all over herself.
There is truth to this. A blanket assessment,- I think some of the corporate/investment problem came when companies bought smaller pubs, investors got on-board with assumption the late-20th century gravy train (noted by sig above) was going to continue indefinitely.
Then migration to digital began among younger readers, and publications (not so much the metros) had to try to catch up, but also couldn't alienate longtime print readers (many in demographic that wanted to "get the paper" and had no interest in reading online product). Simultaneously, advertisers were slow to make the jump from print to digital, so it wasn't simple to put resources into online publication
Then it became a struggle to maintain profitability, not by finding ways to grow and evolve the product, but cutting expenses (i.e., downsizing A LOT). ... Snowball effect runs rampant
Sorry for my rambling derailment ... there's more beyond that, but that's part of the big picture.
An interesting article about how the Burlington paper was doing OK until Ganett came to town and ****** them over.
What details around the allegation have been confirmed publicly that caused you to call him a piece of ****?
That is what I assumed. It makes the most sense. Unless Xavier is actually dumb enough to believe you get pregnant through absorbing it through the skin. It’s a very fishy statement.
Sure seems like Xaviers story he told her is BS. “And wait - hope you are on birth control because you might get pregnant absorbing it through your skin….”
Knowing some people in the industry...
There were no small number of transactions that consisted of the long-time private ownership of papers, usually the family of its founder, looking to "cash out" and outside investors thinking they were buying a predictable stream of profit from an industry that was stable and lucrative for decades. Win-win, right? The families make bank and can move on to something else, and the investors get a pretty good return.
A lot of these acquisitions took place in the late 1990s and early 2000s... perfectly timed for the investors to lose their shirts when the Internet obliterated a previously sound business model.
Plenty of VC/hedge fund types lot a lot of money on these deals in the long term.
Agreed. Can’t have those allegations and distractions hanging over the program. This is addition by subtraction.
Totally agree. There are many factors at play here. I know I’m oversimplifying. I see things from a local television standpoint. Plenty of profitable operations have been swallowed up and stripped down by bohemuth corporations with no real stake in the local community.
Date rape drugs are a wide array of drugs. They don't all make you get knocked out like in a cartoons. Some cause memory loss, lack of self control, and hallucinate. This isn't me making any value judgment on the truth of the story or his guilt.
I tend to concentrate on newspapers because they're really the foundation.
Newspapers do 90%+ of the investigative journalism and basic reporting that we should all want. Pretty much every important news scoop in American history came out of a newspaper.
Radio and TV have a role as amplifiers, but listening to broadcast news is pretty much listening to a talking head say, "According to the New York Times..." and "According to documents obtained by the Washington Post..." Great for you talking head, but what would you do without the NYT and WaPo?
There are exceptions, but newspapers are the line play of news. Everything depends on it.
Accurate summary. Link to story @jsb posted above provides elements of how things have unfolded, although that feature is focused more on "effect" than cause/catalyst.
I'll leave it at that, so I don't continue to stray from main theme of this thread.
Thanks for the info. The only experience I had with anything like that was my friends had a house party one time. A couple of us left to go pick up some friends and I left my gf at the party. When we got back my gf was complaining about not feeling good and feeling like she drank a lot when she'd only had one drink that someone made her. So we left and went back to the dorm where I pretty much baby sat her as she'd pass out, wake up, puke, pass out, wake up, talk about random things that made no sense, etc.
We were pretty positive someone did something to her drink.
Ya totally get that and I have had similar experiences having to usher a few friends back from a party early. But there are some scary drugs out there and even normal party drugs in excess that can make a seemingly semi conscious person not in a position to consent while seeming somewhat lucid.
