Up front, the reason I’ve chosen this post is that media outlets worldwide wasted no time repeating the slander. Now, that it is proven – retractions made and damages paid – there won’t be a fraction of the attention.
Hollywood actor Will Smith has won an apology and damages from an entertainment news agency after it distributed a story in which it alleged he had called Adolf Hitler a “good person”.
London-based World Entertainment News Network admitted at the high court that the allegations were “misleading and published in error” and apologised for any distress and embarrassment they had caused to Smith…
WENN had distributed the article in December last year under the headline “Smith: Hitler was a good person”, in which it claimed the actor had praised the Nazi dictator in an interview with the Scottish Daily Record newspaper. The piece was widely picked up by media outlets worldwide…
The news agency agreed to pay Smith’s legal costs and an undisclosed amount in damages, which the actor said he would donate to charity.
Hitler was a good person in all that such a comment means.
It was only his politics that were off.
Another such sort of person is – – – – – you know.
#1. At least Bush is good to his dog…….Oh yeah, and Hitler was too…hmmmm.
#2–Gee, I wasn’t thinking of Bushieboy at all because Hitler had a drug problem before he ran in politics and ——-oops.
Guess we won’t be able to invoke Godwin’s Law on this thread.
Seriously though. If he never said it, I agree he should be awarded the damages. It is too bad that news media doesn’t report this the way it reports the misquote in the first place. Funny, I just finished posting a thread about what a lousy job journalists do in reporting over on cagematch. The topic is called Journalism: A Photographic Negative of Reality.
Please check it out. It references a really interesting article from the Skeptic’s Society about the way that journalism presents us with a view of exactly what our world is not. It’s well worth a read since we get so much of what passes for information about the world from a source that reports anything but.
Thanks for reposting the article, Misanthropic Scott. It is an excellent read!
Scott–the number of corollaries to Godwins law builds every day but you are right given this is a thread that fairly raises Hitler.
The corollary then is raising Bush in a thread to stop discussion?
Yes–good reference there. Keep your good stuff coming.
Sorry Mr. News Agency. You still can’t control who becomes popular and who doesn’t by spreading lies.
That and you just can’t keep a good Philly boy down.
Hitler did have one good idea.
The Volkswagen. Seriously, it was his idea.
All his other ideas were pure, psychotic hate-filled spewings.
The authobahn is evil? I guess so if it was built for the same reason our own interstates were?
Hitler did outlaw smoking. I can’t say I’m broken up about that. So Volkswagens and anti-smoking laws. If it weren’t for the whole genocide and ruling the world thing, Hitler would have made a decent politician.
Note to media outlets: The quote you want is “Hitler would have made a decent politician.”
This is the same media that fed us the candidates we now have.
#4 – M Scott
“It is too bad that news media doesn’t report this the way it reports the misquote in the first place.”
The answer to that is simple to the point of triviality.
1. Making a famous person look bad draws readership, which is profit. Retractions do not.
2. The initial report is self-righteous finger-pointing, making the subject look bad. The retraction is a shameful admission of wrongdoing, making the reporter / organization look bad. Something to be played down, and also by others, out of ‘professional courtesy.’
One of the very things that make WS the highly admirable individual he is, is that he is willing to get in their face & confront them head-on, rather than make nice and become a more popular topic – but also a sellout.
#13, THC,
I agree.
I am also reminded of when Carol Burnett sued National Enquirer for saying she was falling down drunk in a restaurant. First Burnett didn’t drink, second her parents had been alcoholics, and third her TV show was on top. As I recall she won $10 million and the publicity from the suit was much greater than the original article. Only it wasn’t the good publicity the National Enquirer would have preferred.
Another point is that Will Smith can afford to take on a large publisher whereas most people can’t afford to.