kal kommie said:
If Rodgers believes the things he reportedly said on the Eddie Bravo podcast then he's got a really warped world view and I wouldn't be surprised if he subscribed to some Sandy Hook conspiracy theory. I noted the wording Rodgers used in his disclaimer tweet can be construed in a way that is technically truthful if Rodgers believes, as he is reported to have said, that Sandy Hook was a government orchestrated massacre rather than a fabrication with crisis actors as others suggest.
But I find this reporting by CNN's Pamela Brown interesting for reasons other than Rodgers' personal character. Brown claims she was on the job for CNN at the Kentucky Derby in 2013 and Aaron Rodgers, one of the most famous athletes in America, told her Sandy Hook was a government inside job and she chose not to report this very newsworthy item at the intersection of sports and politics?
It only occurs to Brown to report this outrageous statement Rodgers made to her a decade later when Rodgers becomes associated with a third party political candidacy. And the only corroboration Tapper and Brown can offer is another hearsay episode from that most plastic of sources, one they keep anonymous because the supposed source wishes to condemn Rodgers while shielding themselves from any kind of accountability for their allegation.
I'm not saying Rodgers didn't make the statements to Pamela Brown in 2013 that she reported. At this point it's believable that he would hold such an extreme view just based on other extreme views he has expressed. But I think this reporting is bad journalism of an unfortunately common variety.
Put another way; though I have always been a huge Arod football fan, his views on other subjects concerning "conspiracy theories," in addition to his prior comments and subterfuge re being "immunized" make his current reported beliefs on Sandy Hook to be much more plausible, vis a vis my belief that a reporter would have this conversation but then never write an article about it until his newfound potential foray into politics.
Maybe if ARod took an oath under penalty of perjury, and he was asked direct probing questions under direct and cross examination, and if perhaps maybe Ms. Brown and the unnamed corroborating source were also called into to testify, and if perhaps Ms. Brown recalls that she told some other family, personal or professional acquaintance of this conversation contemporaneously, or if
more people came out to say - yes, I have heard ARod make comments such as these, then maybe we can make a more informed decision.
You say it's bad journalism. I am not sure what makes is bad. That you think it was newsworthy for her to have reported it then, and that because she did not until now (when its more newsworthy) makes it bad journalism is crying for a revisionist history of the facts. The fact is, she did not report it until now, along with an anonymous source. We have her statement - with a lot of detail and quotes - and a corroborating account from a different time period that is similar; and we have Aaron saying, I have never had those beliefs or said those things. We can agree to disagree, but on the whole, and judging by a "more likely than not" standard, I am in the camp that I believe that he said those things to Ms. Brown. She has no reason to lie. Why would she randomly create a story from an interaction however many years ago? She knows coming forward with this will subject her to critique; what is her motivation to lie about the alleged conversation? And what is Aaron's motivation to lie, obfuscate or deny that he has said and espoused those views?
Seems pretty easy for me to decide if I were sitting in a jurors box, and we haven't even had either of them raise their right hand yet.
-- edit -- side note, and this is admittedly a pet peeve of mine: the anonymous quotes, or those from Brown, are not hearsay. If we ever get into a court or tribunal where the rules of evidence apply, then we can start talking about hearsay and whether any of the statements have an applicable exception to allow them to be admissible or not. Right now they are statements that are attributed to one person, and we can assess them for what they are without relying upon a legal and evidentiary principle that most non-lawyers have almost zero concept of, why we call these statements hearsay, nor why there are so many exceptions to them.
~Spectemur agendo~