s
p o
i l
e r

s
p a
c e

This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.

Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.

Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.

Somehow the FBI missed this.

She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
questioned her judgment.

She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
story needed it.

The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.

Stanley (Jeff Perry, father of Zoe with Laurie Metcalf), an old editor
of her who fired her 17 years ago, flies to New York to hire her for
Anchorage.

The paper has no money. The editorial staff is 25, once 100. She saw a
picture of an attractive printing plant with editorial offices. Well,
the paper had to sell the land and now rents an oversized storefont in a
strip mall. It's not said where it gets printed.

The staff questions how they were able to hire her. She gets a driver.
She was given a year's contract, but instead of renting her an
apartment, they put her up in an expensive hotel.

None of this makes any sense.

Stanley wants her to investigate years of missing Native women. I assume
she'll find a serial killer. Police did a lousy job with one cold case
that Stanley started her on, and the paper did a lousy job covering
it. The missing girl used crutches which were not found at the scene but
police assumed the death was suicide or accidental.

Stanley forces her to work with a local Roz (Grace Dove).

There's some stupid crap about how the paper allows the cops to
bamboozle them and won't share what I think is the modern version of the
police blotter.

A young reporter lets a rich guy get to her. He's going bankrupt and
embezzled monies from that huge government investment fund from oil
revenues. He says that if she exposes him, he'll lose his family.

A guy who is head of an investment fund MUST NOT go bankrupt. It's one
of those things.

Eileen has to lecture her on the importance of local journalism. Hell,
her editor should have fired her on the spot.

I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>
> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>
> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>
> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>
> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
> questioned her judgment.
>
> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
> story needed it.
>
> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>
> Stanley (Jeff Perry, father of Zoe with Laurie Metcalf), an old editor
> of her who fired her 17 years ago, flies to New York to hire her for
> Anchorage.
>
> The paper has no money. The editorial staff is 25, once 100. She saw a
> picture of an attractive printing plant with editorial offices. Well,
> the paper had to sell the land and now rents an oversized storefont in a
> strip mall. It's not said where it gets printed.
>
> The staff questions how they were able to hire her. She gets a driver.
> She was given a year's contract, but instead of renting her an
> apartment, they put her up in an expensive hotel.
>
> None of this makes any sense.
>
> Stanley wants her to investigate years of missing Native women. I assume
> she'll find a serial killer. Police did a lousy job with one cold case
> that Stanley started her on, and the paper did a lousy job covering
> it. The missing girl used crutches which were not found at the scene but
> police assumed the death was suicide or accidental.
>
> Stanley forces her to work with a local Roz (Grace Dove).
>
> There's some stupid crap about how the paper allows the cops to
> bamboozle them and won't share what I think is the modern version of the
> police blotter.
>
> A young reporter lets a rich guy get to her. He's going bankrupt and
> embezzled monies from that huge government investment fund from oil
> revenues. He says that if she exposes him, he'll lose his family.
>
> A guy who is head of an investment fund MUST NOT go bankrupt. It's one
> of those things.
>
> Eileen has to lecture her on the importance of local journalism. Hell,
> her editor should have fired her on the spot.
>
> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>

Ian says Steveson, British Columbia, and Alaska.

So is it one and done?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>Ian says Steveson, British Columbia, and Alaska.

Thanks

>So is it one and done?

I haven't cancelled the series recording. I may watch another episode.
This was the story line that Big Sky was supposedly telling in season 1,
that no one cared about the disappearances of lots of young women from
Montana highways and that some were being kidnapped and sold into white
slavery, and then international white slavery conspiracy story line was
abandoned.

On 2022-10-07 1:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>
> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>
> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>
> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>
> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
> questioned her judgment.
>
> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
> story needed it.
>
> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>
> Stanley (Jeff Perry, father of Zoe with Laurie Metcalf), an old editor
> of her who fired her 17 years ago, flies to New York to hire her for
> Anchorage.
>
> The paper has no money. The editorial staff is 25, once 100. She saw a
> picture of an attractive printing plant with editorial offices. Well,
> the paper had to sell the land and now rents an oversized storefont in a
> strip mall. It's not said where it gets printed.
>
> The staff questions how they were able to hire her. She gets a driver.
> She was given a year's contract, but instead of renting her an
> apartment, they put her up in an expensive hotel.
>
> None of this makes any sense.
>
> Stanley wants her to investigate years of missing Native women. I assume
> she'll find a serial killer. Police did a lousy job with one cold case
> that Stanley started her on, and the paper did a lousy job covering
> it. The missing girl used crutches which were not found at the scene but
> police assumed the death was suicide or accidental.
>
> Stanley forces her to work with a local Roz (Grace Dove).
>
> There's some stupid crap about how the paper allows the cops to
> bamboozle them and won't share what I think is the modern version of the
> police blotter.
>
> A young reporter lets a rich guy get to her. He's going bankrupt and
> embezzled monies from that huge government investment fund from oil
> revenues. He says that if she exposes him, he'll lose his family.
>
> A guy who is head of an investment fund MUST NOT go bankrupt. It's one
> of those things.
>
> Eileen has to lecture her on the importance of local journalism. Hell,
> her editor should have fired her on the spot.
>
> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.

Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.

Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
critics reviews....

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.

Ok

>Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
>up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
>now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
>you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
>that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
>critics reviews....

Also, critics raved (tm). I'll bet all those positive reviews were
posted before the premiere. Isn't it IMDb that removed unfavorable
reviews?

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-10-07 1:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>>
>> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>>
>> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
>> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
>> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>>
>> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
>> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
>> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>>
>> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>>
>> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
>> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
>> questioned her judgment.
>>
>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>> story needed it.
>>
>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>>
>> Stanley (Jeff Perry, father of Zoe with Laurie Metcalf), an old editor
>> of her who fired her 17 years ago, flies to New York to hire her for
>> Anchorage.
>>
>> The paper has no money. The editorial staff is 25, once 100. She saw a
>> picture of an attractive printing plant with editorial offices. Well,
>> the paper had to sell the land and now rents an oversized storefont in a
>> strip mall. It's not said where it gets printed.
>>
>> The staff questions how they were able to hire her. She gets a driver.
>> She was given a year's contract, but instead of renting her an
>> apartment, they put her up in an expensive hotel.
>>
>> None of this makes any sense.
>>
>> Stanley wants her to investigate years of missing Native women. I assume
>> she'll find a serial killer. Police did a lousy job with one cold case
>> that Stanley started her on, and the paper did a lousy job covering
>> it. The missing girl used crutches which were not found at the scene but
>> police assumed the death was suicide or accidental.
>>
>> Stanley forces her to work with a local Roz (Grace Dove).
>>
>> There's some stupid crap about how the paper allows the cops to
>> bamboozle them and won't share what I think is the modern version of the
>> police blotter.
>>
>> A young reporter lets a rich guy get to her. He's going bankrupt and
>> embezzled monies from that huge government investment fund from oil
>> revenues. He says that if she exposes him, he'll lose his family.
>>
>> A guy who is head of an investment fund MUST NOT go bankrupt. It's one
>> of those things.
>>
>> Eileen has to lecture her on the importance of local journalism. Hell,
>> her editor should have fired her on the spot.
>>
>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>
> Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
>
> Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
> up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
> now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
> you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
> that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
> critics reviews....
>
>

IMDb lets you give a point score without writing a review.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
>
> Ok
>
>> Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
>> up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
>> now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
>> you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
>> that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
>> critics reviews....
>
> Also, critics raved (tm). I'll bet all those positive reviews were
> posted before the premiere. Isn't it IMDb that removed unfavorable
> reviews?

No, that was the YouTube. If you give something a thumbs down it won’t show
up or tell you how many thumbs down it got any more, although supposedly
that information is available to the poster.

The way IMDB used to work, or so they claimed, was that they had an
algorithm that assumed votes of one and 10 were fake and modified them to
like three or eight so you were actually better off giving it a two or a
nine. The bullshit level there became so excessive I just stopped rating
stuff.

I just joined a Gerry Anderson Model maker group on the Facebook that not
only has a “no negative criticism” rule they have a “no constructive
criticism” rule. Which leaves me uncertain as to what I’m supposed to say
about the models…

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-10-07 1:48 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-10-07 1:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> s
>>> p
>>> o
>>> i
>>> l
>>> e
>>> r
>>>
>>> s
>>> p
>>> a
>>> c
>>> e
>>>
>>> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>>>
>>> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
>>> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
>>> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>>>
>>> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
>>> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
>>> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>>>
>>> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>>>
>>> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
>>> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
>>> questioned her judgment.
>>>
>>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>> story needed it.
>>>
>>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>>>
>>> Stanley (Jeff Perry, father of Zoe with Laurie Metcalf), an old editor
>>> of her who fired her 17 years ago, flies to New York to hire her for
>>> Anchorage.
>>>
>>> The paper has no money. The editorial staff is 25, once 100. She saw a
>>> picture of an attractive printing plant with editorial offices. Well,
>>> the paper had to sell the land and now rents an oversized storefont in a
>>> strip mall. It's not said where it gets printed.
>>>
>>> The staff questions how they were able to hire her. She gets a driver.
>>> She was given a year's contract, but instead of renting her an
>>> apartment, they put her up in an expensive hotel.
>>>
>>> None of this makes any sense.
>>>
>>> Stanley wants her to investigate years of missing Native women. I assume
>>> she'll find a serial killer. Police did a lousy job with one cold case
>>> that Stanley started her on, and the paper did a lousy job covering
>>> it. The missing girl used crutches which were not found at the scene but
>>> police assumed the death was suicide or accidental.
>>>
>>> Stanley forces her to work with a local Roz (Grace Dove).
>>>
>>> There's some stupid crap about how the paper allows the cops to
>>> bamboozle them and won't share what I think is the modern version of the
>>> police blotter.
>>>
>>> A young reporter lets a rich guy get to her. He's going bankrupt and
>>> embezzled monies from that huge government investment fund from oil
>>> revenues. He says that if she exposes him, he'll lose his family.
>>>
>>> A guy who is head of an investment fund MUST NOT go bankrupt. It's one
>>> of those things.
>>>
>>> Eileen has to lecture her on the importance of local journalism. Hell,
>>> her editor should have fired her on the spot.
>>>
>>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>>
>> Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
>>
>> Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
>> up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
>> now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
>> you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
>> that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
>> critics reviews....
>>
>>
>
> IMDb lets you give a point score without writing a review.
>
I suppose 127 people did that then and rated it highly. I'm not sure I
find that very credible. People that like something usually wanted to
say SOMETHING about it and people who don't like something often like to
take shots at the things they disliked. It seems unlikely that 127
people rated it but no one had any additional comments, either positive
or negative. By the way, the rating has declined to 7.9 since I posted
earlier but that's still a pretty strong rating.

--
Rhino

In article <thobtq$3jsbb$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>
> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>
> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.

The writers on this show are just lazy. At her victory dinner with the
other reporters, she makes a comment that "the general" is retired
anyway, so how much of a threat could he be, and the others say, "Once a
five-star general, always a five-star general."

Except he can't be a five-star general because there's no such thing as
one anymore. Congress created the rank during WWII so that the American
Allied commanders would be the highest ranking officers among the
coalition forces. Eisenhower, Nimitz, et al, were the only O-11s to ever
hold that rank and after the war was over, Congress amended the law
again to return to the status quo.

And you'd think the prop photo they used of 'the general' would have
clued the writers in to this fact because he only had four stars on his
shoulder.

> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>
> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
> questioned her judgment.
>
> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
> story needed it.
>
> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.

They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.

> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.

The scenes out of the plane window and of the car driving around town
are indeed Anchorage. I recognize a lot of it from the trip I took there
a few years ago.

I made the same observation that Swank did about how deserted the town
seemed to be all the time.

In article
<1030047337.686857131.394214.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> . . .
> >
> >> Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
> >
> > Ok
> >
> >> Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
> >> up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
> >> now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
> >> you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
> >> that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
> >> critics reviews....
> >
> > Also, critics raved (tm). I'll bet all those positive reviews were
> > posted before the premiere. Isn't it IMDb that removed unfavorable
> > reviews?
>
> No, that was the YouTube. If you give something a thumbs down it won't show
> up or tell you how many thumbs down it got any more

That's because every video the White House put out after Biden took
office was down-voted by such an overwhelmingly embarrassing amount,
they called Google and asked them to remove the feature. And Google,
which is fully on board with the Agenda, eagerly complied.

> The way IMDB used to work, or so they claimed, was that they had an
> algorithm that assumed votes of one and 10 were fake and modified them to
> like three or eight so you were actually better off giving it a two or a
> nine. The bullshit level there became so excessive I just stopped rating
> stuff.
>
> I just joined a Gerry Anderson Model maker group on the Facebook that not
> only has a "no negative criticism" rule they have a "no constructive
> criticism" rule.

"ZOMG! That's so awesome!" Literally every time for every model.

This powderpuff generation will tolerate nothing less.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 05:02:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.

Well if it's northern British Columbia (the part closest to Alaska)
they actually HAD a serial killer who preyed primarily on native
women.

If you Google "Highway of Tears British Columbia" you'll learn more
than you want to know.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 02:42:01 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>>
>
>Ian says Steveson, British Columbia, and Alaska.
>
>So is it one and done?

STEVESTON?!?

That's an outer semi-rural suburb of Vancouver and 900 or so miles
from Alaska.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 12:21:28 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>
>Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
>
>Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
>up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
>now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
>you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
>that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
>critics reviews....

That gets funnier and funnier - Steveston is geographically as close
to Alaska as staging a film supposted to be in Toronto in Thunder Bay.

I have relatives in Alaska and culturally Steveston and Alaska are
also about as similar as downtown Toronto and Thunder Bay......

(I know Rhino will get the reference without needing a map, some of
you may need a map)

Speaking of British Columbia, Hope, BC is celebrating the 40th
anniversary of Rambo: First Blood which was shot there and in the
adjoining Manning Park.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <thobtq$3jsbb$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>>
>> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
>> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
>> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>>
>> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
>> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
>> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>
> The writers on this show are just lazy. At her victory dinner with the
> other reporters, she makes a comment that "the general" is retired
> anyway, so how much of a threat could he be, and the others say, "Once a
> five-star general, always a five-star general."
>
> Except he can't be a five-star general because there's no such thing as
> one anymore. Congress created the rank during WWII so that the American
> Allied commanders would be the highest ranking officers among the
> coalition forces. Eisenhower, Nimitz, et al, were the only O-11s to ever
> hold that rank and after the war was over, Congress amended the law
> again to return to the status quo.
>
> And you'd think the prop photo they used of 'the general' would have
> clued the writers in to this fact because he only had four stars on his
> shoulder.
>
>> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>>
>> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
>> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
>> questioned her judgment.
>>
>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>> story needed it.
>>
>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>

Didn’t they at one point say he was now secretary of defense and didn’t
deserve to be? So what are we doing off

> They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
> them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
> employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
> still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
>

Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn’t snap at her the first
time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
to shut the hell up about.

>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>
> The scenes out of the plane window and of the car driving around town
> are indeed Anchorage. I recognize a lot of it from the trip I took there
> a few years ago.
>
> I made the same observation that Swank did about how deserted the town
> seemed to be all the time.
>

That answered my next question. Was it ever teeming and now it’s deserted
or did they just overbuild and never filled it up?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1030047337.686857131.394214.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>> Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
>>>
>>> Ok
>>>
>>>> Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
>>>> up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
>>>> now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
>>>> you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
>>>> that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
>>>> critics reviews....
>>>
>>> Also, critics raved (tm). I'll bet all those positive reviews were
>>> posted before the premiere. Isn't it IMDb that removed unfavorable
>>> reviews?
>>
>> No, that was the YouTube. If you give something a thumbs down it won't show
>> up or tell you how many thumbs down it got any more
>
> That's because every video the White House put out after Biden took
> office was down-voted by such an overwhelmingly embarrassing amount,
> they called Google and asked them to remove the feature. And Google,
> which is fully on board with the Agenda, eagerly complied.

I didn’t know what caused it. The timing sure fits. Thanks.

>> The way IMDB used to work, or so they claimed, was that they had an
>> algorithm that assumed votes of one and 10 were fake and modified them to
>> like three or eight so you were actually better off giving it a two or a
>> nine. The bullshit level there became so excessive I just stopped rating
>> stuff.
>>
>> I just joined a Gerry Anderson Model maker group on the Facebook that not
>> only has a "no negative criticism" rule they have a "no constructive
>> criticism" rule.
>
> "ZOMG! That's so awesome!" Literally every time for every model.
>

I don’t know, that may well be considered constructive criticism. Maybe
they differentiate praise somehow.

This is also one of these groups that dissuades lurkers. They want you to
say stuff or they’ll toss you out. But you can’t say anything bad. And it’s
really difficult to say anything good. I haven’t looked through it much but
I fear it’s all going to be “thanks for posting”

> This powderpuff generation will tolerate nothing less.
>

For years people have been posting their “art“ and saying “constructive
criticism only“
You know what, Sparky? If you post the fugliest yellow model I’ve ever seen
and ask for criticism I am going to tell you it’s the fugliest yellow model
I’ve ever seen.
There are times that “your mother should have never encouraged you she
should have broken your crayons” is constructive criticism.
As Judge Smails said “the world needs ditch diggers too”

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 02:42:01 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>>>
>>
>> Ian says Steveson, British Columbia, and Alaska.
>>
>> So is it one and done?
>
> STEVESTON?!?
>
> That's an outer semi-rural suburb of Vancouver and 900 or so miles
> from Alaska.
>

That’s from IMDb. And it’s actually listed the way I said it
Steveston, British Columbia. I don’t know if the comma indicates two
different places or that one is a city and one is a province.

As always, blame Ian.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1030047337.686857131.394214.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>> Garry Point Park, Steveston BC to be precise, according to IMDB.
>>>>
>>>> Ok
>>>>
>>>>> Your review had me pretty much convinced to give this a miss but looking
>>>>> up the location in IMDB revealed that this series has an 8.2 rating so
>>>>> now I'm thinking I should eyeball it myself to see if it is better than
>>>>> you describe. Mind you, I'm not sure how it gets an 8.2 rating given
>>>>> that there's not a single user review; this must be the average of the
>>>>> critics reviews....
>>>>
>>>> Also, critics raved (tm). I'll bet all those positive reviews were
>>>> posted before the premiere. Isn't it IMDb that removed unfavorable
>>>> reviews?
>>>
>>> No, that was the YouTube. If you give something a thumbs down it won't show
>>> up or tell you how many thumbs down it got any more
>>
>> That's because every video the White House put out after Biden took
>> office was down-voted by such an overwhelmingly embarrassing amount,
>> they called Google and asked them to remove the feature. And Google,
>> which is fully on board with the Agenda, eagerly complied.
>
> I didn’t know what caused it. The timing sure fits. Thanks.
>
>
>
>>> The way IMDB used to work, or so they claimed, was that they had an
>>> algorithm that assumed votes of one and 10 were fake and modified them to
>>> like three or eight so you were actually better off giving it a two or a
>>> nine. The bullshit level there became so excessive I just stopped rating
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> I just joined a Gerry Anderson Model maker group on the Facebook that not
>>> only has a "no negative criticism" rule they have a "no constructive
>>> criticism" rule.
>>
>> "ZOMG! That's so awesome!" Literally every time for every model.
>>
>
> I don’t know, that may well be considered constructive criticism. Maybe
> they differentiate praise somehow.
>
> This is also one of these groups that dissuades lurkers. They want you to
> say stuff or they’ll toss you out. But you can’t say anything bad. And it’s
> really difficult to say anything good. I haven’t looked through it much but
> I fear it’s all going to be “thanks for posting”

Oh, yeah, they also don’t like CGI model builders.
It’s unclear to me if you print the thing if that makes it qualify.

>
>> This powderpuff generation will tolerate nothing less.
>>
>
> For years people have been posting their “art“ and saying “constructive
> criticism only“
> You know what, Sparky? If you post the fugliest yellow model I’ve ever seen
> and ask for criticism I am going to tell you it’s the fugliest yellow model
> I’ve ever seen.
> There are times that “your mother should have never encouraged you she
> should have broken your crayons” is constructive criticism.
> As Judge Smails said “the world needs ditch diggers too”
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<95856895.686982177.563798.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <thobtq$3jsbb$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
> >>
> >> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
> >> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
> >> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
> >>
> >> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
> >> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
> >> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
> >
> > The writers on this show are just lazy. At her victory dinner with the
> > other reporters, she makes a comment that "the general" is retired
> > anyway, so how much of a threat could he be, and the others say, "Once a
> > five-star general, always a five-star general."
> >
> > Except he can't be a five-star general because there's no such thing as
> > one anymore. Congress created the rank during WWII so that the American
> > Allied commanders would be the highest ranking officers among the
> > coalition forces. Eisenhower, Nimitz, et al, were the only O-11s to ever
> > hold that rank and after the war was over, Congress amended the law
> > again to return to the status quo.
> >
> > And you'd think the prop photo they used of 'the general' would have
> > clued the writers in to this fact because he only had four stars on his
> > shoulder.
> >
> >> Somehow the FBI missed this.
> >>
> >> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
> >> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
> >> questioned her judgment.
> >>
> >> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
> >> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
> >> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
> >> story needed it.
> >>
> >> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
> >> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
> >> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
> >
> Didn't they at one point say he was now secretary of defense and didn’t
> deserve to be? So what are we doing off
>
> > They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
> > them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
> > employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
> > still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
> >
> Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
> time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
> to shut the hell up about.

Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
well-deserved 'screw-off'.

> >> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
> >> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
> >
> > The scenes out of the plane window and of the car driving around town
> > are indeed Anchorage. I recognize a lot of it from the trip I took there
> > a few years ago.
> >
> > I made the same observation that Swank did about how deserted the town
> > seemed to be all the time.

> That answered my next question. Was it ever teeming and now it's deserted
> or did they just overbuild and never filled it up?

Not sure. I was there for about a week and pretty much whenever I was in
the city center area, it seemed to be mostly empty. A few cars driving
around here and there, the occasional pedestrian, but it's like the city
was about four times larger than its population warranted. Not that I
minded. Empty streets were a refreshing change from L.A. gridlock.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>>She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>>scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>>job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>>story needed it.

>>>>The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>>creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>>especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.

>>>They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>>them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>>employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>>still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.

>>Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>>time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>>to shut the hell up about.

>Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
>well-deserved 'screw-off'.

I'm still sticking with my original point that the scene was utterly
stupid because in real life, the researcher would have been there to
actually check the reporter's facts on a story as big as this, not just
to passively-aggressively take cheap shots.

And that the story really and truly needed fact checking 'cuz Eileen
just handwaived that the source provided genuine documents. There was
really no reason for her to turn in that story in 20 minutes without
allowing time for fact checking.

>>>>. . .

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <95856895.686982177.563798.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <thobtq$3jsbb$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
>>>> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
>>>> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>>>>
>>>> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
>>>> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
>>>> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>>>
>>> The writers on this show are just lazy. At her victory dinner with the
>>> other reporters, she makes a comment that "the general" is retired
>>> anyway, so how much of a threat could he be, and the others say, "Once a
>>> five-star general, always a five-star general."
>>>
>>> Except he can't be a five-star general because there's no such thing as
>>> one anymore. Congress created the rank during WWII so that the American
>>> Allied commanders would be the highest ranking officers among the
>>> coalition forces. Eisenhower, Nimitz, et al, were the only O-11s to ever
>>> hold that rank and after the war was over, Congress amended the law
>>> again to return to the status quo.
>>>
>>> And you'd think the prop photo they used of 'the general' would have
>>> clued the writers in to this fact because he only had four stars on his
>>> shoulder.
>>>
>>>> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>>>>
>>>> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
>>>> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
>>>> questioned her judgment.
>>>>
>>>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>> story needed it.
>>>>
>>>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>>>
>> Didn't they at one point say he was now secretary of defense and didn’t
>> deserve to be? So what are we doing off
>>
>>> They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>> them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>> employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>> still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
>>>
>> Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>> time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>> to shut the hell up about.
>
> Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
> well-deserved 'screw-off'.
>
>>>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>>>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> The scenes out of the plane window and of the car driving around town
>>> are indeed Anchorage. I recognize a lot of it from the trip I took there
>>> a few years ago.
>>>
>>> I made the same observation that Swank did about how deserted the town
>>> seemed to be all the time.
>
>> That answered my next question. Was it ever teeming and now it's deserted
>> or did they just overbuild and never filled it up?
>
> Not sure. I was there for about a week and pretty much whenever I was in
> the city center area, it seemed to be mostly empty. A few cars driving
> around here and there, the occasional pedestrian, but it's like the city
> was about four times larger than its population warranted. Not that I
> minded. Empty streets were a refreshing change from L.A. gridlock.
>

The only place that didn’t seem unpleasantly busy was the hospital. Other
than that I kind of wouldn’t mind living there.

Oh and how about that Tesseract newspaper office in the shopping mall. The
thing is gigantic and it’s mostly empty space. They have to shout to talk
to the person at the next desk!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>>> story needed it.
>
>>>>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>
>>>> They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>>> them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>>> employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>>> still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
>
>>> Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>>> time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>>> to shut the hell up about.
>
>> Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
>> well-deserved 'screw-off'.
>
> I'm still sticking with my original point that the scene was utterly
> stupid because in real life, the researcher would have been there to
> actually check the reporter's facts on a story as big as this, not just
> to passively-aggressively take cheap shots.

I think a scene that stupid can be stupid on more than one basis. For a
third angle, I’m not even sure who we were supposed to be rooting for.

And if the fact checker doesn’t sign off on it, does it get printed anyway?

>
> And that the story really and truly needed fact checking 'cuz Eileen
> just handwaived that the source provided genuine documents. There was
> really no reason for her to turn in that story in 20 minutes without
> allowing time for fact checking.

I wondered what the hell the deadline was and where it came from. Is this
actually a print medium publication? Why is she desperately typing to get
it done in time? What is the fact checker checking if she hasn’t finished
writing the article?

>
>>>>> . . .
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <95856895.686982177.563798.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <thobtq$3jsbb$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This show lives or dies on Hillary Swank's performance as Eileen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it was a lousy performance. She switches from obnoxious to
>>>>> motherly, but then she gets emotional scenes in which she chews scenary
>>>>> or has panic attacks. Mostly she performed in a monotone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Working as a New York investigative reporter, she got stolen documents
>>>>> from the American counsulate in Shanghai that an evil retired general,
>>>>> nominated for defense secretary, is actually an arms dealer.
>>>>
>>>> The writers on this show are just lazy. At her victory dinner with the
>>>> other reporters, she makes a comment that "the general" is retired
>>>> anyway, so how much of a threat could he be, and the others say, "Once a
>>>> five-star general, always a five-star general."
>>>>
>>>> Except he can't be a five-star general because there's no such thing as
>>>> one anymore. Congress created the rank during WWII so that the American
>>>> Allied commanders would be the highest ranking officers among the
>>>> coalition forces. Eisenhower, Nimitz, et al, were the only O-11s to ever
>>>> hold that rank and after the war was over, Congress amended the law
>>>> again to return to the status quo.
>>>>
>>>> And you'd think the prop photo they used of 'the general' would have
>>>> clued the writers in to this fact because he only had four stars on his
>>>> shoulder.
>>>>
>>>>> Somehow the FBI missed this.
>>>>>
>>>>> She broke the story with one source. She had no ability to authenticate
>>>>> the documents and she "just knew they were true" and insulted anyone who
>>>>> questioned her judgment.
>>>>>
>>>>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>>> story needed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>>>>
>>> Didn't they at one point say he was now secretary of defense and didn’t
>>> deserve to be? So what are we doing off
>>>
>>>> They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>>> them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>>> employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>>> still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
>>>>
>>> Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>>> time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>>> to shut the hell up about.
>>
>> Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
>> well-deserved 'screw-off'.
>>
>>>>> I guess this is filmed somewhere in British Columbia but I really don't
>>>>> know. It ain't Anchorage, that's for sure.
>>>>
>>>> The scenes out of the plane window and of the car driving around town
>>>> are indeed Anchorage. I recognize a lot of it from the trip I took there
>>>> a few years ago.
>>>>
>>>> I made the same observation that Swank did about how deserted the town
>>>> seemed to be all the time.
>>
>>> That answered my next question. Was it ever teeming and now it's deserted
>>> or did they just overbuild and never filled it up?
>>
>> Not sure. I was there for about a week and pretty much whenever I was in
>> the city center area, it seemed to be mostly empty. A few cars driving
>> around here and there, the occasional pedestrian, but it's like the city
>> was about four times larger than its population warranted. Not that I
>> minded. Empty streets were a refreshing change from L.A. gridlock.
>>
>
> The only place that didn’t seem unpleasantly busy was the hospital. Other
> than that I kind of wouldn’t mind living there.

“that seemed unpleasantly busy”

>
> Oh and how about that Tesseract newspaper office in the shopping mall. The
> thing is gigantic and it’s mostly empty space. They have to shout to talk
> to the person at the next desk!
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>>She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>>>>scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>>>>job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>>>>story needed it.

>>>>>>The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>>>>creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>>>>especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.

>>>>>They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>>>>them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>>>>employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>>>>still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.

>>>>Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>>>>time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>>>>to shut the hell up about.

>>>Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
>>>well-deserved 'screw-off'.

>>I'm still sticking with my original point that the scene was utterly
>>stupid because in real life, the researcher would have been there to
>>actually check the reporter's facts on a story as big as this, not just
>>to passively-aggressively take cheap shots.

>I think a scene that stupid can be stupid on more than one basis. For a
>third angle, I'm not even sure who we were supposed to be rooting for.

>And if the fact checker doesn't sign off on it, does it get printed anyway?

They shouldn't because that makes the publisher vulnerable in a
defamation lawsuit for knowing printing a false story.
>>And that the story really and truly needed fact checking 'cuz Eileen
>>just handwaived that the source provided genuine documents. There was
>>really no reason for her to turn in that story in 20 minutes without
>>allowing time for fact checking.

>I wondered what the hell the deadline was and where it came from. Is this
>actually a print medium publication? Why is she desperately typing to get
>it done in time? What is the fact checker checking if she hasn't finished
>writing the article?

That wasn't clear to me. One of the reviews I found said that she worked
for The Vanguard, which was on line. The only way the deadline made any
sense were if it were something like The Atlantic, a monthly print
magazine.

The deadline was absurd.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>>>> She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>>>>> scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>>>>> job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>>>>> story needed it.
>
>>>>>>> The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>>>>> creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>>>>> especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>
>>>>>> They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>>>>> them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>>>>> employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>>>>> still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
>
>>>>> Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>>>>> time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>>>>> to shut the hell up about.
>
>>>> Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
>>>> well-deserved 'screw-off'.
>
>>> I'm still sticking with my original point that the scene was utterly
>>> stupid because in real life, the researcher would have been there to
>>> actually check the reporter's facts on a story as big as this, not just
>>> to passively-aggressively take cheap shots.
>
>> I think a scene that stupid can be stupid on more than one basis. For a
>> third angle, I'm not even sure who we were supposed to be rooting for.
>
>> And if the fact checker doesn't sign off on it, does it get printed anyway?
>
> They shouldn't because that makes the publisher vulnerable in a
> defamation lawsuit for knowing printing a false story.
>
>>> And that the story really and truly needed fact checking 'cuz Eileen
>>> just handwaived that the source provided genuine documents. There was
>>> really no reason for her to turn in that story in 20 minutes without
>>> allowing time for fact checking.
>
>> I wondered what the hell the deadline was and where it came from. Is this
>> actually a print medium publication? Why is she desperately typing to get
>> it done in time? What is the fact checker checking if she hasn't finished
>> writing the article?
>
> That wasn't clear to me. One of the reviews I found said that she worked
> for The Vanguard, which was on line. The only way the deadline made any
> sense were if it were something like The Atlantic, a monthly print
> magazine.
>
> The deadline was absurd.
>

I fell asleep halfway through it. I don’t even know if I want to go back
and finish the episode.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>. . .
>
>>>>>>>She was ridiculous and unprofessional, and there was a really stupid
>>>>>>>scene in which the researcher questioned her reporting. The researcher's
>>>>>>>job should be fact checking on a story that important, and boy, this
>>>>>>>story needed it.
>
>>>>>>>The source vanishes. The retired general hires a Washington fixer who
>>>>>>>creates fake social media complaints that she sexually harassed women,
>>>>>>>especially the researcher. The paper won't back her. She resigns.
>
>>>>>>They didn't say she sexually harassed them, just that she was mean to
>>>>>>them, which is now apparently just as bad as trying to fuck your
>>>>>>employees. If you're a "mean" but otherwise competent boss, you can
>>>>>>still apparently find yourself in legal trouble in today's Clown World.
>
>>>>>Plus the idiot assistant had it coming. She didn't snap at her the first
>>>>>time. The assistant kept nagging her about something she already told her
>>>>>to shut the hell up about.
>
>>>>Exactly. She told her politely several times to drop it, then gave her a
>>>>well-deserved 'screw-off'.
>
>>>I'm still sticking with my original point that the scene was utterly
>>>stupid because in real life, the researcher would have been there to
>>>actually check the reporter's facts on a story as big as this, not just
>>>to passively-aggressively take cheap shots.
>
>>I think a scene that stupid can be stupid on more than one basis. For a
>>third angle, I'm not even sure who we were supposed to be rooting for.
>
>>And if the fact checker doesn't sign off on it, does it get printed anyway?
>
>They shouldn't because that makes the publisher vulnerable in a
>defamation lawsuit for knowing printing a false story.
>
>>>And that the story really and truly needed fact checking 'cuz Eileen
>>>just handwaived that the source provided genuine documents. There was
>>>really no reason for her to turn in that story in 20 minutes without
>>>allowing time for fact checking.
>
>>I wondered what the hell the deadline was and where it came from. Is this
>>actually a print medium publication? Why is she desperately typing to get
>>it done in time? What is the fact checker checking if she hasn't finished
>>writing the article?
>
>That wasn't clear to me. One of the reviews I found said that she worked
>for The Vanguard, which was on line. The only way the deadline made any
>sense were if it were something like The Atlantic, a monthly print
>magazine.

Ok. I found another review that said The Vanguard was a newspaper. I'm
not going to re-watch the beginning of the episode. It's still not going
to make any sense.

>The deadline was absurd.