Reflection and Analysis

Morgan Freeman (6/4/18)

I'm highly bothered by the Morgan Freeman case for many reasons.

I found myself shocked to find out one of the witnesses to some of the alleged allegations is one of the reporters on the story. Supporters of this move say news reporting has changed over the years, citing an incident which involves a reporter relating a singular personal account to an article where the reporter not only shares their personal account, but those of others. The first type's always been allowed in reporting, but never the second, as the first is a POV piece, but the second is not. The POV piece is judged by its own individual merits, but in the second the POV piece gets propped up by other things.

Which brings me to another issue. There is reason to doubt the reporters own allegations, being that the video clip she claims proves her allegations shows the words she claims were aimed at her were aimed at something entirely different. Specifically, they were aimed at a story another man told which was embarrassing and Freman noting he wished he'd been there to see the other guys reaction to finding out he'd not congratulated a pregnant woman. In fact, as noted by Freeman's lawyer, a few of the woman have come forward stating Chloe Melas misrepresented her comments.

The one person who didn't is Janet Mock. However, the interview she did is very telling. Having seen the video in question, there was nothing sexual in tone regarding what Freeman said, but he asked an honest question of how she could feel comfortable around men dressed the way she was. Her exact words regarding the incident were, "you feel like your grandfather scolded you for wearing..." In other words, she wasn't uncomfortable because of the sexual connotations, but instead she was uncomfortable because she felt like she was getting lectured for dressing inappropriately.

Which, technically she is. The video shows she's having to adjust her dress as she sits there, but to claim the dress is "literally, my dress was this same thing here" when it is not the same dress at all. For starters, the dress she wore in the second interview covered her cleavage, but it also didn't require any readjusting. She goes on to complain about how "all he did was look at my legs", but what else is he supposed to do when she's having to adjust the top of her dress and he's not wanting to look there. Nobody questions the fact Freeman was likely uncomfortable in that situation as well, but if people ask why Freeman didn't look her in the eyes, have we ever seen him look anybody in the eyes for long periods of time, even male reporters?

Of course, people bring up the fact he apologized for his actions and thus must be guilty, yet if you pay close attention to his apology, he apologized for offending people, not for the actual actions. Considering the way women are taking his actions out of context, this makes sense. Particularly when we stop and think of what generation he's from. He's from a generation where you apologized for upsetting someone whether your actions were in the wrong or not. Truth is, I've been in that place. I used to apologize to reviewers for upsetting them with reviews I left even if they were as simple as pointing out the grammar was hot-off-the-press. However, people took my apology as an addition of guilt when it is not.

I'm also finding myself majorly insulted but Melas, Mock and – I've got to include Wendy Williams in this as she is the one who did the follow-up interview and sided with Mock. They have no clue what it's like to be sexually assaulted, let alone sexually harassed. The allegations are similar to the people who label others as bullies because they said or did something a person didn't like, yet this doesn't at all mean the other person is a bully. People don't always get their way, nor do people always agree with them. All three are reporters, yet all three have lost all credibility in my eye as reporters.

CNN's response to Freeman's is also troublesome.

1. They claim Freeman's lawyers are slandering Melas' journalist credibility, except as I pointed out – she lost credibility the moment she published the story, but even more when the video she claimed is proof actually shows something very different.

2. They bring up a California statute which pretty much amounts to them threatening to have Freeman pay half their legal fees should he lose.

3. They bring up the fact Freeman's firm represents WB which is a sister affiliate of CNN, and that they've been in contact with said sister affiliate, meaning there is no way Freeman's case will go forward because they've got the means to pretty much block it. It doesn't matter that he does have the legal grounds to file lawsuit.

4. They bring up the fact the lawyer has not checked into the claim of lifting skirts, completely forgetting the lawyer cannot do so because this came from an anonymous unidentified source, but that the only way the lawyer could is to pursue legal action.

As one person I couldn't identify said, "He never actually assaulted anyone. We shouldn't make such a big deal about flirting or joking just because some whining emotional girl thought it "offensive"." Because here's the truth. Simply claiming something is offensive does not mean it is. Every time someone claims something that isn't actually offensive as offensive they belittle everyone else who've had done something offensive, but they are now the ones guilty of offending.

Seriously, the fact you take offense at something that isn't offensive is in itself offensive.

Note – Am I saying there isn't any validity in the claims. The problem is, as the facts are currently presented, the claims now have not been validated but instead invalidated. What about the anonymous accusations?

I point you to Perry Bacon Jr. article "When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources".

1. Multiple sources add up. (Fail)

2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious. While the sources do talk about what did happen, many of the sources have been based on feelings. (Fail - Mostly)

3. Specifies matter – Who are most of these anonymous sources? There are sixteen sources, but only a small handful are identified. I'm not just talking by name, but their actual position and how they came in contact with Freeman. (Fail)

4. Consider the outlet and the reporters. Remember what I said about Melas' bias? She's also not been doing this long and only really got her start because of reporting on the MeToo movement and other major cases. (Fail)

5. Watch for vague or imprecise "denials" of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate. Except we've gotten the exact opposite. Freeman did as I pointed out apologize for upsetting someone, but he did not apologize for the actions. He even clarified that he'd never did the things, and others have come forward supporting him. (Fail)

So no, the anonymous sources are not valid sources.