I'll just add, as someone who's been doing investigative reporting for decades, all publications doing real journalism (i.e., not a sockpuppet or Some Guy on the Internet)--they have MANY layers of editorial & legal review. Every major investigation I've done has had EVERY WORD checked many times.
I find the entire genre of "tens of thousands of words minutely refuting every point of an abuse clam" intrinsically unpersuasive. If any of the evidence were actually damning they'd just highlight that instead of doing a tedious Gish Gallop.
We as journalists & publications wargame: What might a judge say? What will his spin teams & legal teams & crisis management say & do? What DID they do? How many times were we threatened w legal action & do we think they'll do it? If so, what is our plan? THIS IS MY LIFE FOR MONTHS sometimes sheesh
If you've ever seen anything w/ multiple sources making serious allegations against anyone rich or famous or both, know the smartest lawyers in the land kicked the shit out of that story for upwards of 4-6 months, or in the case of my book, A YEAR. But sure, A Guy on the Internet is more credible 🤡
Feb 3, 2026 04:51Also perhaps I'm getting too in the weeds, but the original podcast about Gaiman was based in the UK, and the libel/defamation laws in that country are NO JOKE with a side of OH GOD TERROR. You think nobody vetted all this? Also: A general rule of thumb in investigative work, important to remember +
The name "TechnoPathology" is such a fucking tell, incidentally
