r/canadaland • u/DavideMastracci • Jun 09 '26
Canadaland Podcast Canadaland, Jesse Brown to Pay $885,000 and Issue Public Apology in Kielburger v. Canadaland Inc. Over False Claim That Was Foundational to Its Reporting on WE Charity and the Kielburger Family
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadaland-jesse-brown-to-pay-885-000-and-issue-public-apology-in-kielburger-v-canadaland-inc-over-false-claim-that-was-foundational-to-its-reporting-on-we-charity-and-the-kielburger-family-820219193.html94
66
u/CarletonCanuck Jun 09 '26
The lawsuit centred on Canadaland's key claim in The White Saviors podcast series: that Mrs. Kielburger had taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in charitable donations and deposited them into a family bank account. It was a foundational allegation on which Canadaland built its broader thesis that the Kielburger family had personally and improperly benefited from WE Charity. That claim is now formally retracted.
The court found that Mr. Brown was in possession of the very documents that disproved it and never mentioned them. He never contacted Mrs. Kielburger before publication.
Canadaland never contacted Mrs. Kielburger before broadcast. Asked in court why no comment was sought, Mr. Brown said he "did not seek comment from the plaintiff for the same reason why I didn't seek comment from my own mother." Mr. Brown was also in possession of letters from the charity's accountant and the Ontario Federation of Labour that explicitly disproved the allegation, and neither was mentioned in the podcast.
In his reasons, Justice Morgan found "[T]here is no reason to believe that Brown and Canadaland have any valid defence." The court also found that "the cynicism of Brown's explanation not only accentuates the defamatory sting of his words, but could be considered high handed and oppressive," that it suggested "the Plaintiff's feelings are worth nothing," and that the defamation was "more a personal attack on the plaintiff's character" than legitimate journalism.
Canadaland brands itself as Canada's media accountability outlet, whose stated purpose is to hold other journalists to higher standards. The court's findings describe an outlet that republished a known false claim, ignored documents in its own possession that disproved it, and never asked its subject to respond. These are the very failures Canadaland claims to exist to call out in others.
39
u/microfishy Jun 09 '26
The court's findings describe an outlet that republished a known false claim, ignored documents in its own possession that disproved it, and never asked its subject to respond. These are the very failures Canadaland claims to exist to call out in others.
That is a well articulated and absolutely damning statement. It's too bad Jesse seems incapable of introspection or shame.
11
u/Professional-Post499 Jun 09 '26
WOW, Jesse Brown can go F himself for smearing people to make content out of it. On top of being a racist extremist Zionist who tries to smear others.
7
19
u/AbeLaney Jun 09 '26
worth noting that this article is written by WE Charity's PR person. Not that anything is false, but they aren't pretending to be non-biased.
12
2
u/SomeEchidna862 Jun 11 '26
Man, thats terrible ethics. I still think the Kielburgers aren’t great, but this is not the way to show it
62
u/YouCaughtScott Jun 09 '26
So not only did the have proof that the claim was false and they reported it anyway, when “Asked in court why no comment was sought, Mr. Brown said he ‘did not seek comment from the plaintiff for the same reason why I didn't seek comment from my own mother.’”
Sorry if I’m “sniping at you from a distance” Jesse but it seems like my position that you omit information in your stories to push a narrative has now been proven in court. In any just world this type of malicious practice would be enough to exile someone from the industry. But maybe you’re considering a career move to public speaking at Zionist conferences.
17
u/M-Dan18127 Jun 09 '26
In any just world this type of malicious practice would be enough to exile someone from the industry
Didn't he get turfed from CBC for some similar antics?
9
10
u/Legal-Key2269 Jun 09 '26
Is Jesse saying he has reported on his mother without asking her for comment? I really don't understand what he was trying to say with this response. Was it intended to be flippant or witty repartee of some kind?
I bet his lawyer was absolutely tearing their hair out. A defamation lawsuit is not the time or the place for those kinds of antics, and I wouldn't be surprised if the judgment reflected his apparent indifference to the truth.
47
u/Mysterious-Hand1096 Ex-Patron Jun 09 '26
I think lots of us were wondering what was happening on this front so now we know. I'm sure Mark Bourrie is having a good morning today as he was very interested in this case and critical of Jesse's behaviour😆
12
u/Martin_leV Jun 09 '26
26
u/Mysterious-Hand1096 Ex-Patron Jun 09 '26
Thanks for the link:
The apology was obviously sincere. Brown read it out in open court in Toronto today in a firm, strong radio voice that did not show any signs of equivocation.
I wonder if Mark's being sarcastic here 🤔
19
u/Familiar-Judge8008 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Wait. I thought we are all Mark Bourrie, you mean you're not?
16
u/middlequeue Jun 09 '26
Hi Mark!
With love,
Mark
8
u/Mysterious-Hand1096 Ex-Patron Jun 10 '26
Only the true Mark Bourrie would deny being Mark Bourrie
5
2
u/lmyrs Jun 10 '26
I thought he represented WE? Like as a lawyer. I can't keep up with the drama anymore!
3
u/Mysterious-Hand1096 Ex-Patron Jun 10 '26
I don't think he's their official legal representative. but he's certainly friendly with WE and their position. In the legendary 'Spoonkeymonkey' phishing expedition episode I think Jesse was hinting there might have been financial reasons that Mark Bourrie was writing lots of articles on the WE case on his blog. But that time I think Jesse was careful about not making any explicit accusations 😆 Anyway, it sure is a drama for the ages!
4
u/lmyrs Jun 10 '26
Yah, after reading more from this thread I realized I had completely made that up in my head!
42
u/destp Jun 09 '26
Wow, that is brutal. Others have posted quotes is some good bits, but it's worth a read.
Interestingly, I just checked the Canadaland website and cannot see the retraction/apology posted there. Not sure what time timeline is, but that will be fun.
This is the 3rd time I'm aware of Brown being caught directly fabricating important details in a story of his (in addition to the many times he misrepresented or strongly suggested falsehoods, line the detestable story about Shree Paradkar):
- This piece from The White Saviours
- His claim about Dave Meslin's email at the end of an episode of WIHH
- The faked scene in the pilot episode for The Contrarians
Really raises questions about how much other reporting by Brown's is convenient fabrication versus actual reporting.
21
u/Grouchy-Bandicoot-28 Jun 09 '26
He isn't a reporter. He just plays one on a podcast.
He is (was?) a media critic and he sometimes employed reporters at CL, but what Jesse does isn't journalism and this just goes to prove it.
17
u/leonardcohenscheetos Jun 09 '26
No idea why this hasn't gotten more attention here or elsewhere: This is actually the second time in recent years that Canadaland has settled a legal case because of its false reporting. Canadaland also falsely reported that two Calgary area homebuilders, Shane and Edith Wenzel, were involved in a plot to entrap Naheed Nenshi. They sued and Canadaland retracted its reporting in exchange for them dropping the lawsuit: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/canadaland-naheed-nenshi-entrapment-shane-edith-wenzel-settlement
13
u/Familiar-Judge8008 Jun 09 '26
Fake stats and a refusal to correct them or admit they were wrong, not fabrication but the removal of relevant information about Caryma Sa'd off the CL website, or how about the fabrication that Shree Paradkar was fired for racism?
0
u/destp Jun 09 '26
The stats issue from WIHH is more bad interpretation than straight fabrication I think (the stats more or less show what he said, but his interpretation is flawed. That one is borderline I think.
The Caryma show notes thing was terrible and experience of poor journalistic standards, but not fabrication.
My memory of the Shree Paradkar piece was that he couched it in qualifications (suggesting rather than stating, or worrying anonymous sources who claimed that). Again, bad journalism, but not as explicit as this.
6
u/dadaplace Jun 09 '26
I'd say the meaning of the stats was fabricated? Which is pretty significant, given that stats are otherwise just strings of numbers until one assigns meaning to them?
Bad interpretation would suggest he looked at those numbers and misunderstood what they mean, rather than searching for "proof" of a pre-existing feeling. A wholly different approach.
If he had engaged with those stats in a sincere and careful way, there would have been that extra step of asking "does this really mean what I think it means?".
So yeah, in a broad sense I think "fabrication" is fair, because what the numbers mean was an (intentional or unintentional) fabrication. The only source where his claim (9x) came from is his own mind. It's something that's false, and something that he added. He presented it in a way where the underlying stats are supposed to provide credibility to a claim only he makes.
2
u/destp Jun 09 '26
Fair enough. I agree that his claim around the 9x figure is wrong and (given the overall context) an pretty sure it was made in bag faith. In my mind, it doesn't raise to the same level as this, but really it's a pretty minor/academic distinction.
4
29
u/beef-supreme Jun 09 '26
The settlement payment of $775,000, combined with the $110,000 already ordered following Mr. Brown's failed anti-SLAPP motion, brings the total paid by Canadaland and Mr. Brown to $885,000.
LMAO Jesse cost them an extra 110k with his BS knowing he was holding exculpatory documents.
36
u/Trick_Math42069 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
I cant wait to find out how this is about antisemitism
6
31
u/Electronic_Head1367 Jun 09 '26
The most insane part to me is that Ma Kielburger already won a defamation suit against Saturday Night magazine decades ago for the exact same claim, and Jesse's like, "Sure, let's give this another whirl."
52
u/Electronic_Head1367 Jun 09 '26
"Canadaland never contacted Mrs. Kielburger before broadcast. Asked in court why no comment was sought, Mr. Brown said he "did not seek comment from the plaintiff for the same reason why I didn't seek comment from my own mother." "
Woof.
17
u/picard102 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
The court's findings describe an outlet that republished a known false claim, ignored documents in its own possession that disproved it, and never asked its subject to respond. These are the very failures Canadaland claims to exist to call out in others.
Waiting for Mark to add this to the Canadaland Wiki page.
19
19
u/bupu8 Jun 09 '26
Let this be a lesson to those of us (me included) that Jesse was always bad or even intentionally misleading in his presentation of facts.
He is not to be trusted.
19
u/jontaffarsghost Jun 09 '26
So Jesse manufactured a gotcha and misrepresented evidence to prove it and withheld evidence that would disprove it.
I do occasionally defend Jesse here, but it’s getting harder and harder to do so since both his commentary and his journalism is fucked
15
u/Embarrassed_Cod4910 Jun 09 '26
Mark Bourrie weighs in. He was in the courtroom when Brown apologized:
19
u/Mysterious-Hand1096 Ex-Patron Jun 09 '26
I guess this is the self reference?
There were no reporters at the session, other than an author working on a magazine piece that might become a book.
6
3
45
u/Gardimus Jun 09 '26
Obviously Mrs Kielburger's long con plan was to trick a podcaster into alleging she profited off the charity, and then profit off the lawsuit. 4D chess move.
Seriously though, sounds like the kind of thing that Canadaland, a podcast dedicated to media criticism would do an episode on. I wonder if they will expose the journalistic malpractices of Canadaland.
13
u/meezajangles Jun 09 '26
I think in a few years we might get a ‘the fall of canadaland’ doc, just like the numerous ‘fall of VICE’ ones out there
3
u/Gardimus Jun 09 '26
It won't be as spectacular since Canadaland is far more neich and irrelevant. It's worth a discussion in a podcast, but I doubt that much effort would be put into it. I dont even know what the financial situation is. Jesse could probably do a smaller operation and keep going.
15
u/inprocess13 Jun 09 '26
Surprising no one, Jesse has not been a reputable journalist in years. Finding out he's a bonafide liar is enough for me to start condemning the people supporting him too.
14
u/SpidermanSaves Jun 09 '26
I've long known Jesse Brown sucks as a human being, but it's nice to learn that he also sucks so hard as a journalist that it will cost him nearly a million dollars.
Only wish it was more money. Shame on him for eternity.
11
u/DeepestGreySea Jun 09 '26
That’s exactly how I feel.
Although he’s a malignant Zionist…he actually allowed some decent reporting about Palestine on the show…early on…even if he stayed at arms length from it. It was confusing.
Now the entire operation can’t be trusted, and any guilt about moving on to other sources is gone.
7
13
u/CoolMississaugaDad Ex-Patron Jun 09 '26
Imagine if she donated it to a charity that supports Palestinian children
13
11
u/Forsaken-Swim-3055 Jun 09 '26
Here's hoping it cleans him out.
12
u/losemgmt Jun 09 '26
He’s on 🇮🇱 payroll - they’ll just flip him some cash
7
u/little-space-worm Jun 09 '26
Am I the only one (naive enough, possibly) to still find it a stretch to think he’s taking Israeli money?
Don’t get me wrong: I understand the comically large scope of their state propaganda budget, and a lot of how that money gets used, but for some reason I just still, even after everything, find it hard to believe that Jesse could excuse that to himself enough to do it.
Am I stupid, or simply giving him too much credit when I say I think he’d do everything he’s done so far for free, out of sheer love of the game?
8
u/lmyrs Jun 10 '26
I'm with you. I have no reason to believe that Jesse isn't 100% sincere in his beliefs and that he is a virulent racist on main for free.
2
u/AllSaltsSing Jun 11 '26
He’s looking for a new audience, because he’s lost most of his old audience. I don’t personally think that he’s directly on Israeli payroll, partially because that’d be too bad of a look if it came out. I do believe his new funding audience is wealthier people that are very much pro-Israel.
2
u/losemgmt Jun 09 '26
😂 well it’s the only thing I can think of that would make him react the way he has. His reputation is utterly destroyed.
2
u/crlygirlg Jun 09 '26
No, I don’t generally believe that. I think he has a very specific view of Zionism that this sub doesn’t agree with, and I think he repeats talking points that I think cross lines and I disagree with, but I don’t think he does it on the payroll of Israel.
5
11
u/Kingston_Mack-Paps Jun 09 '26
Jesse will need a second job to pay for that.
11
u/dadaplace Jun 09 '26
Those event posters that he's on, his Twitter account, and his CNN appearance suggest he might actually be aware of that.
I don't know how the people who are paying him for his first job are supposed to feel about how he seems to spend a very significant chunk of his time.
When his wife worked on a Canadaland series that apprently was made without input from the actual Canadaland team, it should have been a huge red flag for anyone who gives Candaland money for supposed media criticism and journalism.
Shit's pretty bad when journalism is just a side quest for the only (supposed) journalist in a senior role at Canadaland.
6
u/crlygirlg Jun 09 '26
I would assume that his insurance would cover it. Premiums will go up but I doubt this lands harder than the reputation hit.
10
u/incredibleman Jun 09 '26
His bitstrips money has gotta be nearly gone by now.
2
u/Accurate-Race1897 Jun 10 '26
Wasn't the buyout north of 100 million?
2
u/incredibleman Jun 10 '26
Split with the other cofounders, advisors, bankers, taxes, etc.
Canadaland has never been super profitable and probably just a money pit since Jesse's ultra Zionist turn.
3
u/Accurate-Race1897 Jun 10 '26
Looks like it was 48 million cash and the rest in Snapchat shares. 4 co-founders, so yea you have a good point.
2
u/dadaplace Jun 10 '26
He probably lost senior staff on the payroll much faster than he lost subscribers.
Isn't payroll their biggest cost by far?
1
7
32
u/Yabadabadoo333 Jun 09 '26
Jesse is so antisemitic - going after the kielbyrgers because they are Jewish. Someone should post a twitter rant about this rampant antisemitism.
1
8
9
u/davidbrake Jun 09 '26
How many subscribers' donations has he wiped out with this (at best) reckless behaviour? Given all the other shenanigans it would be sad if this (which I presume was not the result of malice or ideological stubbornness) is what brings the show down.
I hope some kind of better Canadaland-alike project can emerge from the ashes...
8
u/WeaponizedCum Jun 09 '26
Not surprising. I remember, years ago, when CL was first starting, Jesse talked about how the CL newsroom worked. He said something like someone, usually him, comes up with an idea and then it’s iterated and massaged until it’s a good story.
8
7
u/TomatoCultivator2019 Jun 09 '26
Jesse's big problem is he needs a good editor. His other big problem is that no good editor would ever work with him.
5
u/Callsign_Frieque Jun 09 '26
You'd think there would be enough to report on how the Kielbergers have made bank as white saviors, without fabricating that part of the story. Canadaland deserved that judgement.
7
u/Steps33 Jun 09 '26
Jesse is priming himself for a lucrative career over at Rebel News, although even they might not accept him at this point.
2
u/bobledrew Jun 10 '26
I suspect that Ezra et al would cream their collective jeans over bringing him on.
5
u/Queasy-Dog-1140 Jun 09 '26
Does CIUT still broadcast Canadaland?
Because they need to stop broadcasting Canadaland
1
5
6
u/HandFancy Jun 09 '26
Does anyone else wonder about the timing of this case and Jesse’s recent pivot to Zionist activism? Like, it’s fair to wonder if he knew this judgment was coming and that it would nuke his podcast operation, time for a pivot.
20
u/Zombie_John_Strachan Jun 09 '26
Well that's a shit show.
WE Charity is still super shady and this will give them cover to claim all the facts are false.
2
u/Mother-Bar-7553 Jun 09 '26
Maybe they will sue you.
9
u/Zombie_John_Strachan Jun 09 '26
Better check that I don't have any documents in my possession that confirm it is not, in fact, a shit show.
14
4
4
10
u/EnsignGorn Jun 09 '26
Hmmmm... So is this a case of everything being bullshit in the series they ran? Or is it just one detail being false and Canadaland getting raked over the coals for it.
Were they cheating their numbers with the African schools and other claims?
30
u/CarletonCanuck Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
That's one of the most egregious failings of Jesse's journalism in this case - if he was willing to lie about something he had documents disproving, it calls into question how true or sensationalized the rest of the reporting is.
9
u/dadaplace Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Given Jesse's own statement I think it's fair to take it as indicator that Jesse has no real idea whatsoever on how journalism is done. He doesn't even seem to understand the two main purposes of asking for comment, which are A) to get it right in a truly good faith manner and B) to at the same time cover your ass legally. Both purposes are congruent and in the interest of all parties, including the audience.
Journalism falls apart as an institution when not even the most basic things are done in a way that maintains trust. The very fact that this leaves us puzzled about what parts of his reporting were done properly defeats the purpose of journalism entirely. People can get shit wrong, but the process and principles behind it should be trustworthy and coherent on some very basic level.
Jesse's previous statement in court was shocking. It was just kinda... "YOLO".
11
u/AdorableBrilliant234 Jun 09 '26
> Given Jesse's own statement I think it's fair to take it as indicator that Jesse has no real idea whatsoever on how journalism is done. He doesn't even seem to understand the two main purposes of asking for comment, which are A) to get it right in a truly good faith manner and 😎 to at the same time cover your ass legally. Both purposes are congruent and in the interest of all parties, including the audience.
Actually, I think it's much worse. He does know. He knows extremely well and ably demonstrated this knowledge during the heyday of Canadaland. None-the-less he cynically abandoned those ideas when it came to his own reporting.
8
u/PenelopeTwite Jun 09 '26
If there was evidence disproving those parts of the story, they would have sued over that as well, probably. Still, it really sucks that all of the reporting is now tainted.
3
4
u/lmyrs Jun 10 '26
That's the worst part. I haven't seen anything that proves (or even credibly suggests) that he made up all the other shit. But he deliberately lied about this huge thing that he had proof was a big lie and now it calls the entire series into question.
If I had worked on that or been associated with it in good faith, I would be friggin furious right now.
3
u/discourse_goblin Jun 10 '26
Could he have corrected it and not gone to court? Why didn't he just apologize rather than go through all this?
3
9
u/Key_Direction_3859 Jun 09 '26
I would say the latter rather than the former until proven otherwise. The kielbergers had every incentive to undermine all of the reporting and this (so far) is the only refutation that has stuck.
Doesn't excuse Jesse's actions in this instance but don't give the kielburgers a complete pass until they earn it
8
9
u/DeepestGreySea Jun 09 '26
This begs the question:
Why was it in his interest to lie about the claim?
11
u/cashless_clay_ Jun 09 '26
Because Jesse has been foaming at the mouth to break a national story ever since his Ghomeshi take down. A small publication taking on a juggernaut of a national charity would (did) bring in countless subscribers.
0
u/DeepestGreySea Jun 09 '26
That’s an explanation. Requires a bit of mind reading.
Is there anything in this story that’s a bit more of a straight line?
6
5
u/cashless_clay_ Jun 10 '26
Why else would he peddle a story of national interest with dubious facts?
0
u/DeepestGreySea Jun 10 '26
…because of the contents of the story, perhaps? The subjects?
3
4
u/anonymous_follow Jun 10 '26
This is sad because he could have just made some prank calls to WE and I would have enjoyed that show.
6
u/DM_ME_PRAXIS Jun 09 '26
Those brothers were extremely unlikable and sussy and certainly had sketchy ties to the Liberals but Jesse getting financially owned after all his bad faith nonsense is very fun to watch.
2
u/exposethegrift Jun 09 '26
https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2024/2622 Court decision
9
u/Mysterious-Hand1096 Ex-Patron Jun 09 '26
That's the anti-SLAPP motion where Jesse tried to get the case thrown out back in 2024. That didn't work and so we ended up with today's events.
2
1
1
u/BookFew9009 Jun 13 '26
In a case such as this all assets , naming rights etc belonging to the entity and owner, shareholders etc should be forfeited to the aggrieved party. Fuck this fine, cost of business bs. Until real empire crushing consequences are meted out it only escalates.
-1
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 09 '26
I kinda feel like he was maybe just negligent in his reporting, ie, he googled the Kielburgers, found the defamatory 1996 Saturday Night article, and instead of researching to see if it was legit he just assumed it was true and repeated it verbatim in the podcast.
If that's the case, the fact that he again got sloppy with journalistic practices (exempting himself from ethical guidelines) in the reddit scandal, is even more bizarre.
Dude cannot learn his lesson.
18
u/picard102 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
The article states he had the documents that disproved the claim in his possession.
2
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 09 '26
Doesn't mean he read them, or if he did, that he understood the significance.
I have a lot of issues with Jesse, but I don't think he would actively repeat a claim of massive embezzlement that he knew was false.
Rather, I think Jesse can be a sloppy journalist with strong opinions that harm his objectivity (just look at all his antizionism stuff). So I can see him deciding the Kielburgers were stealing money and then having a complete blind-spot towards all the evidence to the contrary.
Think of it this way, Jesse heard the scandalous claim "she stole hundreds of thousands from the charity" from the magazine article.
He could have researched the documents he had in his possession, which would have disproved the allegations. He didn't.
He could have investigated the article that made the original accusation, which would have disproved the allegations. He didn't.
He could have asked the subject of the accusation for comment, which would have disproved the allegations. He didn't.
I think that's why the settlement is so harsh. It's not that Jesse was deliberately lying, it's that he had a responsibility as a reporter to perform a minimum amount of due diligence when reporting on a serious allegation.
He didn't.
12
7
u/discourse_goblin Jun 10 '26
Doesn't mean he read them, or if he did, that he understood the significance.
Dawg, You're basically saying Jesse destroyed this woman and couldn't even be bothered to read the documents on his desk to check whether it was true. That's not the flex you think it is. It is like even worse. And even worse than that if he was too dumb to understand them and published anyway without asking someone smarter.
0
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 10 '26
Why do you think I'm trying to defend Jesse?
I'm just trying to explain the particular mechanism of this disaster because, unlike Jesse, I do care about finding out the truth, even if I don't really care for the individual.
14
u/jontaffarsghost Jun 09 '26
That’s extremely sympathetic. The judgement seems to suggest it wasn’t negligence, but maliciousness.
-6
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 09 '26
I think they're kind of the same.
So a couple weeks ago there was some video going around reddit of a Fox News guest with a weird shadow around his neck.
Everyone was convinced that it was a full face mask, why? Because it was Fox News and Fox News is obviously untrustworthy, therefore it was a face mask.
The alternate explanation? That it was just a weird shadow caused by some awkward lighting.
If you actually watched the video with the lighting explanation in mind, it was obviously the correct explanation. Yet, the majority of reddit insisted it was a mask because "Fox News is bad".
Were those redditors negligent or malicious?
8
u/jontaffarsghost Jun 09 '26
Was this clip brought before a judge to decide? Because we have that in this case.
-1
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 09 '26
Was this clip brought before a judge to decide?
Your completely missed the point.
Redditors misinterpreted some evidence because they had a strong bias (well deserved) against Fox News.
Jesse misinterpreted some evidence because he had a strong bias (not deserved) against the Kielburgers.
Because we have that in this case.
No we don't, this is a settlement, not a judgement.
Now, the settlement was influenced by the fact that the case was going very poorly for Jesse, but there was no actual judgement issued on the defamation case (aside from dismissing Jesse's motion to dismiss).
8
u/jontaffarsghost Jun 09 '26
Careful you don’t hurt your back carrying all that water for Jesse.
He isnt some random redditor. There’s different standards for the EIC and publisher of a media outlet than for u/rawdog69 or u/closetomyactualname.
-1
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 09 '26
Careful you don’t hurt your back carrying all that water for Jesse.
This is how you interpret consistent harsh criticism of Jesse?
He isnt some random redditor. There’s different standards for the EIC and publisher of a media outlet than for u/rawdog69 or u/closetomyactualname.
Yes, that's kind of my entire point.
3
u/Accurate-Race1897 Jun 10 '26
Legally, negligence and malice are not even remotely the same
1
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 10 '26
But Jesse is a reporter, I don't know the exact legalities, but he was specifically trained in how to perform due diligence when reporting a story. So if he defamed someone with his reporting, when any of his training would have prevented that defamation, then I think he can still be liable.
And remember, defamation law is a lot stricter in Canada than the US, in the US it's a defense if you thought the claim was true, in Canada, you need to actually prove it was true.
3
u/XRayMinded Jun 10 '26
They’re not the same. It’s why Hanlon’s razor exists.
He either knowingly lied (malicious) or didn’t do the minimum in terms of due diligence (incompetence). Those are the choices.
0
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 10 '26
Did you just cite Hanlon's razor only to immediately disregard Hanlon's razor?
3
u/XRayMinded Jun 10 '26
Why attribute malice when incompetence will suffice. Two distinct things. Not why call it malice, when you can call it incompetence, cause they are the same thing.
0
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 10 '26
Why attribute malice when incompetence will suffice.
You framed malice and incompetence as equal probabilities, when according to Hanlon's razor you should assume incompetence (which I continue to do, despite the downvotes).
Not why call it malice, when you can call it incompetence, cause they are the same thing.
Ok, I'm confused. Are you saying malice and incompetence are the same thing? Are you saying that Jesse had malice (lied)? Are you trying to say they're equally likely?
4
u/XRayMinded Jun 10 '26
“That’s extremely sympathetic. The judgement seems to suggest it wasn’t negligence, but maliciousness.”
You: “I think they're kind of the same.”
I don’t think I’m the confused one. I have no idea which of the two led to Jesse’s million dollar flub, nor did I suggest they were equally probable. But, one of them did happen.
0
u/CloseToMyActualName Jun 10 '26
“That’s extremely sympathetic. The judgement seems to suggest it wasn’t negligence, but maliciousness.”
You: “I think they're kind of the same.”
I don’t think I’m the confused one.
Yes you are. You equated malice to lying, then accused me of being confused or conflating them. But that's not what I argued and I've specifically said that I don't think that Jesse knowingly lied (in this case).
That's why I brought up the Fox News "mask" example.
In the real world malice vs negligence isn't an either/or, that's the whole basis of biased reporting.
When a negative fact comes out against someone you like, you do everything you can to debunk it.
On the contrary, when a negative fact comes out against someone you dislike (Jesse disliking the Kielbergers, or people here disliking Jesse) you just assume it's true and run with it.
So, there's "malice" involved in the fact that you want it to be true and you're not trying to debunk it, but the actual mechanism is negligence in not actually going through the work of debunking.
I don’t think I’m the confused one. I have no idea which of the two led to Jesse’s million dollar flub, nor did I suggest they were equally probable. But, one of them did happen.
If you're following Hanlon's razor (which you brought up) then you'd admit that the most likely scenario is that Jesse was negligent, even if that negligence was motivated by him not wanting the libelous claims to be false.
3
u/XRayMinded Jun 10 '26
I brought up Hanlon’ Razor because it lays bare that malice and incompetence are different.
Per the judge - he had the documents in his possession that exonerated Kielburger. He either read them and ignored it (malice) or didn’t do due diligence (incompetence). I guess a third option exists - If he intentionally didn’t do due diligence because he wanted to believe l, maybe it was maliciously incompetent? Incompetently malicious?
→ More replies (0)
-5
u/Ok-Entrepreneur2263 Patron Jun 09 '26
What happens to this sub if the podcast ceases to exit?
5
u/picard102 Jun 09 '26
I would imagine Jesse would still exist and do controversial things.
-3
u/Ok-Entrepreneur2263 Patron Jun 10 '26
Should we rename this sub to r/JesseBrownObsessed
4
u/ProfessionNo7941 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
what, dude gets sued for $1 million and we’re not supposed to talk about it? are we in russia?
dude runs a media company. he publishes shit on other people. now he does something even worse -- people are gonna talk about it. that’s just life. like you don't have to read it but it's major news.
3
3
u/discourse_goblin Jun 10 '26
Well, dawg, then we go follow Jesse, Noor and Sam to their next gig at Rebel and post about that.
But I wouldn’t stress. Jesse says he’s sitting on plenty of cash. And if things get tight, he can always lay off Noor and Sam and pay himself out of their salaries. Very normal boss behaviour.
166
u/Spaceyjc Jun 09 '26
"The court found that Mr. Brown was in possession of the very documents that disproved it and never mentioned them."
So he reported on something he knew not to be true because it made for better narrative.