Introductory Video - How You Can Help Fight Ripoff Report

Video: EXPOSED: RipOffReport.com & Why It Appears Page 1 of Google 





If you would like to help join the fight against Ripoff Report, here's what you can do. Visit these groups and petitions against Ripoff Report and its abusive unethical practices of extortion, and make your voice heard. Together we can make a difference.

http://www.rexxfield.com/RipOffReport-com-Victims-Support-Group.php
http://www.facebook.com/RipOffReportRevolt
http://www.facebook.com/badforpeople
http://twitter.com/Rexxfield





Thursday, September 2, 2010

CAUGHT: Reporter DANIEL GLICK Exposed by Licensed Private Detective


BUSTED! JOURNALIST DANIEL GLICK EXPOSED BY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. "Because the truth isn't always profitable" - The Story Group Ethics Alert Author

By Michael Roberts of Rexxfield


PRIVATER INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ROBERTS’ RESPONDS TO INACCURATE ARTICLE, “I MARRIED A MURDERESS,” PUBLISHED ON APRIL 20, 2013 IN THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

"Although it is somewhat torturous to read, Michael's logical analysis of Glick's article is a masterpiece."

~JBS

How this response works:

Text displayed in BLACK or RED is the original story as published (after the article title below). The BLACK text is content that does not require a response; RED text represents Glick’s lies, spin or innuendo for which a response is demanded.

NOTE: To avoid confusion, the article excerpts are all italicized and indented just like this, with challenged excerpts in red.

Text displayed in BLUE express my response to each published lie.

This is just the first example of a lie by Reporter Daniel Glick. The comprehensive explanation is available here: Reporter Daniel Glick Embarrassed by logical colonoscopy of his inaccurate attack piece by private investigator.

Response to: “I MARRIED A MURDERESS” by Daniel Glick

Published Date April 20, 2013 Sydney Morning Herald

On the surface, it's a straightforward enough scenario: an Aussie dad locked in an international custody battle with his homicidal American ex-wife. But as Daniel Glick discovers, the truth is a whole lot murkier.

A combination of logical fallacies were used by journalist Daniel Glick in the above article summary as described below:

(1)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO
a.      APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo. The structure of the fallacious argument looks like this:

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.      Michael Roberts is somehow suspect, even though Daniel Glick does not make (or justify) a direct statement of accusation.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.      The innuendo has no supporting evidence except for other logical fallacies such as an appeal to authority, and guilt by association.
b.     Whereas, I implicitly told Daniel Glick during the interview that "the truth behind the story is incredibly convoluted". Daniel Glick's use of the word "discovers” implies that he is responsible for his revelations. Whereas, he did not discover the truth, he simply verified my contention that the case is convoluted (i.e. "Murkier").
c.      MOTIVE: Daniel Glick needs the reader and his editor to believe that he discovered something new to validate his status as an "Investigative Journalist" and to justify the fee paid to him for the story.

(2)  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
a.      AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it is argued that something is true; because someone of authority (like an investigative journalist) says it is true.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.      Daniel Glick says X is true
b.     Daniel Glick is an authoritative source
c.      So X must be true

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.      Daniel Glick and his Editor Ben Naparstek have, according to evidence published by peers, demonstrated a propensity to publish lies and what peers describe as “hatchet pieces” and/or “inaccurate attack pieces”

(3)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY
a.      AN ASSOCIATION FALLACY is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring, which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. It is sometimes referred to as guilt by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:
a.      Michael is associated with the Richter Murder case
b.     Michael is also associated with the Zuckerman case, which is “murky”
c.      Therefore, Michael’s character must be murky.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:
a.      What is true of one thing is not necessarily true of the other.               

1 comment:

  1. Ed Magedson of rip off report is helping and supporting stalkers, criminals and scammers to write and smear people's names. Blue systems International private investigations firm has alway suffered from cyberbullying since we defend the victims. http://nowpi.com/stalker/stalker-investigation/

    ReplyDelete