BeachGrit actually does its homework and finds a treasure trove of court documents!
Is Dane Reynolds suing Quiksilver? The easy answer is no, he is not. But in law there are no easy answers. The reality is a bit more complicated.
On September 21st 2015 Quik’s Miky Picon sent an email to Blair Marlin, Dane’s manager, spelling out their desire to renegotiate Dane’s contract, as well as extend it until 2020. It had previously been set to expire in 2017. (The potential new contract was not included in court docs, though it’s safe to assume it involved a pay cut, which, coupled with an extension, make it no surprise Dane decided to walk.)
Hi Blair,
I hope you are well.
I try to move as quick as possible for the benefits of everyone here..
We put in place that offer for Dane for the next 5 years. As I already mention, we really want to give our best offer straight a head and not trying to play any games, in the respect of Dane we put one strong offer and you guys give us an answer..
You can shop around and see what you guys will decide. This offer is still strong for the market, and after all those years in the team i hope he will take the right decision to stay with us.. We will let the totally Freedom to Dane to be Dane.. Shoot, surf, all the things he like to do.. We will support any project for the coming 5 years, we will have the budget on the side for that.
I really hope you will take in consideration all the past and looking to end Dane’s career with us.. We are very loyal to all our ambassador, today Tom, Mark all those legends are still under contract with us,. Dane will be the same.. He is our ambassador and part of the Family. If he think that Pierre doesn’t like him he is totally wrong, he is just waiting to build that relationship! We all love Dane we want Dane to stay, everyone want to work with him so hopefully we will continue..
If Dane does not accept our proposal, the next step would be to ask the court to `reject’ his agreement. Following our request, it is likely that the court will treat it as though we terminated the agreement.
Let me know if you have any questions..
We are waiting to get an answer before Nov 1st 2015. After that we will consider that you are not accepting our offer.
It will give you plenty of time and hopefully you will come back to us before with a positive return.
Blair I’m open to talk any day any time, i’m here always available for sharing and make this deal happen.
Thank you
Miky
An email exchange between Dane’s management and Quik heads ensued concerning altering a non-disparagement clause in the termination agreement, as well as reducing the time line regarding removal of Reynolds from Quiksilver promotional material.
From Scott Lindley at Wasserman,
Our only issue is that we need to remove the non-disparagement provision. Not because Dane intends to go around disparaging QS and its employees, but as you know, Dane has always tried to be an open book with his fans. This is one of his traits that makes him so appealing to everyone in the surf industry, including QS. We don’t want to have to quash his personality out of fear that he may cross a toe over the line somewhere.
and
It is really important to Dane to have the Internet content removed ASAP so I have moved that reference back to 2 weeks, rather than 1 month.
An agreement was reached, termination papers signed on November 5, 2015. It spelled out a schedule for removal of Dane’s likeness, and altered the “non-disparagement” clause to read, Each Party agrees that it shall not knowingly and/or intentionally slander or libel the other Party.
Noticeably absent from the termination agreement is any form of further payment to Reynolds, meaning he agreed to more or less walk away from his deal. Surprisingly, at no time do any of Dane’s representatives float the notion of Quik simply buying out the remainder of Dane’s contract. Or at least, not within any of the emails filed with the court.
From Quiksilver’s filing:
Nevertheless, on November 18, 2015, another lawyer, Joseph A. Eisenberg, filed proofs of claim on behalf of ten (10) different individuals, including Reynolds. Exhibit B. The proof of claim filed on Reynolds’ behalf (“Reynolds’ Claim”) was assigned Claim No. 616, and asserted a general unsecured claim in the approximate amount of $3.6 million for amounts allegedly due under the Sponsorship Agreement. Exhibit C.
Upon information and belief, neither Reynolds nor Lindley nor Wasserman informed Mr. Eisenberg that Quiksilver and Reynolds had executed the Termination Agreement before Mr. Eisenberg filed the Reynolds Claim. Regrettably, Quiksilver recently learned that Reynolds will not stand by the Termination Agreement and will not withdraw the Reynolds Claim, thereby necessitating this Motion.
The ten individuals mentioned in Eisenberg’s filing included, in addition to Reynolds: Nate Adams, Iika Backstrom, Travis Pastrana, Ken Block, Craig Andersen, Dara Howell, Kelia Moniz, Torah Bright, and Travis Rice.
As far as monies purportedly owed to Reynolds:
A. For each year from April 1, 2011 through and including October 31, 2017, Claimant is to receive Base Compensation in the amount of $291,666.67 per month. As of the Petition Date, Claimant had failed to receive the sum of $369,444.45, and thereafter Claimant failed to receive Base Compensation of $21,603.93 of such minimum guaranteed compensation. Accordingly, Claimant is entitled to Base Compensation due and to become due Claimant in the aggregate sum of $3,599,381.75.
B. Claimant is entitled to receive Incentive Compensation in amounts nod presently determinable. This Proof of Claim will be amended to include such amounts as and when determinable.
C. Claimant is entitled to receive Royalty Compensation equal to three per cent (3%) of Net Sales of products by Debtor and its affiliates bearing the name or likeness of Claimant. The amount of such Royalty Compensation is not presently determinable, and this Proof of Claim will be amended to include such amounts as and when determined.
So, what’s going on here?
During the course of a bankruptcy a company forfeits control over the type of agreements it can enter into without the court’s approval.
Had Dane accepted the termination agreement, but not filed, or had withdrawn, his claim there was a chance the bankruptcy court would not approve his termination agreement, but Dane would no longer have a claim on the balance of his contract. Furthermore, a point of contention during negotiations was Quiksilver’s ability to use Dane’s image in promotional material for one year post-termination, as specified in his original contract. It is possible, if unlikely, that Dane would see his image used to promote Quiksilver while not earning a dime. And in the case of bankruptcy proceedings creditors find themselves in a “speak now or forever hold your peace” type situation. If you don’t lay a claim to your cash you don’t see a cent.
In summary: Dane Reynolds has not filed a lawsuit against Quiksilver, but he has filed a claim against the company. Should the termination agreement be accepted it’s a near surety that said claim will be dismissed, and all parties will go about their business with no hard feelings.
If you’re interested in reading the termination agreement in its entirety you can see it here.
But, wait, there’s more!
In the course of Quiksilver’s filing they included the entirety of Dane’s contract. Interesting reading, coming at you in Part Two, later today.
you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it fish
And yet again Beach Grit spews more trash, takes a look at it, and puts a very nice “A for effort” medal on the steaming pile. Very nice of Mr. Parker to self-congratulate despite the fact that he’s done nothing more than reciprocate everything that was said in the Reuters article. Even after being called out for mindlessly echoing the un-vetted claims of SwellNet, Parker still decided not to address the one glaring incongruity here: Dane Reynolds claims no participation in any lawsuit against Quiksilver, and the one lawyer who is listed as the guy bringing the claim hasn’t been reached for comment.
Looks like I was right about all of the assumptions I originally wrote about last night, so why didn’t you guys actually address the one very real, very unexplained fact that Reynolds apparently claims no association with a lawsuit, in this case, one brought by Joseph A. Eisenberg? We already have Dane’s side of the story, now why don’t you compare it to the story of the guy who filed the suit? The editors and writers on this site should go take a class on journalistic ethics.
So, to quote from what I originally posted on Stab, then re-posted here last night:
…….
“A Termination agreement will list all claims that could potentially arise down the road. So, if Quik’s lawyers looked at Quik’s promo materials and saw that Dane might have a legitimate claim against them at some point, they would list that claim as one of the
terms of the termination agreement (or else risk liability for malpractice). All this means is that as soon as Dane signs, he can’t sue them down the road (even if he never intended to), which is the hit he’s willing to take to get out of the sponsorship deal. This $3.6
mil. “claim” might just relate to one of the conditions of his termination agreement, not to an actual lawsuit.
If a bankruptcy court had to go back and review all of Quik’s contracts, that would
definitely include Dane’s termination agreement, which means that the (hypothetical) claim is still on the table, until the court approves it. This doesn’t mean Dane would have a suit by default at all, it just shows how messy and public bankruptcies are.But, if Stab actually did their homework, they’d see that the actual release says that a lawyer from another firm (who hadn’t represented Dane during termination agreements), filed suit against Quik with Dane’s name listed as one of 10 claimants. The lawyer never responded for comment before the article was published, though. Hard to tell whether it’s a case of shitty journalism, or a case of greedy lawyering, but it’s probably safe to assume Dane’s telling the truth when he says he’s not suing Quiksilver.”
…….
So, big shocker, it turns out to be true that every agreement releasing future claims (against a company that has filed for bankruptcy) is not given effect until the bankruptcy court takes a look at it and approves it. This only suggests that, like I already highlighted, even though Dane and Quiksilver BOTH committed to it, the hypothetical claim is still on the table. Again, all this means is that Dane’s signature on the termination agreement therefore has no binding effect UNTIL THE COURT APPROVES IT!
So, Rory Parker, how about you take a step back and think about whether you’re addressing the right fucking questions before you publish shit like this?
Again, I quote from my post last night: “why on earth would Dane’s lawyers so confidently deny the existence of a dispute, and why in god’s name would Reuters jump to publish this
despite contradictory claims unless they could give evidence about the suit itself, especially since that other lawyer “was not immediately available for comment”? These are questions that anybody reporting on this matter should have been asking before publishing.”
Since it’s abundantly clear that you need this spelled out for you, here’s a few for starters:
1. Can non-affiliated parties file claims for damages on behalf of other parties against a company that has filed for bankruptcy (since, as I suggested, and as the motion articulates, the claims against said company, even ones that were released persuant to a termination agreement, remain at large until the court approves it)?
2. What would be a non-affiliated party’s motivation to file such a claim?
3. Why does the motion, signed by Joseph A. Eisenberg, of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchel, list c/o Wasserman in the claimant section?
4. Could Wasserman be bringing this claim instead of Reynolds himself? (and if so, does their statement that there’s no dispute between Dane and Quik necessarily contradict this)
5. MOST IMPORTANTLY, Did Dane Reynolds Hire Joseph A. Eisenberg, of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchel to challenge the validity of his termination agreement so that he could capitalize on Quiksilver’s bankruptcy filings and force them to pay what he was supposed to make according to his sponsorship deal?
Quiksilver’s April 26 motion simply argues in favor of enforcing the terms that Dane already agreed to in his termination agreement (something that would not have even been necessary except for the fact that they’re filing chapter 11, which opened all their contracts up to scrutiny). If you get a “Yes” answer to #1, and a “No” answer to #5, you have some ‘splainin’ to do. Be good boys and follow up.
Even if it turns out Dane is a big fat liar, you owe him a duty to clear the air here. A cheeky editor’s note in an article labeled “Reynolds Sues Quiksilver,” is hardly enough, and this article does jack shit to answer glaringly unanswered questions. Dane shouldn’t have to go on record to clear the air here just because a sham surf media blog echoed non-investigated claims of other outlets, and throw him center stage in a mess he didn’t sign up for. Admittedly, the fact that his name is listed as claimant is pretty damning, but it just as easily might mean nothing.
If it turns out someone sued on his behalf without requiring his approval, and in order to find this out, a journalist only had to make a couple of phone calls before publishing, that’s a pretty serious breach of journalistic ethics. The comments so far seem fairly unconcerned with this, though… so, uh, I guess keep fighting the good fight, boys.
As a side note, it’s hard to tell if Parker’s lawyer wife did a shitty job explaining this to him, or whether he’s unable to actually see the point. While I suspect it’s the latter, I can safely say I won’t be seeking her counsel in the near future.
Do your job and get answers to these questions…
You really need a different hobby. Try going outside, it’s nice out. If you want great legal and financial insights I recommend the financial times or similar, probably not a website called beach grit. Seriously.
Yea right bro my post was tight af.
Nobody read that shit.
I did, and it wasn’t tight af.
You lost me at reciprocate. Dost thou mean reiterate? Or possibly “copy”, for us without a phd in being an asshole?
Correction: reiterate.
Sorry, I wasn’t always a pedantic fuck…
I’m not doing any of that. Don’t want to, don’t need to, and you can’t make me.
Nah I feel you. Like, it’s not like there are any guiding ethical principles here… I mean I”m not a journalist, but I just found this on google.com: (esp. see sections on minimize harm)
http://www.spj.org/ethicsco…
I’ll answer:
1. No.
2. N/A
3. Because Mr. Eisenberg is counsel for Wasserman.
4. Yes and no. It’s not really a “claim” but more of just a “saving a place in the unsecured creditor line”. You will note that Dane’s “claim” is the only one challenged by Quiksilver – Wasserman and its counsel likely just threw that in to be safe.
You’re either insane or somehow involved here (maybe both). I notice the continued assertion that someone “unaffiliated with Dane” may have sued on Dane’s behalf. This didn’t happen. Mr. Eisenberg is a partner in the bankruptcy department at one of California’s most prominent law firms. He even appears to have successfully represented the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith’s old man. His firm is listed as counsel for Wasserman in numerous pleadings and service lists. The list of contracts at issue in this specific “claim” are all Wasserman clients. This is a simple matter and will go away soon because, as you suggest, it’s simply a matter of the court approving the termination agreement.
Was the “Dane is suing Quiksilver” article wrong? Yes. Should BG have posted it? Coming from a Reuters story, seems like it’s newsworthy, so yeah. Did Rory do a good job of explaining the issue? No, but bankruptcy law is a bitch and if you’re looking for any surf writer to properly summarize the proceedings you’ll be waiting forever. Did Rory do a good job of uncovering public documents that we’ve all been dying to see? Absolutely.
Right Right. Well where’s the answer to #5?
I guess you confused my comments and questions as a some sort of request for a crash-course in bankruptcy 101. Apparently Rory did as well. I don’t understand why you guys are seriously missing the point. Maybe it’s my fault, and my comments were too convoluted, so I’ll break it down a little further.
I only sequenced those questions as the natural progression of questions that should have come to a writer’s mind (this is assuming that they actually did the bare minimum and read the Reuters article). I found that sequence pretty natural because, well, that’s how they floated into my mind and I don’t even have ethical journalistic duties, lol. Going from questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 would ultimately lead to… that’s right… the one that I said was “Most Important”: #5! Go figure..
And since it’s clear that you also feel it’s not really that important to require journalists to get primary source information if and when it’s available, I’ll spell that out for you, too: Beach Grit had two opportunities to get primary sources here, and should have done so after the Reuters article never received comment from arguably the most important participant.
First, they could have telephoned Dane Reynolds. (Good job, Stab!)
Second, since the Reuters article read as follows: “Eisenberg was not immediately available for comment on Wednesday and
Wasserman told Reuters by email that ‘There is no ongoing issue or
dispute between the parties,'” …. Parker should have followed up with the ONE PERSON who (after Dane was quoted in Stab), hadn’t yet commented on it.
So while you don’t seem to care too much about how inaccurate the first article “Reynolds Sues Quiksilver” was, nor do you seem to think it’s an issue that media outlets can go around re-posting unchecked claims, you probably don’t have to worry about any negative consequences of that shotty work, because you don’t live a public life!
As evidenced by the fact that you use a pseudonym to hide your real name, you care about your privacy. You wouldn’t like unsubstantiated rumors being spread about you, but hey, since it’s not happening to you, and it’s just Dane Reynolds (who as well all know shouldn’t be entitled to live privately and peacefully), it’s all good!
And as far as your praise of Rory’s unearthing, and distribution of the legal documents, please refer to this: http://www.spj.org/ethicsco… (there’s a little section about legal documents as food for thought…)
So instead of trying to minimize the damage by titling a subsequent article something like “Actually, Dane might not be suing Quiksilver,” Rory gets a bunch of legal documents and then shits them all over the internet, making Dane look arguably worse. Solid move, bro.
Lawyers have ethical standards. Doctors. Accountants. Blog writers are pretty much just worried about libel laws. Unless you’re suggesting they’ve crossed the line there, you are barking up the wrong tree.
As for the answer to 5, it appears that Wasserman was acting on Dane’s behalf. Whether they were doing so under power of attorney, I don’t know, but that would be my guess. In any event, Eisenberg was clearly retained by and acting on behalf of Wasserman. Assuming Wasserman was Dane’s appointed rep, then technically yes, he did hire the firm, even if he didn’t know it.
Ummmmm…. so you’re right only so far as those other 3 professions have express, legal ethical standards. But the only reason Journalists don’t have that type of ethics requirement is because their profession is literally engaging in a constitutionally protected right: freedom of speech. Lawyers, Doctors and Accountants, only the other hand, have no fundamental right to practice. They have privileges that are only given if they are trained and certified according to imposed standards. A breach of expressly required ethical conduct would subject these privileges to forfeiture.
There are codes of journalistic ethics, though. So while your comparison is accurate, it also misses the point. That’s because a journalist who falls short of adhering to that code won’t automatically lose his license to write. Like… that’s just obvious, right? Anyway, I think libel suits are super hard to bring for good reason, but that’s not to say we should allow people in the media to wantonly disregard ethical duties.
Since libel is the only real remedy, it’s the public’s job to scrutinize Journalists for breach of
ethical standards, and to hold them accountable. That’s because their
job is to disseminate information, and we should be justified in relying
on it.
Where did you get the impression I’m a journalist?
I’ve always got an agenda. If you didn’t realize that you must not be paying attention.
Lol I’m legitimately so confused about what your agenda is… Care to let us know?
The only thing I can possibly deduce from your articles is that your agenda is to come across as some super brave, surfer-rebel-writer… But, there’s absolutely nothing on this site that could actually help you make that claim. But like I said, I don’t really read this trash, so I could be wrong, and am willing to change my opinion if you give me evidence of it..
Also, what’s your point? Every journalist has strong convictions and opinions because… well, because they’re humans, not robots. Just because you have one and express one doesn’t automatically disqualify you from the profession (again, see post about journo ethics… by adhering to those, you can pretty much safeguard against allegations of slanted reporting)…
what’s YOUR agenda? Do you think Rory is going to change because you told him to? Do you have these same discussions with the folks at TMZ?
I’m a regular guy who is also a surf fanatic. I usually just check sites to watch vids and rarely read the articles. I saw that one on Stab, about the suit, and though it was dog shit. So I wrote about it there.
Then someone said to check out beachgrit, which I did. And I wrote about it here.
And no I don’t have conversations with TMZ. For the most part, I think those people are evil fucks for invading people’s private lives. But what makes TMZ thrive is its viewership/readership, and particularly that their viewers would never send letters to the editor if they think TMZ has gone too far. People are unable to see celebrities as human beings, so they just sit around like roaches and wait for juicy stories.
If you’re OK with that same perception of surfers, then I guess that’s your right. But I guess MY agenda is to stand up for people who’s privacy is being pissed on through media lies.
I think I made some pretty good arguments to suggest change in policy, which are the same fucking arguments anybody would be taught in a journalism class. Let’s not pretend that Beachgrit has only 5 people checking in daily. They have some sort of influence, and that influence should be treated with respect.
Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it? Dane makes $3M a year by inviting people into his life. He doesn’t have to make videos, or run a website, or appear in ads. He also doesn’t need to show up at signings or contests, and doesn’t need to run an instagram account. But he does, and that makes him different than you and me. It seems naive to think that a guy who makes millions by putting himself out there for the world to see should get some sort of special handling when the info put out there might not be flattering.
Lol, that’s resoundingly NOT the rub. What about “people are unable to see celebrities as human beings,” suggests that I want special treatment for celebs? My point is that beachgrit should apply equal standards to everyone!
Now, while I my general disposition with respect to people who are incapable of understanding very basic points is “eehhhh… fuk em,” I would feel equally bad for you if beachgrit posted some untrue shit about you online without even calling you or your supposed lawyer to get your side of the story. (Although, I’ve gotta admit that I probably wouldn’t have been too enticed by a headline titled: “Random Internet Loser Who Still Lives With His Mother Sues Former Employer”) The same journalistic duties that I’m stressing should apply to Dane would obviously equally apply to you, you absolute brick!
Yea Dane does assume some sort of Risk, and his right to sue for defamation is weaker, accordingly. So guess what, you, as just an average loser, would receive special treatment compared to Dane in that situation. And, guess what!? I actually think that’s a good thing!
Still, I love how you frame Dane’s celebrity as just a choice thing! Like, oh yea dude you’re so noble for not making an instagram or a webpage that has millions of followers, cuz you could totally do that if you wanted to…(THIS IS BESIDES THE POINT PLEASE GOD DON’T FOCUS ON THIS IT’S TOTALLY RHETORICAL OMFG DON’T KEEP GOING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE PLZ I BEG YOU)
So all this is really “Beach Grit was mean to Dane,” is that it? Wah.
Nailed it!
…
Sorry, I was distracted over at Worldstarhiphop.com.
is that supposed to be a joke? that’s the most reasonable thing you’ve said in 2 days.
Like, dude. Give me a single reference to a single duty on that ethics page and tell me why you shouldn’t have to hold yourself to that standard… Lol I am so lost….
haha, get lost clown. This is Beach Grit, not the NY Times, and Rory’s no more a journalist than I am a pro surfer. He’s a guy writing shit for a surf website about surfing.
But if you look carefully at the website you keep posting, by its very language it aims to guild actions of the society’s MEMBERS, and does not purport to govern journalism in its entirety. I guess you can see if Rory wants to join and then pay his membership – maybe then he’ll try to meet those lofty ethical standards!
Lol dude you are so, so lost. By not purporting to “govern journalism” they’re just saying they have no legal authority to enforce their code… Which… um.. was already my point, right?
So can you at least give me a single reason why Rory Parker, or Beachgrit, should not have to adhere to any of those principles.
And since it’s mind-numbingly difficult to get anything across to you, let me just make clear that making a blanket comparison to NY times is actually not an argument at all. Like, can you at least attempt to articulate what about the two make them so distinct so far as the responsibilities imposed in dissemination information? And again, if you come at me with “Well, the NY times is read by millions of people, and it’s a serious news source” or some shit like that, i mean… I just don’t know how to react.
Yes, they are voluntary. They simply choose not to adhere. That you don’t like the answer doesn’t make it any less valid. Unless they’re doing something that’s actionable, there’s no issue.
http://www.theatlantic.com/…
According to 9th circuit… wheeeere it just so happens that Dane lives… aaaaand where it just so happens a lot of these readers are located, Bloggers ARE journalists…. aaand for the record, if Dane ever wanted to bring a defamation suit, Beachgrit would be fools to argue that they’re not journalists (extending “journalist” definition to bloggers effectively strengthens their protection against defamation suits).
Voluntary. Live with it. There’s no defamation here either. Live with it.
I mean if you want to get into actionable. If beachgrit actually chose not to, “seek truth and report it,” or “minimize harm” according to standards that they knew about, when they published an untrue article about someone (esp. when all they had to do was make a couple phone calls) It would be prettttttty easy to argue that fault was due to negligence… Dude you’re shot.
Dude and wtf are you even bringing up voluntary… We already covered the fact that there is no automatic legal obligation to live up to those standards which ummmmmm makes them voluntary, no?
negligence isn’t a relevant standard in libel cases involving public figures. But tell me where the harm to reputation is. That is relevant.
Nice… like how you went back, and realized that negligence IS part of it, then made an edit.. Agreed that harm to reputation would be hard here, but you could prob also argue that Dane’s not a public figure because that used to only apply to public officials. That one would be a tossup though.
Either way you’re missing the point. You should be holding these guys to higher standards. ANother slip could seriously fuck up someone’s reputation. Like, why would you not want the things you’re reading online to be accurate? I just don’t get it at all.
I was only going down this rabbit hole because you were dodging my questions. Take a look back at our exchange. Still waiting for an answer to question number 5, bro!
I answered number 5 a few posts ago. And no, negligence isn’t a part of it – the legal standard is malice (i.e., they knew the article was false or acted with reckless disregard). You could argue that Dane’s not a public figure, but like the rest of your arguments, you’d quickly lose. So we’re left with absolutely no chance of anything actionable, which leads me back to the conclusion that BeachGrit did nothing wrong.
But to your last point, I literally expect NOTHING from this website. Thats the same level of expectation my wife has for TMZ and Perez Hilton. But ultimately, Rory did a much better job of putting the “truth” out here for us than did Stab or the other surf sites. At least he bothered to follow up on the pleadings and set them out for discussion.
Since you seem to be on the inside here (I’m sure negation will tell me who you are later), I can understand why you’d be bummed that Dane’s contract is now out there for the world to see. Why don’t you just say that – it’s more compelling than nonsense about voluntary ethical standards and libel claims that clearly don’t exist.
1. You never really answered my question. “technically” suing is the same conclusion these websites made in the first place, which aren’t that even totally bad conclusions by themselves. Still, (even in the absence of the fact that there was a mismatch between Dane’s actual representation and the lawyer on the filings), this should have at least triggered a phone call to Mr. Reynolds before publishing because first of all, it looked unclear, and second it was sure to make him look bad. Stab actually wins that round.
2. I already agreed that about the difficulty of a libel case, so I’ll quote myself from a previous post: “I think libel suits are super hard to bring for good reason,
but that’s not to say we should allow people in the media to wantonly
disregard ethical duties.” So, just to re-iterate, just because their conduct might not reach the threshold of illegal defamation, that doesn’t mean they didn’t do something wrong. Sure, ethical standards, like moral standards, are generally just voluntary. Like, when I paddle into a crowded lineup and snake every wave, that doesn’t make me a criminal, it makes me a dick. I am free to do that if I want to. There’s good reason that other people would be pissed and collectively try to enforce some kind of ethical code on me – to restore order without having to involve the law!
3. I seriously doubt you expect literally nothing from this site, nor does your wife expect nothing from TMZ. I mean, you read these articles for surf-world information, because I assume you think Reilly, chas, Parker, all are very interested in it, and you trust that they put in at least a little work to get stories (otherwise you’d have heard it all before them). So, in the event that it turned out that every single one of these articles which paraded around as truth-digging, was in fact a total lie, and these guys were fucking with you just so you’d read, you’d probably stop coming here. Saying you expect NOTHING would make TMZ a bad equivalent. A good comparison is National Enquirer.
4. Rory Parker only did a little more digging after Stab made the right move and called Dane, (and maybe after seeing some comments calling B/S). They did NOT by any means do a better job, and even in their follow up article, they didn’t seek comment from Dane, Nor from Lawyers. ding ding ding primary sources ding ding…
5. I have absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I’m just a regular guy who just cares about privacy and truth, and I genuinely feel bad for Dane Reynolds for having to answer for this shit. Like, if someone just took the time to call him and ask what was up, this would have played out way differently. That’s not to say that all of these documents wouldn’t have seen the light of day, it’s just to say that people wouldn’t jump the gun to post one side of a contradictory story where peoples’ reputations are involved.
Ultimately, I think it’s insanely ironic that Beachgrit takes pride in being disconnected from the industry, which it feels enables its writers to post things that might ruffle feathers. Apparently, people are attracted to that idea, and this site has generated quite a readership. And while it’s a very good idea to challenge the status quo of the power relationship between the surf industry and the surf media, that doesn’t ever relinquish writers from the most basic duty to seek evidence to support their claims. Despite the respectable intent to subvert the industry-neutered surf media, shirking minimal responsibilities does nothing to achieve that end, and will end up making you worse than the industry pets you seek to skewer.
Speaking of actionable, try saying “prettttttty” aloud. Not on. Elongate those vowels instead next time, son. See you in small claims.
Yo true…. respect.
If you’re a lawyer, you’re a bad one. “Minimizing harm” and “seek[ing] truth” have nothing to do with actionable libel claims. And you have already acknowledged that negligence isn’t the standard. But put that aside – where was the falsity that damaged Dane’s reputation?
lol yes they do if it conscious choice oh god why am i even responding it was hypothetical anyway so it would depends on what revealed in discovery omg why am i following your dodges oh jesus that would demonstrate recklessness which is subjective standard wait still need to reinforce that this is hypothetical i wouldn’t bring suit in first place on principle oh god even more hypothetical imagine dane was in contract negotiations and company sees this and decides against signing him thinking too litigious and omg imagine beachgrit hadn’t been forced to re-check the accuracy since someone else (stab) did their job then false information could have percolated for days just like oh my fucking god why are you defending this shit lol.
nope. you’re still wrong on the intentional/reckless disregard standard unless you’re suggesting Rory knew there was no “lawsuit” and posted anyway. Is that what you’re doing?
would you look at that? He’s all growns up and he’s all grows up.
**looks at himself in mirror realizes son finally discovered what “if” meant in original bait nibble**
Density. Astonishing.
You’re the smartest guy you know, I’m sure.
To wrap this up, we agree that Rory is free to follow or not follow the ethics of journalism at his choosing (he’ll choose not to). We also agree that there’s no remedy to Dane here on the libel front.
Is there anything else?
The fact that you even thought I disputed this at all is absolutely astonishing. Good work. If your intention was to ensure I’d never post here again, you’ve succeeded. Well done.
Also, food for thought from that ethics page (I can understand why this is easy to miss, though, because it’s only RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU on the page underneath the preamble):
“It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.”
sadly for you cherboii, I suspect the only thing most Beachgritters really wanted was a look at Dane’s contract.
oh btw… “telephoned”? what the fuck is this, the 1950s?
realization. slowly. creeping. in… time. wasted. never. recovered. fuk.
take heart! Imagine the time Wiggolly’s Paddling Style has wasted here!
surfers are the worst writers. stay in school kids.
I have to say, for all the nonsense that goes on here, Beach Grit pulls the covers down like no other source in the surf biz. Can you imagine Chris Cote and TWS going into these details? Well done.
This Miky Picon guy, his English reads like a Nigerian scammer, and the dude is negotiating multimillion dollar contracts?
I think he’s French.
Doesn’t really matter. In what other world would that sort of email be acceptable when negotiating a $3M per year salary deal with a public company?
None. It’s absolutely atrocious and if it wasn’t surfing it would be almost unbelievable. A multi-million dollar contract negotiation written in what amounts to broken english. And was that letter intended to be persuasive??? Good god, Quiksilver could have plucked any used car salesman off the nearest lot to write that up and it would have been 10 times better.
I’m alittle flush in the cheeks that surfers are actually still playing a role in these sort of negotiations… Yeah Miky!
I’m guessing the actual share holders of Quiksilver’s stock wouldn’t share your enthusiasm.
theres no way Danes people abused a dumb frenchman over emails with an awful english translation. I thought Quik was smarter than that but i guess that is why they are filing for bankruptcy. thats too easy.
makes me think i can be an action sports agent too
I think you mean French-Nigerian.
Lol dude why do my posts keep disappearing? Beachgrit is the one taking the risk in publishing articles and allowing open feedback channels. Why not let open, honest criticisms push you to back up your claims? Sorry that feedback ends up biting you in the ass sometimes, and sorry that you can’t skate by relying on your readers to be dumb, disinterested surfers, but hopefully this back-and-forth dialogue will push you to one day reach your potential as a C grade journalist… Just a thought.
I agree. I’ve never removed a comment. Don’t have the privileges to do it even if I wanted. I’m sure I could get them, but I really don’t care.
So I don’t know what you’re talking about. I went surfing. Haven’t checked the comments in hours.
C grade journalist is pretty good for a surf writer. In fact, that would make him one of just a few.
Hold up Champ! Im the only one that actively removes comments, And I haven’t touched yours… But I did just check the Spam box, and as your comments were 5000 word essay’s and repeated 3 times the Disqus robots marked them as Spam. I just approved them now so should be up…
Thank you!
You might want to delete a couple if they are in-fact repeated?
I haven’t had the time to read them properly yet…
Done!
hey i think most of us comment at work so who’s the dummy
I’m getting paid ridiculous amounts to write this shit while waiting to be fired. Then I’ll start a new job and do it all over again. I’ve done it twice already in my time as the Prince of Ubatuba. It’s an absolute pleasure not giving a fuck where you work and putting the fear of god into your referees. If they do so much as say I was lazy to my next potential employer I’ll burn the place down.
I’ve seen some mid-level sponsorship agreements over the years and they’re insanely bad. It’s a wonder any of these companies stay in business at all.
they hire fuckin idiots…and people still wonder why theres no money in surf.
But, but, but.. Stab said he isn’t! http://stabmag.com/news/dan…
Intrigue! Is the old war horse secretly squeezing more cash out for his growing family while protecting his IDGAF image? Feud, feud, feud!