Firechyld
8.2K posts
JURY HAS FOUND IN FAVOR OF AFROMAN, FULLY. #AFROMANTRIAL
Attorney - "But we all know that's not true...correct?" Randy (son of a bitch) Walters - "I don't know"
"Creators can make unsubstantiated claims like that, but it's a fact that the contracts did prohibit disclosure" Then quote it. You said during our conversation that it was your editoral choice to remove the quotes/references. - Yes, it was an editorial choice when to and when to not quote from the source materials. I'm sorry you are hung up on wanting to see source materials, but that's not how journalism works. If anything in our story was false, WIRED would correct the story. "They're outlined in the article. Read it again." They're not. It's a really sparse and poorly put together article. - It's in there, I am sure you can find it "They were being paid by 1630 fund (see above answer on disclosure)" The 1630 fund is a fiscal sponsor, they don't contribute money directly. Do you have any proof of them paying creators in Chorus? Post it. " - The proof is our story. We explain that the creators were paid by 1630, which is backed up our source material: interviews, contract copies, internal emails/messages, and more. The whole reason several creators came to me/WIRED with the story was bc they wanted public disclosure about the program, which was prohibited by the contract." If multiple creators came to wired and said they wanted public disclosure, have them post their contract or publicly confirm your statements, then? - They came to me/WIRED because they don't want to out themselves as sources publicly. Per our sources, Chorus was threatening to sue anyone who they discovered spoke to the media. This is why sources in many stories speak on the condition that they're not named.
