Very interesting article regarding a fellow wet shaver.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:45 pm

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1012

Kind of makes you wonder.

Post by **VinceFX** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:02 pm

Wow...very interesting Johnnie. By browsing that article I discovered another variation of the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... _2005apr19

As far as his wetshaving spot, I don't think he was on anyone's payroll. He didn't mention any retailer from what I recall, only the manufacturers of the products.

Post by **Sam** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:56 pm

u know, this is a merky area of journalism. guys in the financial industry being an example as well. ray posted over at wetshavers that he did not pay corey. i dont think that corey even got free stuff or if so, the costs were very negligble compared to the alleged $15,000.00.

advertising is big bucks and product placement as a cost of doing business has grown. there are guys that approach movies to get this done. look at rayban with the MIB shades, and how you can develop a whole line of products because people see it in the movies.

sam

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:56 pm

Makes you wonder....

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:21 am

Any Lawyers in the house? Please read.

http://groups.msn.com/WetShavers/offtop ... l_topics=0

As far as I know, this is public information. Are we not allowed to read it and share it with others? Seems like he should be suing the people who wrote the story, not the people who are reading it!

Whatever, I'm just a poor mexican.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:03 am

That's ridiculous. I would not think he could sue someone for POSTING A LINK TO A PUBLIC STORY.

Post by **Sam** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:30 am

Post by **Sam** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:47 am

and so that no one misunderstands: no one has said anything about corey's commenting on the shave stuff, which is all any of us were interested in. all that is said is, hey, look what others are saying about him on the net and elsewhere. i dont see where anyone mentioned his network appearance on nbc and his reviews. heck, i thought his reviews were spot on, and i have no idea if he paid for his shaving stuff or if he was allowed to use them and returned them or they were given to him gratis. what he said really came as no surprise to any of us that were in the biz before he reviewed the products: trumpers is good, a shave brush in badger is good, merkur razors are good. so to me, this ipod thing does not affect what i thought of his opinions. what the ipod issue does is shed light more on the journalism industry, and really it is unfortunate that corey is spotlighted. to me, that is the issue.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:31 am

Sam,

Great post on Wetshavers. I used to think very highly of Corey, but his threatening people like that, has made me totally lose respect for him.

Post by **Sam** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:49 am

now chris, how did you know it was me? lol

if that story was true, truth is an absolute defense to any allegation of slander or libel. additionally, proving damages is difficult. and lastly, under new york times vs. sullivan (i think that was the case i studied in law school), if he is a public figure, then he has an additional burden of proving malice.

has corey ever come to this forum? i wish he would come back to wetshavers. he was like chris fisher in some respects, cause he tried a whole bunch of stuff. and i could get their opinions on whether something may or may not work. that is why i like to read what joel writes. he has me wanting to try some more of charles products, like the soaps.

sometimes, people shoot themselves in the foot. if it were me, i would just continue to go about doing what i was doing. if nbc had no problems, then this will brew over. this was an issue with the industry well before that story ran.

sam

jdtx3302 · Post by **jdtx3302** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:55 pm

Here is what I think - I think that the news has turned into a show, just like any other. Some factual information actually gets put forth but a lot of the "news" they show is all for ratings, so they can get more money from companies to advertise their products. That is my two cents on this whole thing.

"The actual statements people make are filtered through reporters, who, as we know, are generally unexecutable in this country under Atkins v. Virginia (holding the death penalty for mentally retarded persons unconstitutional). " - I thought this quote may be appropriate to our general media.