5 ms·

So far AFAIK this claim isn’t repeated by any reputable publishers. E.g. Associated Press and LA Times both published 2.5 hours after PEOPLE and did not make th

by enduser 10mo ago

So far AFAIK this claim isn’t repeated by any reputable publishers. E.g. Associated Press and LA Times both published 2.5 hours after PEOPLE and did not make this claim.

benzible 10mo ago
Here's another independent report: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/rob-reiner-ldead-obituary-1235483876/ https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/rob-rei... Also, People is credible for this type of reporting. They're owned by a major company, IAC, and they don't have a history of reckless reporting or shady practices like catch-and-kill a la the National Enquirer. They likely just have sources that other news outlets don't.
- enduser 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - benzible 10mo ago
    > Thanks. I’ve been following unfolding coverage at https://particle.news/share/lRL-d https://particle.news/share/lRL-d but hadn’t caught the Rolling Stone article. I've been following it on my own news app as well, just didn't share a link to it as I thought it might be a bit ghoulish to piggyback on an unspeakably tragic celebrity death for a bit of self-promotion. Also, frustrating that people have somehow landed in a place where they either trust nothing or trust everything, with no ability to calibrate based on the actual track record and incentive structure of the source. People magazine attributing something to "multiple sources" in a case where they, and their billionaire owner Barry Diller, would face massive defamation liability if wrong is categorically different from, say, an anonymous Reddit post or a tweet. The LAPD "no person of interest" thing is also just standard procedure. Cops don't publicly name suspects until charges are filed. Totally normal that the official process is slower than journalism.
    - eaurouge 10mo ago
      What’s your news app?
      - mcny 10mo ago
        tech meme and memeorandum for me
      - benzible 10mo ago
        I don’t have a news app. That was a maybe too subtle bit of sarcasm aimed at the guy I was responding too who is apparently the creator of a news app called Particle, and who mentioned that he is following the news of these deaths on Particle without mentioning his connection to it. Update: Looks like the parent post has been flagged. I thought that might happen (or the author might edit it) which is why I quoted the original.
    - pjc50 10mo ago
      Worse, people take "fairly reliable mainstream news source makes mistake or publishes propaganda op-ed" as a pretext to jump to sources that are way, way less reliable but publish things they want to hear.
    - MangoToupe 10mo ago
      > People magazine attributing something to "multiple sources" in a case where they, and their billionaire owner Barry Diller, would face massive defamation liability if wrong is categorically different from, say, an anonymous Reddit post or a tweet. They could simply name their source(s) if they wanted to be taken as credible. I don't think a brand has any inherent value and hasn't for many decades. The nytimes helped cheney launder fraudulent evidence for the invasion of iraq for chrissake. Fwiw, maybe it is true. But reliable truth sailed a long time ago.
      - cogman10 10mo ago
        It's absolutely defamation if they have no or unreliable sources and something Reiner's son could sue over. They are a big enough publication to know the risks here. They'll reveal those sources to a judge if it comes to it. They won't reveal them to the public because nobody wants to have their name attached to something like this. It could still be false, but I somewhat doubt it is.
  - alsetmusic 10mo ago
    > The Independent reported 10 minutes ago that LAPD is still claiming no person of interest in this case. > > Hard to know what’s real and what’s gossip. I'm sorry, but it's People. I'm not a celeb gossip, but I don't recall them running bs headlines on this level. C'mon.
- TMWNN 10mo ago
  >they don't have a history of reckless reporting or shady practices like catch-and-kill a la the National Enquirer TIL that the 'National Enquirer' was the most reliable news source during the O. J. Simpson murder trial. According to a Harvard law professor who gave the media an overall failing grade, the 'Enquirer' was the only publication that thoroughly followed every rumor and talked to every witness. <https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6n1kz5/til_that_the_national_enquirer_was_the_most/ https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6n1kz5/til_th...>
  - philistine 10mo ago
    That was an eternity ago. They’re no longer worth anything in terms of reputation.
    - Fricken 10mo ago
      They were never worth anything in terms of reputation, hence the "TIL"
  - pge 10mo ago
    The Enquirer also broke the John Edwards (vice-presidential candidate) affair story well before mainstream media picked it up. That doesn't make up for the reckless and sometimes completely nutso stories they print, but it is a reminder that they aren't always wrong.
  - sigwinch 10mo ago
    That’s going a little far, I think. The Enquirer was mentioned during jury selection and not for facts. When the defense wanted to leak a story, they went to the New Yorker.
nephihaha 10mo ago
The claim is that there was no sign of forced entry, implying whoever did it was already in the home.
netsharc 10mo ago
Speaking of media, I found it really useless that before the names were published, the majority of news articles just said "78 and 68 year old persons found dead [RIP] at Rob Reiner's home", but I had to search for his and his wife's age to correlate that it's him and his wife. I think only 1 news article said, "authorities have not said the names, but those are the ages of Rob Reiner and his wife".
- oneeyedpigeon 10mo ago
  I've always found it weird that the police cannot name them, but they can give out clues, even clues that are, to all intents and purposes, naming them.
  - byronic 10mo ago
    In the interest of preserving anonymity, let's call him Rob R. No, er, wait, let's do R Reiner. There, that should do it
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - philistine 10mo ago
    That's not what was happening there. They weren't hiding the identity, it's that they had not positively identified the victims. The cops talked to journalists very fast.
    - rafram 10mo ago
      They hadn't positively identified them, but they knew exactly how old they were? It seems much more likely that they had identified them, but they hadn't gone through the full set of procedures (notifying family members, etc.) that are required before officially releasing names.
      - netsharc 10mo ago
schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
In a remarkable coincidence, the Reiners' son has just been booked on suspicion of murder: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/director-rob-reiners-son-booked-on-suspicion-of-murder/3816086/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/director-rob-re... Maybe the cops were reading People in between scarfing down donuts and chain-smoking Marlboros.

by enduser 10mo ago

So far AFAIK this claim isn’t repeated by any reputable publishers. E.g. Associated Press and LA Times both published 2.5 hours after PEOPLE and did not make this claim.

benzible 10mo ago

Here's another independent report: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/rob-reiner-ldead-obituary-1235483876/ https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/rob-rei... Also, People is credible for this type of reporting. They're owned by a major company, IAC, and they don't have a history of reckless reporting or shady practices like catch-and-kill a la the National Enquirer. They likely just have sources that other news outlets don't.

enduser 10mo ago
[flagged]
- benzible 10mo ago
  > Thanks. I’ve been following unfolding coverage at https://particle.news/share/lRL-d https://particle.news/share/lRL-d but hadn’t caught the Rolling Stone article. I've been following it on my own news app as well, just didn't share a link to it as I thought it might be a bit ghoulish to piggyback on an unspeakably tragic celebrity death for a bit of self-promotion. Also, frustrating that people have somehow landed in a place where they either trust nothing or trust everything, with no ability to calibrate based on the actual track record and incentive structure of the source. People magazine attributing something to "multiple sources" in a case where they, and their billionaire owner Barry Diller, would face massive defamation liability if wrong is categorically different from, say, an anonymous Reddit post or a tweet. The LAPD "no person of interest" thing is also just standard procedure. Cops don't publicly name suspects until charges are filed. Totally normal that the official process is slower than journalism.
  - eaurouge 10mo ago
    What’s your news app?
    - mcny 10mo ago
      tech meme and memeorandum for me
    - benzible 10mo ago
      I don’t have a news app. That was a maybe too subtle bit of sarcasm aimed at the guy I was responding too who is apparently the creator of a news app called Particle, and who mentioned that he is following the news of these deaths on Particle without mentioning his connection to it. Update: Looks like the parent post has been flagged. I thought that might happen (or the author might edit it) which is why I quoted the original.
  - pjc50 10mo ago
    Worse, people take "fairly reliable mainstream news source makes mistake or publishes propaganda op-ed" as a pretext to jump to sources that are way, way less reliable but publish things they want to hear.
  - MangoToupe 10mo ago
    > People magazine attributing something to "multiple sources" in a case where they, and their billionaire owner Barry Diller, would face massive defamation liability if wrong is categorically different from, say, an anonymous Reddit post or a tweet. They could simply name their source(s) if they wanted to be taken as credible. I don't think a brand has any inherent value and hasn't for many decades. The nytimes helped cheney launder fraudulent evidence for the invasion of iraq for chrissake. Fwiw, maybe it is true. But reliable truth sailed a long time ago.
    - cogman10 10mo ago
      It's absolutely defamation if they have no or unreliable sources and something Reiner's son could sue over. They are a big enough publication to know the risks here. They'll reveal those sources to a judge if it comes to it. They won't reveal them to the public because nobody wants to have their name attached to something like this. It could still be false, but I somewhat doubt it is.
- alsetmusic 10mo ago
  > The Independent reported 10 minutes ago that LAPD is still claiming no person of interest in this case. > > Hard to know what’s real and what’s gossip. I'm sorry, but it's People. I'm not a celeb gossip, but I don't recall them running bs headlines on this level. C'mon.
TMWNN 10mo ago
>they don't have a history of reckless reporting or shady practices like catch-and-kill a la the National Enquirer TIL that the 'National Enquirer' was the most reliable news source during the O. J. Simpson murder trial. According to a Harvard law professor who gave the media an overall failing grade, the 'Enquirer' was the only publication that thoroughly followed every rumor and talked to every witness. <https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6n1kz5/til_that_the_national_enquirer_was_the_most/ https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6n1kz5/til_th...>
- philistine 10mo ago
  That was an eternity ago. They’re no longer worth anything in terms of reputation.
  - Fricken 10mo ago
    They were never worth anything in terms of reputation, hence the "TIL"
- pge 10mo ago
  The Enquirer also broke the John Edwards (vice-presidential candidate) affair story well before mainstream media picked it up. That doesn't make up for the reckless and sometimes completely nutso stories they print, but it is a reminder that they aren't always wrong.
- sigwinch 10mo ago
  That’s going a little far, I think. The Enquirer was mentioned during jury selection and not for facts. When the defense wanted to leak a story, they went to the New Yorker.

nephihaha 10mo ago

The claim is that there was no sign of forced entry, implying whoever did it was already in the home.

netsharc 10mo ago

Speaking of media, I found it really useless that before the names were published, the majority of news articles just said "78 and 68 year old persons found dead [RIP] at Rob Reiner's home", but I had to search for his and his wife's age to correlate that it's him and his wife. I think only 1 news article said, "authorities have not said the names, but those are the ages of Rob Reiner and his wife".

oneeyedpigeon 10mo ago
I've always found it weird that the police cannot name them, but they can give out clues, even clues that are, to all intents and purposes, naming them.
- byronic 10mo ago
  In the interest of preserving anonymity, let's call him Rob R. No, er, wait, let's do R Reiner. There, that should do it
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- philistine 10mo ago
  That's not what was happening there. They weren't hiding the identity, it's that they had not positively identified the victims. The cops talked to journalists very fast.
  - rafram 10mo ago
    They hadn't positively identified them, but they knew exactly how old they were? It seems much more likely that they had identified them, but they hadn't gone through the full set of procedures (notifying family members, etc.) that are required before officially releasing names.
    - netsharc 10mo ago

schmuckonwheels 10mo ago

In a remarkable coincidence, the Reiners' son has just been booked on suspicion of murder: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/director-rob-reiners-son-booked-on-suspicion-of-murder/3816086/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/director-rob-re... Maybe the cops were reading People in between scarfing down donuts and chain-smoking Marlboros.