UK Press Questions Higgins Video Trap

Thanks, Scaramouche, for the updates. Very interesting. After pouring over the strangely "edited" video with an electronic media expert, the Guardian's analyst sums up his take as:

"Did he throw a match? No. Did he agree to throw a match? No. He simply spoke, in response to much prompting after a great deal of alcohol (and he is no drinker), about how it would be possible to lose frames.

There wasn't an ounce of prima facie evidence against Higgins. It was the worst form of entrapment that has ruined his reputation and, quite possibly, may wreck his career."
 
And for those not familiar with the newspapers involved, The Guardian is infinately more reliable than The News of the World.
But even if this allegation is eventually shown to be a newpaper fabrication, the damage will have been done: the 'no smoke without fire' fallacy is pernicious and pervasive - and will hurt both Higgins and the game.
 
Maybe this needs to be bumped to later times of the day to illustrate to a wider audience the ongoing story here and continue to show more perspective.
 
It made for interesting reading, but in its own way this is almost as bad.

The article(s) are trying to create their own scandalous new narrative - "major paper uses sting and creative video editing to ruin perfectly honest player"

But there's a major problem, and a commenter on the article said it better than I could:

(user Darya)
That is very interesting, Nick.
But – there is one question.
Yes, the video is indeed heavily edited, but I wonder why didn’t Higgins and Mooney complain that everything is fabricated and their words were taken out of context? Instead of their rather lame explanation of “yes we’ve said it all, but we were scared”, which seems to imply that they are not protesting the authencity of the video.
How do you explain that?

Also here is a quote from John’s statement:
“In all honestly I became very worried at the way the conversation developed in Kiev. When it was suggested that I throw frames in return for large sums of money, I was really spooked. I just wanted to get out of the hotel and onto the plane home.

“I didn’t know if this was the Russian Mafia or who we were dealing with. At that stage I felt the best course of action was just to play along with these guys and get out of Russia”

Doesn’t it mean that he basically admits that he agreed to NotW’s proposal – or am I misunderstanding something?
Click to expand...
 
CreeDo said:
It made for interesting reading, but in its own way this is almost as bad.

The article(s) are trying to create their own scandalous new narrative - "major paper uses sting and creative video editing to ruin perfectly honest player"

But there's a major problem, and a commenter on the article said it better than I could:
Click to expand...

They can only say so much. I suspect they had already retained counsel at this point, and they would have already worked out their statement. They had to answer to what they said in the video, edited or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top