Latest news with #StevenBrill
The Australian
10-08-2025
- Entertainment
- The Australian
Camp Shame podcast review: Kelsey Snelling more culture documentary than true-crime investigation
No film has captured the unique corner of American culture occupied by fat camps like Heavyweights, released in 1995. Co-written by Judd Apatow – of The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Superbad fame – Heavyweights follows a rag-tag group of frankly average-sized kids on a mission to snatch their beloved camp from the clutches of a crazed fitness instructor played by Ben Stiller. According to director Steven Brill, who collaborated with Apatow on the Heavyweights screenplay, the fictional Camp Hope was inspired by the real Camp Shane – one of the longest-running weight-loss camps for kids and teens in the US. And according to revelations made in a new podcast series, some of the far-fetched antics depicted in the film may not have been too far off the mark. Camp Shame – a clever play on the camp's name – is hosted by journalist and former camp counsellor Kelsey Snelling. Her insider knowledge of the camp experience is the basis for an in-depth investigation into its complicated legacy. Across eight episodes, former 'Shaners' – the nickname bestowed on those who attended Camp Shane in its five decades – share the benefits and pitfalls of a camp built for them. On the one hand, it was an opportunity to enjoy a quintessential American summer experience away from schoolyard scrutiny. But, on the other, its commercial success was fertile ground for all manner of exploitation: financial, emotional and physical. 'These individuals recount experiences of being subjected to extreme diets, intense physical regimens and psychological tactics aimed at enforcing conformity to narrow beauty standards,' reads a press release on the iHeart website. The series is published within the iHeart True Crime channel, its logo prominently displayed on the show page on public streamers such as Apple Podcasts. I believe that sets a certain expectation about the content of the investigation – one that's never really met. Aside from a passing mention of grooming and some light fraud in the first half of the series, the really serious stuff isn't meaningfully addressed until Camp Shame's penultimate episode. In that episode, a former camper named Seth recalls his experience of allegedly being groomed and sexually assaulted at the camp during the 1980s. The six episodes it took to get there are fascinating and thorough, but I'm not convinced it's a cohesive true-crime narrative. As a genre, true crime already has to work harder than most to justify its existence – a hangover from the bad old days when stories were insensitively and sensationally told, our appetite for them insatiable, and when victims were barely given a second thought. We've come a long way since then and perhaps that's why the true-crime categorisation of Camp Shame feels disingenuous. Alleged victims such as Seth deserve to have their stories heard should they choose to tell them but what Camp Shame actually offers is a detailed exploration of the cultural forces that brought the camp and others like it into being. To that end, perhaps it would be more at home in the society and culture section of our podcast apps. Kristen Amiet is the producer of The Australian's daily news podcast The Front. Camp Shame is available now wherever you listen to podcasts.
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Yahoo
Chicago man says squatters occupied his home before a showing and wouldn't leave — here's what he did
Steven Brill was excited to list his freshly renovated Tinley Park, Illinois home for sale. But shortly after posting the listing, his real estate agent called him to report a startling discovery — a family of four, complete with two dogs, had already moved into Brill's home without permission. "I put the house on the market Monday evening, and then yesterday at 4 p.m., an agent went to go show the house for a showing," Brill explained to ABC 7 Chicago. "She said, 'Hey, we have a huge problem. We have squatters in the house.'" I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) Americans with upside-down car loans owe more money than ever before — and drivers can't keep up. Here are 3 ways to cut your monthly costs ASAP Despite seeing the deed, police initially couldn't help Brill. The unwelcome occupants claimed they had a lease, even producing paperwork when confronted by police. But the police were unable to remove the squatters and told Brill he'd need to go through the eviction process. In Illinois, that's a lengthy process that can take months. Here's what Brill did instead. Squatters often take advantage of legal ambiguities and exploit the eviction process, which tends to favor occupants once a property is occupied. In Illinois, only the sheriff can perform evictions — and they need a court order to do so, which makes it challenging for landlords to remove squatters. In Brill's case, the Tinley Park police initially deemed the provided lease credible enough not to intervene. "Though the lease is most likely invalid, that is not the officers' responsibility to determine. Evictions are a civil matter," said a spokesperson for the Tinley Park Police Department. Real estate attorney Mo Dadkhah explained why in a statement to ABC 7. "Typically, when police or a sheriff shows up, they'll say, 'we have an agreement with the landlord.' And at that point, the police officer doesn't know if this document is real. They can't throw someone out who could potentially be a tenant. So, they'll tell the landlord, 'you have to go through the eviction process,' which unfortunately in the Chicagoland area, is lengthy. It's long and time-consuming," Dadkhah said. Brill thought he would be forced to go through the eviction process, but a call to ABC 7 Chicago's I-Team finally provided relief. The I-Team reached out to the Tinley Park police, who agreed to do more investigating and found that the lease the family provided was invalid. The paperwork didn't have the correct address. With that information, the police were able to force the family to leave, and Brill is now back in his home. "I'm very glad I reached out to you guys. You were on it, jumped on it right away. I believe that calling you guys actually helped,' Brill told reporters. 'I feel like that lit a fire, and got everybody moving even faster.' Read more: Are you rich enough to join the top 1%? Here's the net worth you need to rank among America's wealthiest — plus 2 ways to build that first-class portfolio Squatters are a growing problem across the U.S., and several states are passing legislation to address the challenge. Situations like Brill's can quickly spiral into a costly burden from lost rental income, inability to sell, property damage and expensive legal fees. Landlords and homeowners can take several steps to protect their property, starting with securing vacant properties with surveillance cameras and motion-sensor lights. If you know your neighbors, make sure they're aware the home is vacant and ask them to contact you if anyone appears to be living there. Regularly check locks and entry points for damage, too. Sometimes, legitimate renters can turn into squatters. To limit your risk, implement a thorough screening process, including background and reference checks. Documenting your property's condition before listing or renting it can provide evidence for legal recourse if a squatter situation arises. For properties that are often vacant, like vacation or rental homes, it may be worth investing in squatter insurance plans. These specialized plans can cover lost revenue, legal expenses, court costs and property damage. Despite some experts saying it's a relatively rare occurrence, the cost of squatters can be high. Ultimately, awareness, vigilance and immediate action are critical to safeguarding your property and finances from the risk of squatting. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Protect your retirement savings with these 5 essential money moves — most of which you can complete in just minutes This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal Judge Tosses Defamation Lawsuit Against NewsGuard
This week, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and an internet watchdog organization. NewsGuard was founded by Gordon Crovitz, a former editor of The Wall Street Journal, and Steven Brill, an attorney who started Court TV; they serve as co-CEOs. The company employs journalists to assess and rate the reliability of news outlets on a scale of 0–100. The ratings—what it calls "nutrition reports"—are offered to advertisers and news aggregators but can also be displayed in search results for users who download NewsGuard's software. Consortium News is an online news outlet founded in 1995 to counteract what its founder deemed the mainstream media's "pattern of groupthink on issue after issue" and "the silliness and propaganda that had come to pervade American journalism." In 2022, NewsGuard assessed Consortium News' reliability and found it lacking: It rated the outlet 47.5/100 and said it "covers international politics from a left-wing, anti-U.S. perspective [and] has published false claims about the Ukraine-Russia war and other international conflicts." "Proceed with caution," NewsGuard advised readers. "This website fails to adhere to several basic journalistic standards." Anyone with a NewsGuard web browser extension would see a red flag attached to Consortium News links. In posts on the site, Consortium News Editor in Chief Joe Lauria strenuously denied the accusations at length. "If CN were really an 'anti-U.S.' website it would be happy to let things in the U.S. run its course towards steep decline," he wrote in December 2022. "It would welcome rather than criticize foreign and domestic policy decisions by U.S. leaders that are harming the nation." The following year, the Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ)—the nonprofit that publishes Consortium News—sued NewsGuard for defamation. "NewsGuard has identified no 'false content' but disputes the opinion of five CN commentaries on matters concerning Ukraine and Syria and because of such dispute, NewsGuard has labelled all 20,000-plus CN articles and videos, while reviewing only five of them, as purveying 'false content' and failing to meet minimum journalistic standards," the lawsuit claimed. "By placing the red flag warning…appended to works that NewsGuard has not read, NewsGuard has acted to defame, libel and slander CN's entire production and its writers, recklessly and without regard to the truth." In fairness, the articles NewsGuard did object to were doozies: "NewsGuard says Consortium News is publishing 'false content' because it has reported on a 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Kiev and on the pervasive influence of neo-Nazism in Ukraine," Lauria complained. "It objected to the word 'infested' to describe neo-Nazi presence in the Ukrainian government." Still, no matter how "objective" NewsGuard claims to be, it's ultimately giving its opinion of a site's reliability based upon its output—a clear act of First Amendment–protected speech. Other self-styled watchdogs seem to hold mixed views of Consortium News. Media Bias/Fact Check rates the site as having a "left bias" but notes it is "mostly factual" with "medium credibility." Ad Fontes Media, on the other hand, rates its bias "strong left" and finds it "unreliable" and "problematic." (As of this writing, Ad Fontes Media's most recently ranked Consortium News article is titled "Yes, Ukraine Started the War," which it ranked unreliable and biased toward the right.) CIJ later amended its lawsuit, adding the U.S. government as a defendant and claiming a violation of its First Amendment rights. From NewsGuard, it sought $13.6 million in punitive damages, plus unspecified compensatory damages. "In September 2021, the Department of Defense awarded NewsGuard a contract for its 'Misinformation Fingerprints' program in the amount of $749,387," per the amended complaint. As a result, "NewsGuard is paid to identify media organizations that provide information or reportage concerning Ukraine and Russia that is contrary to the viewpoints of the U.S., its intelligence agencies and U.S. allies." In a reply brief, NewsGuard contended it "did not rate Consortium News pursuant to its government contract." In a March 2023 email to independent journalist Matt Taibbi, NewsGuard co-CEO Crovitz said, "Our work for the Pentagon's Cyber Command is focused on the identification and analysis of information operations targeting the U.S. and its allies conducted by hostile governments." Incidentally, as Reason's Robby Soave wrote in 2023, the U.S. government contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Global Disinformation Index, a British organization that uses opaque methodology to list the news outlets most susceptible to disinformation in an attempt to dissuade advertisers; Reason was included on its list of the 10 "riskiest," along with right-wing outlets like The Federalist and The Daily Wire. (NewsGuard has given Reason a perfect score "for the highest adherence to journalistic practice.") This week, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York dismissed CIJ's lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. "To be sure, this litigation raises several hot-button issues regarding the metes and bounds of the First Amendment, state action, and defamation," Failla wrote. "But however provocative they may appear at first glance, these issues fall comfortably within settled law." Regarding the First Amendment claim, Failla wrote that CIJ's complaint "lacks sufficient allegations that the Government controlled NewsGuard's decision-making process and internal operations" and therefore "fails as a matter of law." Besides, she added, even if NewsGuard were a state actor and had acted as such, "Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation." As to the defamation claim, Failla wote, "the Court finds that the challenged statements are non-actionable expressions of opinion, which Plaintiff does not plausibly allege to be false. Moreover, even if the statements were otherwise actionable, Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that NewsGuard made these statements with actual malice, as required for public figures like NewsGuard." "We're grateful to the judge for finding what we always knew, which is that NewsGuard has a First Amendment right to provide ratings of websites and that as a private-sector journalistic company we have no state power or authority," Crovitz tells Reason in an emailed statement. NewsGuard has come under fire for its work in recent years, though most prominently from the right. In June 2024, Rep. James Comer (R–Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, "launched an investigation into the impact of NewsGuard on protected First Amendment speech and its potential to serve as a non-transparent agent of censorship campaigns." In November 2024, just days before President-elect Donald Trump announced that he would elevate Brendan Carr to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Carr sent a letter to the CEOs of four major tech companies "to obtain information about your work with one specific organization—the Orwellian named NewsGuard." Carr later said NewsGuard "operates for the purpose of censoring viewpoints that fall outside an approved narrative." ("Contrary to claims made in the hearings, we oppose any government involvement in rating news sources, and we also oppose government censorship," Crovitz said in his email to Taibbi.) At the time, Reason's Jacob Sullum called Carr's campaign against NewsGuard "legally dubious and empirically shaky." It's ironic, then, that in dismissing the lawsuit, Failla provided relief both to NewsGuard and to the government whose representatives have made NewsGuard a target of their own. The post Federal Judge Tosses Defamation Lawsuit Against NewsGuard appeared first on
