Correcting Netflix 1: Omitted - Netfix’s Challenges In The Media World Makes For Suspect Messenger
Update Jan 2022: Netflix stock resumed good growth but plunged over 20% in 2018 and again in 2019 - and also right now. It is a volatile stock, in stiff competition, and does not weather bad news well.
Netflix Stock Plunge In 2016
Check the stockchart below. Netflix stock has lost more than 1/5 of its value this year.
That’s around $10 billion. Stockbrokers are issuing sell-the-stock recommendations.
Axiom Capital’s Victor Anthony this morning initiated coverage of the stock with a Sell rating, and an $80 price target, based on concerns about its “super-rich multiple” against “rising competition, diminishing pricing power, and rising content costs.” “Netflix has enjoyed premium valuations for rapid subscriber growth,” he writes, “but subscriber growth is slowing.”
Owww. How timely if the documentary “Amanda Knox” burnishes Netflix’s reputation!
Obviously it would help Netflix a lot if everyone who really knows the case declares the report to be even-handed and objective - and especially if it doesnt leave key facts on the cutting-room floor.
The movie premiers tonight in Toronto.
From the reporting in the next few days, we will gain an increasing sense of the value and slants of its content. Ergon hopes to offer us a review in about a week’s time, and of course at the end of this month we can all shell out to watch it.
If the Netflix report has indeed left anything out we will start building an online list of these omissions.
Maybe the report wont, of course.
But all non-Italian media, virtually without exception, has left things out - hundreds and hundreds of points, points that have almost 100% of Italians seeing Knox and Sollecito as guilty.
This was one example. This is another.
Non-Italian media incessantly repeats the notion that Knox’s interrogation on 5-6 November scared her into fingering Patrick.
Those stories leave out that really there wasnt even an interrogation as defined under Italian law. Knox was in fact amiably building a list of vistors with names and phone numbers.
It leaves out that Sollecito tossed her under the bus that night and many, many times later.
It leaves out that Knox herself demanded to make both the written statements she signed that night. It leaves out that in both statements she said she went out from Sollecito’s house on the night. So much for several of her numerous alibis claiming she didnt.
Already we count two dead canaries in the Netflix coalmine.
1) Ergon has just posted this statement in the thread under the previous post - itself a pretty awkward post for Knox apologists.
Press release from the Meredith Kercher Wiki re the Netflix documentary:
“For The Press. September 09, 2016: The Netflix documentary “Amanda Knox” opens at the Toronto International Film Festival today Amanda Knox. While claiming to be a balanced perspective its producer Stephen Robert Morse had made inflammatory reports about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (who was interviewed by the film makers) of “having been convicted of crimes” (he was acquitted) and being “a power-hungry prosecutor running the show”. Requests to producer Mette Heide on August 13, 2016 for comment about his bias were not replied to by this time.”
Well, Dr Mignini was never “running the show”. In fact a whole row of judges, up to and including five Supreme Court judges, was always calling the shots though to trial, and more subsequently.
On 17 December 2007 Dr Mignini kindly gave Knox a UNIQUE opportunity to clear herself (she dismally failed it). There was a very compelling trial, and a unanimous trial jury, and a 400 page verdict report - which barely mentions Dr Mignini.
And in a fiery repudiation Cassation agreed with the appeal court in reversing his conviction (for cops planting a bug a judge had in fact approved), and roasted both the Florence trial judge and prosecutor who since have fared badly. Meanwhile Dr Mignini is expected to be the next Prosecutor-General of Umbria.
2) This is from a film review today by Seattle’s Moira Macdonald
Mostly without editorializing [the filmmakers Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn] just let the witnesses speak “” among them the DNA experts whose eventual testimony led to Knox and Sollecito’s eventual exoneration “” and I suspect some members of the lingering Amanda-is-guilty camp might revise their opinions by the end of the running time.
The “independent” Hellmann DNA consultants Conti and Vecchiotti? Who were roasted by the Carabinieri labs, the Florence Appeal Court, and the First Chambers of the Supreme Court for bias and extremely sloppy methods? See the image at botttom.
Dear Netflix: You really chained your future to Amanda Knox, and to that very discredited pair? You hired the crackpot Stephen Robert Morse to guide you? You didnt do any due diligence? You piled on more anti-Italy bigotry?
Poor Netflix. At first glance, it seems the stockbrokers’ advice could be smart advice.
Top curve: S&P 500 stockmarket index 2016. Bottom curve: Netflix’s stock plunge this year.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/09/16 at 10:22 PM in
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
The curse of Amanda Knox may well hit Netflix.
No one has any escape from this toxic person.
Posted by Deathfish on 09/11/16 at 01:28 AM | #
I haven’t seen the documentary but I ask myself, what is the point of it?
I can understand doing a documentary after the release to explain clearly and set down exactly what happened. But they have had every opportunity to do so and if they held any information back then why?
Posted by DavidB on 09/11/16 at 08:17 AM | #
DavidB
“what is the point of it?” See the graph at the top. As always, its driven by money.
Two key fact you can bet are left out are (1) the money spent on PR and (2) the money gained from panhandling, media ads, media bribes to meet the pair, book publishing.
On one side upward of $5 million has been spent and gained back (plus now the cost of and profits from this movie) to proving a framing and demonizing Italy.
On the other side? Zero.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/11/16 at 09:35 AM | #
On the basis of reviews that read like this by Kate Erbland it seems accurate to head our postings from now on “the Netflix innocence fraud”.
http://www.indiewire.com/2016/09/amanda-knox-review-netflix-documentary-tiff-1201725361/
While Knox is undoubtedly the star of the film, and she’s also one of the few people who comes off not looking absolutely bonkers. Her behavior, once seen as “strange,†now seems more understandable than ever. From the story-hungry Pisa to the Sherlock Holmes-addicted Mignini, “Amanda Knox†shines unflattering lights on nearly everyone but Knox (even a phone call with one of Knox’s college friends makes the pal look like the least empathetic person on the planet), who looks alternately grateful to tell her side of the story and absolutely sick that this is her legacy.
“shines unflattering lights on nearly everyone but Knox”?
That sounds like Knox’s own book.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/11/16 at 09:45 AM | #
How about “....Cherry-Picks Brazen Selections & Omissions of Facts to read as if the obviously guilty Knox & Sollecito are really innocent victims.”?
Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/11/16 at 10:57 AM | #
Tks Cardiol!
I emailed that reviewer. My experience is some turn easily and some dont. There are numerous similar reviews already.
We’ll start a separate post or page to capture them. It seems likely already that the listing of all the smoking-gun facts omitted and all the reporters & reviewers suckered will take us into October.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/11/16 at 11:55 AM | #
===NEWS FLASH===
“Meanwhile, it has been scheduled for October 20 in front of the third section of the court hearing the appeal of Florence to discuss the request for redress for wrongful imprisonment filed by Sollecito asking for the maximum allowed by law, 516 thousand euro. Attorney General Alexander Crini, the same as the second appeal to Knox and Sollecito, however, is convinced that the proceedings should be moved to Perugia to competence and that in any case the repair is not payable because it would be Raphael with his behavior to cause the ‘arrest.”
Posted by Slow Jane on 09/11/16 at 05:36 PM | #
Who’d want to profit from a murder?
Posted by DavidB on 09/11/16 at 05:39 PM | #
I don’t know if you noticed it or not but Knox has started the con line “Maybe I’m psychotic? Maybe I’m guilty?” Line…
It is my fervent wish for everything bad to happen to this bitch one way or the other.
Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/11/16 at 06:19 PM | #
Why would this con line as you put it work on anyone? How strange.
Posted by JohnQ on 09/11/16 at 06:51 PM | #
On second thought, it might work to help sell her movie. I don’t think it will do anything to convince anyone of her innocence (sic).
Posted by JohnQ on 09/12/16 at 12:45 AM | #
Knox now concedes she wasn’t “best friends” with Meredith.
What does this actually mean?
Listening to the early guilty Knox of old you would be forgiven for thinking that her and Meredith were indeed “best friends” why the change now?
Posted by Deathfish on 09/12/16 at 06:43 AM | #
Hi JohnQ
“Maybe I’m psychotic? Maybe I’m guilty?â€
The comment would seem strange - a bad legal and PR move - if (1) Knox and her group faced more legal situations (actually they do but they are in denial about those) and (2) the movie makers had done a thorough job and and the result didnt tilt so strongly away from guilt.
She’s safe, or thinks she is. When we feed in the hundreds of pro-guilt facts the movie makers quite possibly never even heard of (no sign they read here, and we know they struggled in Italian and “investigations” in Italy were conducted at the simplest level) a new much more fraught situation should become clear.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/12/16 at 07:41 AM | #
Knox is in Toronto for the film festival—illegally.
There are rules about convicted felons entering. True, Canada “suspends” records (much like the UK “spent convictions”), but it would not kick in until 2020. A 3 year sentence for calunnia, expiring November 2010, then as an indictable offense, would be a 10 year waiting period. I also seriously doubt she applied for a waiver.
Public mischief
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Also, there are rules preventing those from entering who admit drug use.
Finally, Canada is not “supposed” to admit those who pose a danger to the public.
Posted by Chimera on 09/12/16 at 05:02 PM | #
A real slam at the exploitation by Knox here:
Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/13/16 at 07:33 AM | #
Reposted from last article ....
Knox is in Toronto for the film festival—illegally. She actually has no legal right to be in Canada.
There are rules about convicted felons entering. True, Canada “suspends†records (much like the UK “spent convictionsâ€), but it would not kick in until 2020. A 3 year sentence for calunnia, expiring November 2010, then as an indictable offense, would be a 10 year waiting period. I also seriously doubt she applied for a waiver.
Public mischief
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Also, there are rules preventing those from entering who admit drug use.
Finally, Canada is not “supposed†to admit those who pose a danger to the public.
Posted by Chimera on 09/13/16 at 12:27 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Correcting Netflix 2: Omitted - Producers Morse, Blackhurst, McGinn Commited Stalking Crimes
Or to previous entry Netflix’s Globally Propagated Fake Reporting