Sam Adams

@samadams.bsky.social

Culture writer at Slate, published in LA Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, THR, and points south. Member: New York Film Critics Circle, National Society of Film Critics, WGA East

the timing is mostly a coincidence but Mike De Luca and Pam Adby getting fired the same week Digger crashed and burned means we might have a new Heaven's Gate on our hands

Since 👇 post 9 days ago, Elon has spent almost $11 million more, over a million bucks a day. In the Senate races alone, he's spent: $8.7m in Texas $4.5m in Ohio $4m in Michigan

#TeslaTakedown@teslatakedown.com · last wk.

Elon is now above $16,000,000 spent on the mid-terms. Top races so far: -$5,174,007.32 in TX against @jamestalarico.bsky.social -$3,193,553.94 in OH against @sherrodbrownoh.bsky.social -$3,092,319.94 in MI against @abdulelsayed.bsky.social

I tell students & people coming up, your employers don't care about your rep--at all--but it's all you have. Every big story I ever got -- 80% were because people heard I wasn't an extractive, thoughtless, inhuman asshole, and those sources came to me. You are the only guardian of your rep, the end.

Michael Tracey published what he said was the ID of the "Jane Doe" in the Cornell case. Then he took it down, claiming he just wanted to make a point and didn't want to see harm to the person he named. What he hasn't admitted is that he mistook info on a sketchy site for official NY court records.

An archived copy of Michael Tracey's original Substack post includes a screenshot from "eCourt Records" and the commentary: "It's [name redacted]. Don't blame me -- the New York Court System just posted it. Seemingly inadvertently. Oh well."Screenshot of Michael Tracey's post on Substack titled "Note on Jane Doe." It reads: "After identifying Jane Doe earlier tonight, I have now removed the information I published. Why? Because the principle has been served: to underscore that permanently anonymizing litigants who make sensational, spectacular, reputation-destroying claims about others — so long as they can self-declare some form of victimization — cannot be countenanced.

It’s destructive, and an egregious abuse of the legal system by huckster plaintiff’s lawyers. This practice has to end. Lawyers who seek to monetize this sleazy tactic should have to think A LOT HARDER about the claims they’re willing to throw out into the public domain, using impressionable clients who may not even know what they’re getting themselves into.

So why have I now removed her information?

Because I don’t believe she’s the main “villain” here. I primarily blame the bottom-feeding, media-manipulating, sleazebag lawyers who’ve made a whole cash-grab industry out of this racket.

Thomas Giuffra in particular has a lot to answer for. He’s the central reason for the current debacle.

Given the intense nationwide and global interest in this case, I don’t want to bring any further negative attention to this woman. I don’t believe she ought to be punished or subjected to any retribution or humiliation. I believe a RATIONAL solution is necessary here. Not more character assassination — of her, the seven young men, or anyone else. Truly, that is my genuine view."

there's a lot about You Can Say Everything I shouldn't spoil but I think I can reveal there's a shot of Nathan working on the second floor of Beer Authority that made my heartbeat quicken a little

I've been covering the death penalty in depth for a dozen years now, and few nights have been as disturbing and dispiriting as tonight. This was a moral, ethical, and legal failure on several different fronts from many different actors. It wasn't *just* SCOTUS, though they sure were a key part.

After SCOTUS allowed Tennessee execution to go ahead, Tennessee botched the execution

SCOTUS, over the liberals’ dissent, cleared the way for Tennessee to kill Christa Pike. The alarming order from DC was followed by even more disturbing developments in Tennessee.

lawdork.com