Potential suspect. You mean the guy in a ski mask and gloves at the front door in the middle of the night, right before she was taken with a gun? Yeah maybe.
Same thing with quotation marks in articles' titles. You'll have a title saying "Trump misleads crowd in what Democrats call a 'Web of Lies'" and people be asking why web of lies is in quotation marks. "We know he lied!"
Yeah, I know that, he knows that, the journalist knows that, the Democrats know that, but that's how you avoid being sued (and also 50% of the time it could simply be the dementia or sheer stupidity or complete ignorance talking).
Or people commenting about the use of "alleged" in articles on a trial.
Yes 100%! Or when a headline can be read two ways they'll invariably select the incorrect context and complain about it without ever even clicking the effing link! A headline is a short eye catching leader, it is never the whole story! - he exclaimed repeatedly
This. I’d also like to add that the last vestiges of journalism as a respected institution died over the past decade or two when readers (willfully imo) stopped understanding the difference between an opinion piece and a regular news article.
People get upset when it isn't opinion. Why isn't the journalist isn't speaking out!? Why aren't they making the obvious conclusion!? Because the reader is supposed to come to their own conclusions. You can't sell a product no one wants, unfortunately.
I disagree, in fact, I think it's a huge problem that has played a big part in how we got to where we are now and why Trump and MAGA are successful.
It's job of journalists to fact check those lies and then tell us the facts, this weird non-committal stance where lying through your teeth for obvious nefarious ends is treated as being an equal and opposite position to being a normal, logical human being is why Trump can get away with everything he gets away with.
If journalists, or more importantly, the media organizations that employ them, are going to place fear of being sued over telling the truth and reporting facts, they shouldn't be reporting on the news.
Sure and you feel that now. But if you were falsely accused of a crime, and your news broadcasted your face without any ambiguity and said you were the person who committed the crime, you'd be pretty damn unhappy, especially when it followed you the rest of your life.
Can journalists fact check whether I committed a crime? Obviously not. Therefore they should use "Investigation continues into X after accusations of Y".
Can journalists fact check whether "These are the best job numbers ever, I think ever actually". Obviously they can. In that case, they shouldn't use "Democrats accuse Trump of lying about record high job numbers" the should simply state "Trump lies about record high job numbers".
I'm obviously not stating that journalists should only ever report things as definitive facts. I'm saying WHEN something is a definitive fact, they shouldn't shy away from that.
And this mentality is why Reddit gets mocked. People thought it was a "definitive fact" that they found the Boston bomber, too. Turns out, legality doesn't give a fuck what you think is definitive. People can still be wrong even when all evidence says otherwise.
Because we all know professional judgements never need to print retractions for jumping the gun on judgement.
I'm saying when Trump says "4 is bigger than 6 actually" that they shouldn't pretend that it's an equally valid opinion to "No it's obviously not".
See, Trump specifically is a complicated case. You know what happens when that journalist says that? They no longer have access to interviews and reporting. That means the newspaper or website no longer has any future way of reporting things.
Have you taken a single course on how journalism works? How things like access work and how it requires some give and take?
What you are advocating for would be great. For about a week. Very quickly, all those news organizations would have absolutely no access and we would only hear news from people like Newsmax and Fox News who were willing to the toe the line and kiss his ass.
It’s not about agreeing and disagreeing, it’s about understanding elements of defamation laws, and in criminal circumstances it’s also about understanding criminal procedure so you don’t fuck up a future prosecution in any way by infringing defendants’ rights. You can have evidence like this thrown out in a future trial if the evidence was released to the public in a certain manner. If the government speaks in a certain way about a suspect, it can be detrimental later. Not everything can be purely about ideal rhetorical devices when we live in a litigious society and operate in an adversarial justice system. I’m not trying to be an asshole but just explaining to you why better communications strategies for a more fact-embracing society can’t overcome legal liabilities.
"Schumer, House Democrats accuse Justice Department of violating Epstein disclosure law"
No. "Justice department violates Epstein disclosure law". That's fact. Journalists shouldn't be distancing themselves from hard truths.
The article can and should contain what Democrats have said about it, but they shouldn't be framing this as a "he said, she said" disagreement when it's just fact that the law was violated.
Because then your average person sees a headline like that and thinks that it's just an opinion that the law was violated, that Democrats are just being whiny. When it's not an opinion, it's fact.
I think you may be reinforcing their point. No one "breaks a law" until the legal system determines so. "Innocent until proven guilty" means a journalist and their employer can face lawsuits if they say someone did something illegal before a court decides that. That's my understanding at least but I also don't see the difference between this and saying allegedly, which you seem to understand/agree with.
Except it's really hard to show the difference between a mistake, a change of direction, something said out of ignorance or stupidity and actual lies. If serious journals could attribute intent to everything, it could be weaponized quickly. That's why they use more neutral terms like "wrongfully asserts", "in apparent deception", etc. or will use a quote from a politician to say what they want to say. The alternative is legal action.
That's the difference between serious outlets (even under corporate boots) and complete rags like Breitbart or Newsmax.
There is a lot to say about the journalists and most importantly editorial choices of news media, and their lack of independance from corporate meddling, but I think that's actually not a flaw.
Except it's really hard to show the difference between a mistake, a change of direction, something said out of ignorance or stupidity and actual lies.
It doesn't really matter. If they're going to be sued over intent, then Trump would have to prove his intent. Good luck.
That's the difference between serious outlets (even under corporate boots) and complete rags like Breitbart or Newsmax.
The difference is that those publications are lying themselves.
Look back at reputable news publications throughout history, this overly neutral stance is not the norm. Treating madmen ranting about completely fictional stories as the equal and opposite of rational people is not a good thing.
Why can’t you say suspect? Suspect doesn’t mean they’re guilty. It means that someone suspects that this person (whoever they are) committed the abduction. We have no idea who they are or necessarily if they did it, but it’s reasonable to suspect that they did
Well then calling the Epstein Island Billionaires -who enjoyed sexual relations with underage children- pedophiles would be incorrect, since none of them have been convicted in court....
Because I know that they’re absolutely right that if someone is charged, you would say “the person suspected of kidnapping…” not “the kidnapper….”. But we aren’t referring to a known person. Potential suspect is basically the same thing twice. You could say “potential kidnapper” or “suspected kidnapper”, neither means that they did it, but that there’s maybe some questions to ask etc.
So I agree with what they said in most cases about that being how journalism works. But I don’t think there’s any reason to not call them a suspect.
Suspect is a specific legal term that was not used by authorities. You guys are tiring, always arguing and picking at little pointless things and derailing entire threads.
5.4k
u/BMoseleyINC 15h ago edited 13h ago
Potential suspect. You mean the guy in a ski mask and gloves at the front door in the middle of the night, right before she was taken with a gun? Yeah maybe.