The handbook was actually leaked a couple years ago. “It’s OK for the boys to be childish” is on page 34. “No does not mean no” is page 19.
It could be “alleged” because you have to determine if the handbook is real, if it was actually distributed to employees and put in force, etc.
That’s my reading of it as well. Until an employee is on the witness stand and answers affirmatively to questions like “Did you work there?”, “Is this the employee handbook you were given?”, “Can you please read the passage on page nnn” etc, it’s ‘alleged’.
In general, doesn’t most evidence have to go through something like that? Even if no one is denying (yet) that the evidence is what it’s claimed to be, it’s ‘alleged’ until it’s confirmed under oath.
Do you really think that a reporter shouldn’t report that a lawsuit was filed against a company until s/he’s had a chance to review the evidence?
Suspect in two murders reportedly goes to chatbot for help planning his crime.
The story doesn’t reveal if ChatGPT recommended Febreze and Irish Spring Body Wash as helpful accoutrements in cutting up and bagging victims.
Surprising that ChatGPT didn’t offer advice on dismemberment techniques and what bodies of water are best for disposal.
That’s the standard for the court, not for a reporter.
Considering that one can file a lawsuit against anyone about anything in their imagination, maybe a reporter should do something besides repeat the plaintiff’s unsupported claims.
A reporter is pretty safe from a successful libel suit if they are reporting on things that are true and in the public record, such as that a person has been charged with a crime, what the crime charged is, and that the prosecution has released at least some of the grounds for that charge. All that is a matter of public record at that point. Saying “the district attorney says” is not the same as saying what the DA says is true or that the person is guilty. The defense could also make public statements, and then the reporter could also report on those. The reporter is not responsible for trying the facts, and in fact should not do so, old-time movies to the contrary notwithstanding.
That would be an investigative reporter. It could take weeks to get and analyze the evidence. The preliminary NEWS is that a lawsuit was filed. I prefer that they get the news out when it happens and then analyze it as they’re able.
I imagine the person whose reputation was trashed might think differently about the accusation appearing as a headline and the truth showing up 2 weeks later next to a recipe for homemade tortillas.
But the newspaper would have gotten their clicks, which makes it all ok. Oh, and it looks like they can’t even be successfully sued, it’s win/win/fuck the truth.
So what. There’s nothing wrong with a reporter saying ‘this is what’s be alleged’. And, I’d go so far as to say I’m okay with a reporter saying something’s ‘alleged’ when it hasn’t been proven yet. I’d WAG that even if the reporter had seen the book and saw that line, they’d probably still phrase it in a way to leave open the possibility that they’re wrong. (ie “In a copy of the handbook I received from an employee” as opposed to “In a copy of the official handbook…”)
I mean, reporters make pretty liberal use of the word ‘alleged’ in their reporting. Even if they don’t have to worry about a lawsuit stemming from being wrong about something like that, they still have (or should have) a reputation to uphold. If a reporter makes a ‘factual’ statement that the handbook contains that line and then it turns out to be incorrect, even if they were fed bad info, the public is that much less likely to trust them next time.
John Oliver’s most recent Last Week Tonight covered AI chat bots, as part of a sycophantic feedback loop, encouraging people to commit suicide, alone with directions on how to do it. Also, if you ask it enough times in a row, it’ll give you directions on making a pipe bomb (even after telling you that trick to jailbreak it doesn’t work anymore).
If a journalist repeating a plaintiff’s unsupported claims is prejudicial then what is video of an unconvicted suspect being frog-marched in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit on the evening news?
I’m well aware of the phrase “Innocent until proven guilty” but I can’t remember ever hearing “Not liable until proven liable”.
I really can’t believe that you would rather a newspaper not report that a lawsuit has been filed until they’ve had a chance to verify whether a court would determine the case had merit or not. What if they can’t obtain a handbook? Not report on the lawsuit at all?
Believe it.
Note, the below is a rant:
I am personally exhausted at the idea that our “news” outlets should print unverified claims because the “news” IS that someone made the claim.
I’ve been listening to a parade of unverified claims being repeated word for word by the media for what feels like half my adult life, and those unverified claims, those bald ass fucking lies, are influencing everything about how my country is being run. People believe them because they hear them, the claims being repeated aren’t intended to stand up to scrutiny, because the point is to have them be heard, that’s all that needs to happen, and the “news” is a willing partner in letting propaganda flourish.
There used to be the idea that there existed a subset of news that’s “fit to print”. News was a limited resource, professionals had to curate the news so it would fit in the paper, or in the 1hr news show. Today, everything is fit to print, as long as it drives lingering eyeballs, and it’s all curated by a revenue maximizing algorithm.
There used to be a clear division between news and gossip between neighbors and acquaintances. Now that everyone can “publish” themselves thanks to social media, that line is blurred.
Imagine if decades ago, everyone was putting out self- published newspapers that were available in proximity to real newspapers, or people appeared on television giving their own “news reports”. That’s the world we are in now.
And there was yellow journalism before that.
I think @Cheesesteak has correctly identified a genuine and significant problem.
But their proposed solution is utterly the wrong one.
Yeah, there’s a reason my ideas are in the SDMB BBQ Pit rather than the Op/Ed section of the Wall St. Journal.
Kentucky woman allegedly tries to take out McDonald’s manager, hitting her with her car in the parking lot and driving six miles with the manager clinging to the hood.
Kentucky woman
She shine with her own kind of light
She’d look at you once
In a day, that’s all wrong
Well, it’s alright
McDonald’s reportedly is considering adding a cartoon character and airing new commercials featuring the Drunk Woman With A Tire Iron to join the Hamburglar and Captain Crook, who all wind up busted by Officer Big Mac.