5 ms·
>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently That's what the opinion page is for. I absolutely do not want
by WoahNoun 7y ago
>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently
That's what the opinion page is for. I absolutely do not want newspaper journalists making commentary on legal briefs.
- gpm 7y agoIntelligent commentary doesn't have to be opinion, it can be bringing in the relevant facts. What court is this in front of? What documents publicly exist (hint: lots of them) and where can we find them? What rulings has the judge already made? What legal standards have been cited by the parties? What precedent has been cited by the parties? What are the relevant past rulings in the related cases? When can we expect further development. Instead they've just cited some sound bytes from a few lawyers in a way that doesn't even acknowledge that there is a justice system that this is working its way through. Not to mention this isn't really news... it belongs in the opinion section. Right now it's basically just repeating the opinions of Uber's lawyers instead of the opinions of the journalist (except for a small portion where they repeat the opinions of Levandowski's lawyers).
- gamblor956 7y agoIt is generally beyond the scope of an article like this to provide a full case history. If you want something like that there are professional journals that provide in depth legal reporting.
- gpm 7y agoThis comment... is really a reply to my top comment not the comment you replied to. Whether or not this is in scope has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not the report could comment more intelligently without making it an opinion piece. A large part of the the point in my top comment could be phrased as "the scope of this article is so small as to be entirely pointless".