3 ms·

Journalists get paid to muck through legalese like this and translate it into something readable: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-lawsuit-paul-ceglia-n

• anigbrowl 16y ago
  I have to admit to a bias against BI...Blodget's tone grates on me. Plus I actually like reading through legalese, rather than the abstracted version.
• erikpukinskis 16y ago
  I am consistently unsatisfied by journalists' translations of court cases. I just read the entire recent Winklevoss decision yesterday because not a single journalist, across the dozens of articles I checked, did any exposition of the supposed "SEC violation". During the recent Wisconsin union legislation fiasco, it took me 15 minutes to even find the name of the bill that was passed. Not a single journalist thought it fitting to include it. I eventually found it on a union web site, and then was able to read the text of the bill myself. The vast majority of journalists are less than useless with respect to both law and science. 99% of them don't even read the original sources, they just copy some other journalist and add their own "research" which usually amounts to a Google search they did about other completely unrelated dirt on the parties involved. You'd think organizations like WSJ or NYT would be better, but in my experience they're absolutely not.