3 ms·
A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology. Both the BBC headline and the amended
by Zuider 5y ago
A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology. Both the BBC headline and the amended one above encourage a partisan interpretation of the case that is not clearly supported by the given facts, sparse as they are.
1) The word "troll," for example. That invokes a specific meaning of an individual who deliberately provokes strife for the sake of it. A heated disagreement may be deeply unpleasant for one or both parties, but we do not normally understand the actions of either party to be "trolling."
2) The word "damages" is generally taken to mean compensation decided by a judge or jury following a verdict. It appears that this was an out of court settlement without admission of liability. There can be many reasons apart from genuine liability for which a party may opt to settle.
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoA national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology. I don't know anything about UK law and editorial standards. However, I would always expect a news outlet targeting the general public to use the common meanings of words, instead of abiding by the nuanced jargon of whatever field they are covering. It's the same reason I don't get mad when newspapers use the word hacker to mean criminal.
- robertlagrant 5y agoNo, we know the difference between damages and settling.
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoIt's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages. If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it okay? How about "settle to pay for the damages caused?" I love being pedantic as much as the next guy, but the government doesn't get to define what words mean.
- GavinMcG 5y agoYes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid. You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for the consequences of your actions, that's different than "paying [read: suffering] the consequences." Where did government defining things come into play? That seems to be a strawman you constructed: > websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words No, they don't. They're still misleading if they use words misleadingly.
- dec0dedab0de 5y agoJust before the part you quoted I said I agreed it was misleading. All I'm saying is that the word damages doesn't have to match the legal definition.