3 ms·
Why are the various 'manager' names carefully avoided in this sort of reporting? Many other names, including the whistleblowers, are prominently offered. What
by topspin 5y ago
Why are the various 'manager' names carefully avoided in this sort of reporting? Many other names, including the whistleblowers, are prominently offered. What rule is the Intercept complying with that has them bleep out (thus we known these names are known) the name of a manager in the audio and assiduously omit any manager names in the writing?
Names would reveal relationships. Doubtless these managers are former or prospective Dow employees, or related or have some other pedigree of corruption. That's how all of this works. Failure to name names contributes to the problem.
- jacquesm 5y agoBut if you steal a tin of catfood your name will be in the newspapers for the whole world to read and google three decades later.
- kingsloi 5y agoSame thing applies for dumping ammonia and cyanide in say Lake Michigan, you or I would get charged with water supply terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_terrorism, but do it as part of the steel process and it's a magical loop hole
- gumby 5y agoTypically only once you’ve been arrested.
- zug_zug 5y agoWell that wasn't the case with cops in last year's protest. Sometimes the names need to come first so the public can insist on the crimes being acknowledged.
- voisin 5y agoProbably trying to avoid libel since nothing has been proven in court.
- wbl 5y agoTruth is an absolute defense to libel in the US. Furthermore because this is the sort of reporting on a matter of public concern that society benefits from the standard gets tighter: it's not enough to show something was false, you have to show the publication should have known or acted maliciously in publishing. Incredibly high bar.
- ethbr0 5y agoTruth or (as you point out) ignorance. Which is different from the UK and a lot of other countries. But the practical question is: can The Intercept afford a legal fight against Dow?
- SpelingBeeChamp 5y agoThey likely have insurance for that sort of thing. I produce content for Youtube and even I have a media liability policy.
- voisin 5y agoHow much does that cost and how is it priced?
- _jal 5y agoYeah, but you still have to defend it in court, and that's an expensive distraction. There is currently a bit of a rash of high-profile, low-probability-of-success libels suits going on. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if publishers are being especially cautious.
- topspin 5y agoCowardice then.
- hypersoar 5y agoThe super strong libel immunity only kicks in for public figures. These random managers probably aren't. So negligence is the bar for liability, not the Actual Malice of NYT v. Sullivan.
- gumby 5y ago> Why are the various 'manager' names carefully avoided in this sort of reporting? Many other names, including the whistleblowers, are prominently offered. I assume that the whistleblowers quoted spoke directly with the reporter while the managers did not. Usually a paper will say “we asked the manager for comment but they did not respond”. Who knows if the Intercept even did that?
- zug_zug 5y agoI agree 100%. If I were one of these scientists, my manager's name would be leaked onto social media by some anonymous account and that internet angst would be put to good use. Crimes of corruption that lead to birth defects in babies for the sake of corporate profits are so outrageous that having to answer in the public square for it is befitting.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]