4 ms·

I wish the stories that appeared on HN about this kind of thing leaned toward the outcomes of the trial rather than the fact that a trial is starting. It feels

I wish the stories that appeared on HN about this kind of thing leaned toward the outcomes of the trial rather than the fact that a trial is starting. It feels like clickbait and fuel for conjecture otherwise.

Dotnaught 4y ago
If news reports only covered trials, you'd rarely hear about disputes. Civil and criminal cases rarely reach trial. An estimated 2% of federal criminal defendants get tried [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f...] The figure appear to be similar for civil cases [https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/going-going-but-not-quite-gone-trials-continue-to-decline-in-federal-and-state-courts-does-it-matter/#easy-footnote-23-2373 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/going-going-but-not-qui...]
- thfuran 4y ago
  I think you're missing the point. Whether or not it proceeds to trial, a suit has an outcome.
  - whynotkeithberg 4y ago
    It has an outcome AFTER its over. his point was... if you didn't report on it till the outcome you'd never hear about it. They're reporting on the allegations and that's a normal part of reporting. you can't only report on the trial outcomes or else it would never be talked about ahead of time. You can't wait until the outcome is decided to report on something because then you wouldn't report on it until the trial was over and no one would hear about it for years.
nitwit005 4y ago
This is a general problem with the news. The resolution of events is less likely to get coverage. People take advantage of this all the time by just stalling investigations or trials to avoid press coverage. The press forgets about it.
- Dotnaught 4y ago
  It's not that the press forgets. It's that most settlements are done under a non-disclosure agreements, which prevents the press or the public from knowing the details of the outcome. Settlements generally also do not require an admission of guilt, so you have a situation where, with an age or sex discrimination claim that survives dismissal, a company will pay to settle the claim, will not admit guilt, and will make no public commitment to change its behavior.
  - imoverclocked 4y ago
    A settlement is still an outcome worth reporting on. It’s still more information than, “someone filed a complaint.”
    - Dotnaught 4y ago
      It's the opposite. When a complaint is filed and it gets covered in the press, there's usually some effort to explain the allegations and cite the laws that arguably were broken. And there may be evidence cited in the complaint to support the allegations. You can tell a lot about a case and its likelihood of success from the complaint. That's significantly more information in a complaint than a settlement, which typically happens when both parties tell the judge to dismiss the claim. There's often no public announcement, so at best the press can say we believe there's been a settlement but we do not know what the terms were. There's literally nothing to report other than the case is no longer active. Settlements are done in part to limit the disclosure of information that might come to light during a public trial. So unless there's a post-settlement leak (legally risky), a public announcement (with details limited by the NDA) by one of the law firms involved, or a public consent decree (when the government is litigating), there's not a lot to be learned other than someone blinked.
      - imoverclocked 4y ago
        So, the original complaint is buried and we lose that initial information when there is a settlement? Ie: what was already published disappears when a settlement is reached? If yes, then I’m quite amazed that we can disappear public knowledge so thoroughly in this century. If not, we then have the initial information PLUS the information of the outcome. In the case of settlement, it’s still strictly more information. Perhaps not a lot more, but definitely still more.

Dotnaught 4y ago

If news reports only covered trials, you'd rarely hear about disputes. Civil and criminal cases rarely reach trial. An estimated 2% of federal criminal defendants get tried [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f...] The figure appear to be similar for civil cases [https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/going-going-but-not-quite-gone-trials-continue-to-decline-in-federal-and-state-courts-does-it-matter/#easy-footnote-23-2373 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/going-going-but-not-qui...]

thfuran 4y ago
I think you're missing the point. Whether or not it proceeds to trial, a suit has an outcome.
- whynotkeithberg 4y ago
  It has an outcome AFTER its over. his point was... if you didn't report on it till the outcome you'd never hear about it. They're reporting on the allegations and that's a normal part of reporting. you can't only report on the trial outcomes or else it would never be talked about ahead of time. You can't wait until the outcome is decided to report on something because then you wouldn't report on it until the trial was over and no one would hear about it for years.

nitwit005 4y ago

This is a general problem with the news. The resolution of events is less likely to get coverage. People take advantage of this all the time by just stalling investigations or trials to avoid press coverage. The press forgets about it.

Dotnaught 4y ago
It's not that the press forgets. It's that most settlements are done under a non-disclosure agreements, which prevents the press or the public from knowing the details of the outcome. Settlements generally also do not require an admission of guilt, so you have a situation where, with an age or sex discrimination claim that survives dismissal, a company will pay to settle the claim, will not admit guilt, and will make no public commitment to change its behavior.
- imoverclocked 4y ago
  A settlement is still an outcome worth reporting on. It’s still more information than, “someone filed a complaint.”
  - Dotnaught 4y ago
    It's the opposite. When a complaint is filed and it gets covered in the press, there's usually some effort to explain the allegations and cite the laws that arguably were broken. And there may be evidence cited in the complaint to support the allegations. You can tell a lot about a case and its likelihood of success from the complaint. That's significantly more information in a complaint than a settlement, which typically happens when both parties tell the judge to dismiss the claim. There's often no public announcement, so at best the press can say we believe there's been a settlement but we do not know what the terms were. There's literally nothing to report other than the case is no longer active. Settlements are done in part to limit the disclosure of information that might come to light during a public trial. So unless there's a post-settlement leak (legally risky), a public announcement (with details limited by the NDA) by one of the law firms involved, or a public consent decree (when the government is litigating), there's not a lot to be learned other than someone blinked.
    - imoverclocked 4y ago
      So, the original complaint is buried and we lose that initial information when there is a settlement? Ie: what was already published disappears when a settlement is reached? If yes, then I’m quite amazed that we can disappear public knowledge so thoroughly in this century. If not, we then have the initial information PLUS the information of the outcome. In the case of settlement, it’s still strictly more information. Perhaps not a lot more, but definitely still more.