4 ms·

In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet.

In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be disproportionate. If the warrant produces actual evidence of wrongdoing it will later result in an indictment and ultimately a trial. That's the more appropriate time for media to consider those allegations as newsworthy. Sadly, there are documented examples of government (or individuals wielding the power of government) using extreme accusations in affidavits to intentionally inflict punishment. Rolling Stone choosing to not be unwitting 'judge-jury-executioner' at that early no-evidence stage doesn't mean they wouldn't report on an eventual indictment - when and if it happens.

leephillips 4y ago
You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that people will remember accusations and not subsequent exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the kind of accusation that will ruin a person’s life. The problem is that Rolling Stone plays favorites. In a recent incident they ran the false headline “CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated,” about someone that they didn’t like and who wasn’t a friend of the editor in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this libel, they changed the headline. I don’t think they can be trusted.
- mcguire 4y ago
  Seems like that article is currently titled much more accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People".
- myko 4y ago
  The speaker called for transgenderism to be eradicated. Consider headlines if AOC called for conservatism to be eradicated.
burkaman 4y ago
It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a replacement. The story repeatedly says they have no idea what grounds there could be for a raid, and it's probably retaliation for the guy's reporting. Those insinuations should not be in there at all, and note that they did repeat some of the government's claims: > Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek’s laptop during their raid. Those are probably the same sources that told Siegel about the CSAM. The sources are trustworthy or not, you can't just pick which of their claims you like.
- derefr 4y ago
  > The sources are trustworthy or not Read that quote carefully — there's two layers to it. The source is "familiar with the matter" — the journalist trusts what they have to say. What the source says, though, is that federal agents allegedly found classified information. In other words, the source claims that the federal agents themselves are claiming this; but the source does not put any credence in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in such a way that the journalist would put credence into it. If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly, but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged allegations from the same source you include, and replace their unverified allegations with your own. Source: Federal agents found classified documents and CSAM on his computer. Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified documents on his computer. The question looms on what grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate reporting activities?
    - wytewulf 4y ago

leephillips 4y ago

You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that people will remember accusations and not subsequent exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the kind of accusation that will ruin a person’s life. The problem is that Rolling Stone plays favorites. In a recent incident they ran the false headline “CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated,” about someone that they didn’t like and who wasn’t a friend of the editor in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this libel, they changed the headline. I don’t think they can be trusted.

mcguire 4y ago
Seems like that article is currently titled much more accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People".
myko 4y ago
The speaker called for transgenderism to be eradicated. Consider headlines if AOC called for conservatism to be eradicated.

burkaman 4y ago

It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a replacement. The story repeatedly says they have no idea what grounds there could be for a raid, and it's probably retaliation for the guy's reporting. Those insinuations should not be in there at all, and note that they did repeat some of the government's claims: > Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek’s laptop during their raid. Those are probably the same sources that told Siegel about the CSAM. The sources are trustworthy or not, you can't just pick which of their claims you like.

derefr 4y ago
> The sources are trustworthy or not Read that quote carefully — there's two layers to it. The source is "familiar with the matter" — the journalist trusts what they have to say. What the source says, though, is that federal agents allegedly found classified information. In other words, the source claims that the federal agents themselves are claiming this; but the source does not put any credence in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in such a way that the journalist would put credence into it. If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.
- burkaman 4y ago
  Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly, but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged allegations from the same source you include, and replace their unverified allegations with your own. Source: Federal agents found classified documents and CSAM on his computer. Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified documents on his computer. The question looms on what grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate reporting activities?
  - wytewulf 4y ago