3 ms·
Yeah, I’ve heard that a bunch - about the press being uninformed or lazy. I’d offer that they are neither, but if they are restricting themselves to reporting f
by JackFr 3y ago
Yeah, I’ve heard that a bunch - about the press being uninformed or lazy. I’d offer that they are neither, but if they are restricting themselves to reporting facts and not prognostications and opinions, the statutory maximum is a reasonable thing to report.
- JohnFen 3y agoI think this is likely the case. It's the only number they could have that doesn't involve a judgement call. Also, usually when I see things like that reported, they mention that most people don't get the maximum.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoA statement like "but it is often true that statutory maximums far exceed actual sentences" wouldn't be a prediction nor an opinion. This isn't the place to be sticking up for journalism. They really are both uninformed and lazy.
- quickthrower2 3y agoIt is almost logical. They would not be maximums but prescribed sentences if they always use the max.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoIf I have to read a news article as if its some weasel-worded lawyerspeak contract (between the lines), then they're no longer in the business of informing at all. My cognitive capacity, however incredibly large it is, still is finite. Wasting it on crap like this means I'll almost certainly miss something else. It's difficult to believe that this isn't deliberate, but I manage to ignore that impulse... incompetence is still more likely than malice. Hence, "lazy and uninformed" instead of "deceptive and propagandizing".