4 ms·
> But why are companies /allowed/ to make such deceptively worded statements like this? I believe it's rooted in the same reasoning that allows anyone to defam
by probably_wrong 3y ago
> But why are companies /allowed/ to make such deceptively worded statements like this?
I believe it's rooted in the same reasoning that allows anyone to defame anyone just by writing "allegedly" in front of the accusation: we know that words have meanings and we know how human cognition works, and yet we allow people to openly lie because courts don't want to argue about the difference between what you said, what you meant, and what a reasonable reader would infer.
To me the real issue is: why are reporters playing this game? Why aren't they writing "when reached for comments, the company sent some generic statement that we won't bother printing"?
- rlpb 3y ago> Why aren't they writing "when reached for comments, the company sent some generic statement that we won't bother printing"? Because then they'd have to make a subjective judgement about what is substantive and what is not. If they go there, then it's the journalists that get accused of bias.
- vkou 3y ago> Why aren't they writing "when reached for comments, the company sent some generic statement that we won't bother printing"? Because they'll be roasted and accused of bias (For printing the verbatim complaints of one side, but not the rebuttal of the other.) A good reporter would, of course, state the firm's response, and also point out that it doesn't actually mean anything (Which is an objective assessment).