3 ms·
It’s not misleading? The article discusses the direct charges towards Mossack Fonseca, the literal mastermind of the tax evasion scheme. They are Panamian, so o
by yunohn 2y ago
It’s not misleading? The article discusses the direct charges towards Mossack Fonseca, the literal mastermind of the tax evasion scheme. They are Panamian, so of course they would be tried in Panama and not elsewhere.
- Aurornis 2y agoJudging by all the comments here, a lot of people interpreted it as thought “all” people charged in conjunction with the Panama Papers (everywhere) got away with it, because the headline says “all”
- jjulius 2y agoMy interpretation is that most people in these comments were correctly able to understand why "28" immediately came after "all".
- Aurornis 2y agoScroll down to see the comments from people claiming “literally nothing happened” from the Panama papers, which they see this headline as confirming. As I write this, that thread is the 2nd comment thread from the top. It’s a very popular sentiment, despite being wrong.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yunohn 2y agoThat’s literally just one of many other comment threads.
- setr 2y agoYou’d have to also know that 28 is not the total number of people charged.
- lucb1e 2y agoThe headline says that's all that were charged. If I write "all four coal plants in germany blown up", nobody reads that and thinks germany had anything more or fewer than four coal plants. You don't need to know the total number because it tells you with "all [number] [objects]"
- setr 2y agoIf you wrote “all 4338 coal plants in Germany blown up”, I’d reasonably interpret it as 4338/4338 blew up. “All 4” doesn’t imply 4 total only because 4 is an unreasonably low count for total coal plants, not because “all [number] [object]” syntax is putting in the work. And of course, 28 is a reasonable count of total charged.
- em-bee 2y agothe headline is the reason why i am interested in an article. HN being US centric i expected a story about a US court, or, since the article is from the BBC, a british court. both would have been interesting. had the headline said "panama court acquits..." i'd have skipped it. so yes, i felt mislead and i appreciate the top comment for clearing that up.
- yunohn 2y agoSorry but this is a crazy POV. You come to HN assuming and pushing for USA centric views, and refuse to click through and read news from other sources?
- em-bee 2y agoi didn't say that. all i am suggesting is that a court in panama acquiting people charged with money laundering is not interesting to me, because that is what i would expect from there. likewise a court in europe or the US judging them guilty would not be interesting. but the reverse would be interesting in both cases because it would be a surprise. for the US/europe i'd be interested to know what went wrong, and for panama i'd be happy to learn that things are not as bad as the reputation of the country, or that things are improving. i don't need to read stories that confirm my expectation or bias, but i care about stories that challenge them and let me learn something. i haven't seen anything in the comments that suggested that there would be anything to learn here.