Question about the use of the word "allegedly" in news reporting
Legal Guy
newsgroup.
The fundamental point or question is -> why would the newspaper or the
journalist use the word "allegedly" when it seems so clear that it's use
in this context is superfluous if not idiosyncratic. ?
Would the newspaper be liable for any sort of court action or financial
risk (from the estate of the dead man) if they did not use the word
"allegedly" in their story?
What does the law say about the necessity of the use of the term
"alledged" or "allegedly" when reporting a story?
=================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/man-electrocuted-while-allegedly-stealing-wiring
Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT
HOUMA, LA (AP) -
A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
According to the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office, electric company
workers found the body of Timothy Lewis of Houma after getting a call
early Wednesday about lost power.
Lewis was pronounced dead at the scene.
A Houma newspaper reported Lewis broke through a fence at a substation
there and was killed when he cut a ground line with a pair of wire
cutters.
The death was still being investigated, though no foul play is
suspected.
Barry Gold
>
> http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/man-electrocuted-while-allegedly-stealing-wiring
[A man was electrocuted after breaking into an electric power substation
and cutting a ground line with a pair of wire cutters. Newspaper report
read]
> Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
OP asks about the logic of this.
There is no logic here. Except that people in the newspaper business are
under near-constant time pressure, and may not have time to think
through the legal points, or to go ask the legal department, so they
simply follow a policy.
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my reasoning:
A general principle is that you cannot defame a dead person. The subject
of the article died in the attempt to steal the wire, so would not have
a cause of action for defamation against the newspaper if they had
written, "Man electrocuted while stealing wires".
But let's take an alternate case. Assume the man did not die, but was
in the hospital on life support. Let us also assume that further
investigation shows that he was _not_ attempting to steal the wiring.
Perhaps he was engaged in some form of political protest against the
power company [sabotaging a power station is a lousy way of doing it,
but the crime would be "malicious mischief" or "sabotage," not "theft"].
Or maybe there was some form of havoc being caused by a downed power
line somewhere nearby, and the man was attempting to remove power at the
source and -- not being an expert -- cut the wrong line.
So, if the man eventually recovers and can prove damages (or sues on the
basis of "defamation per se," as allowed in several states), the
newspaper could end up having to pay -- or at least to defend itself in
court.
To avoid that problem, many newspapers (and other news outlets) have a
policy that somebody is only "alleged" to have committed a crime,
until/unless they are actually convicted of the crime in a court of law.
So, yes, in this particular case the newspaper could have said, "Man
electrocuted while stealing wiring," but a staff writer, rewrite man, or
headline writer, in a hurry to get on to the next story, simply followed
the general policy and wrote "alleged".
Mike Jacobs
> The fundamental point or question is -> why would the newspaper or the
> journalist use the word "allegedly" when it seems so clear that it's use
> in this context is superfluous if not idiosyncratic. ?
Clear to whom? Are you appointing yourself as judge, jury, and
executioner of a person accused of a crime, to the point where you
presume they are guilty simply because they have been charged with (or
in this case, even mentioned in connection with) a possible crime? Do
you want your news media to do that? Whatever happened to "presumed
innocent until proven guilty?"
More pointedly, do you really expect news organizations to have to sit
around wasting time making fine distinctions and judgment calls on a
case-by-case basis, on only fragmentary or preliminary evidence, about
whether a particular person accused of a particular crime is, or is
not, so "clearly" guilty of the offense charged that any use of
"alleged" would be "superfluous if not idiosyncratic?" I don't think
they want to waste their time doing that, and they themselves
apparently don't, either. Their job, in a _news_ article, is to
_report_ the breaking news, not comment on the defendant's likely
guilt or innocence when not enough is yet known of the facts to
confidently make that determination. Nor do they want to wait around
and sit on a hot story (about a person accused of crime) and not even
report it until that person is actually _convicted_ of that crime.
At the outset of a new case, the news, that is to say, the FACT which
is being reported and which is currently VERIFIABLE by journalistic
due diligence, is that person X has been CHARGED WITH a certain
crime. Whether or not said person is GUILTY OF said crime is a fact
which is NOT KNOWN YET, and indeed will not be known until much later,
when a jury returns a verdict in his case. In the meantime, the news
media can make hay out of reporting EACH NEW STEP in the case --
something the public is interested in, presumably -- none of which
would be "news" if the guilty conclusion had already been reached.
In your example - a person who was electrocuted to death while
apparently in the process of stealing copper wire - the true facts may
NEVER be known. Are you saying you cannot imagine any OTHER reason
why a person would be touching a live wire under all the circumstances
known and reported concerning this incident, OTHER THAN that he was
allegedly stealing it? I can think of MANY other possible reasons
for him to be touching the dangerous wire. And, until a jury has
eliminated all those other possibilities and has concluded, as a "true
statement" (that's what "verdict" means) that Mr. X was guilty of
attempting to steal the wire, the "fact" of his motive or reasons for
touching the wire may forever remain unknown. He certainly isn't
around anymore to tell us his version of what he was doing or trying
to do.
> Would the newspaper be liable for any sort of court action or financial
> risk (from the estate of the dead man) if they did not use the word
> "allegedly" in their story?
Of course. In any story, there is a chance the paper could be sued
for defamation if they failed to report the facts accurately and the
result was to make a false accusation of some shameful act against a
person who made news. At the outset of a case, the person's guilt or
innocence is not yet a known fact, so it would be at least negligent,
if not reckless, for a newspaper to omit the "allegedly" modifier when
talking about that person's probable guilt.
Now, perhaps you would argue, this example you gave is such a clear-
cut case that the chance of the newspaper being sued is minimal, and
perhaps in this state no cause of action for defamation is available
for slandering or libeling the dead (in MD, only a _living_ victim can
sue for defamation, and a pending lawsuit for defamation abates at the
victim's death), but THE PAPER SHOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE SUCH FINE
DISTINCTIONS. They are safer if they simply ALWAYS say "allegedly,"
so that is quite likely what THEIR MEDIA-LAW LAWYERS have advised them
to do. It's both easier, and safer, simply for every reporter in
every story to make a habit of it, than to risk making the wrong
judgment call in a particular case. Slippery slopes are to be
avoided.
> What does the law say about the necessity of the use of the term
> "alledged" or "allegedly" when reporting a story?
I think what you're getting at is, there's no specific STATUTE that
MANDATES use of such language in the press -- we do have a free press,
remember the 1st Amendment? They are legally allowed to say wahtever
they want, without prior restraint. But virtually all mainstream,
ethical media DO resort to such qualifiers when talking about a person
who has been charged with or suspected of but not yet convicted of a
crime, for all the reasons noted above. The simplest, strongest
reason of which is probably because that's what their lawyers who
drafted their editorial-policy manuals TOLD them they should do, to
minimize their risk of defamation suits.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685
Robert Bonomi
>The following story (reproduced below) is being debated in another
>newsgroup.
>
>The fundamental point or question is -> why would the newspaper or the
>journalist use the word "allegedly" when it seems so clear that it's use
>in this context is superfluous if not idiosyncratic. ?
Because what 'seems so clear' is -not- what the law recognizes. <wry grin>
There is a fundamental legal precept in the U.S. of "presumed innocent until
proven guilty in a court of law".
The malefactor has _not_ been so proven 'in a court of law'.
Furthermore, the 'true facts' of the matter are _not_ known -- the one
person who actually _knew_ "why" the action was being performed is not
available for questioning. *ALL* anyone can do is 'speculate'.
>Would the newspaper be liable for any sort of court action or financial
>risk (from the estate of the dead man) if they did not use the word
>"allegedly" in their story?
Quite possibly. If you assert, as a fact, that someone was performing a
criminal action, that falls in the realm of 'libel per se', and/or
'defamation'. Both of which are 'actionable' torts. The primary defense
against such an action, _if_ brought, is that the assertation is 'true'.
*HOWEVER*, _proving_ the truth of such an assertation is very problematic,
since there is _no_ "authoritative' information available as to _why_ the
deceased performed the actions. Hence all one has to 'support' the
assertation is 'speculation'. "Legally insufficient" is a polite description
of how that is regarded. :)
>What does the law say about the necessity of the use of the term
>"alledged" or "allegedly" when reporting a story?
On that _precise_ point, and that precise context, "not a lot".
There has, however, been a fair bit 'said' =when= people _failed_ to use
that (or a similar) qualifier. Usually to the effect of "you shouldn't
claim something as a _fact_, when you don't *know* why it was done."
There is also a principle of 'journalistic honesty/integrity' involved.
When you _don't_know_ "why" a thing happened -- when the =only= information
available is what others (*without* 'authoritative' knowledge) have spec-
ulated as the reason -- the 'honest thing to do' is report the claims as
what 'others have claimed', _not_ as a 'fact'. This is _precisely_ what
the word 'allegedly' (and variants) means.
Thus, there are at least two 'good reasons' for using the word -- journalistic
honesty, and avoidance of potential legal liability.
micky
>
>Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
>Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT
>
>HOUMA, LA (AP) -
>
>A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
>copper wiring.
Sort of ignoring all your legal questions, and hoping this will still
get posted by the moderator, I woudl say that an honest reporter has
no business saying he was stealing wire. Was the rerporter there?
Does he know what the man's goals were? No. He was told that the
dead man was stealing or was told he was allegedly stealing wire.
Even if his source said firmly he was stealilng, the reporter doesn't
know if the source is right. He only knows that it has been alleged
that he was stealing.
The AP did the right thing here, as it usually does. The problem is
with TV news reporters is the opposite. They routinely say things
they do not know, as if they were true. George Bush believes,
Barack Obama beliieves. They have no idea what people beliieve. The
press only knows what people say and what they do. Often they say and
do things with the intention of making people think they believe
things, when they don't. . Why is the press, especially the TV press,
vouching for their honesty?
John McCain is angry that his staff... Michele Bachmann is
outraged.... Mitt Romney is pleased... What the press should saiy
about these people is, "They said" or "They did", not how they felt or
what they believed.
Legal Guy
on the server I use, so I'm just discovering that this thread was
actually posted here...
For using the term "allegedly", the responses here basically boil down
to these two reasons:
1) it's good journalism
2) protect the paper from possible future legal action
You all realize, of course, that the paper did not say that the man
"allegedly" broke into the power sub-station. They outright say that he
*did* break into the substation. Why not simply go on and say he was
trying to steal copper wire? He had wire cutters. He did cut at least
one wire.
If it was somehow found later that he was not trying to steal wire, then
that in itself is newsworthy (certainly an interesting or unforseen
twist in the story) and the newspaper can always print a retraction.
Nobody has yet offered any opinion as to whether or not news paper (or
associated "machinery", such as the AP in this case) is protected from
frivoulous law suits when they are trying to report a story (freedom of
the press, free speech, etc).
And I also point this out: If a journalist writes that this man was
"allegedly" trying to steal wire, then who exactly is doing the
alledging? Is the reporter not saying that some convienent, un-named
third party is doing the alledging? How does that square with the bit
about being a "good journalist" ?
Barry Gold
> For some reason, my original post (and a few responses) didn't show up
> on the server I use, so I'm just discovering that this thread was
> actually posted here...
>
> For using the term "allegedly", the responses here basically boil down
> to these two reasons:
>
> 1) it's good journalism
>
> 2) protect the paper from possible future legal action
>
> You all realize, of course, that the paper did not say that the man
> "allegedly" broke into the power sub-station. They outright say that he
> *did* break into the substation. Why not simply go on and say he was
> trying to steal copper wire? He had wire cutters. He did cut at least
> one wire.
>
> If it was somehow found later that he was not trying to steal wire, then
> that in itself is newsworthy (certainly an interesting or unforseen
> twist in the story) and the newspaper can always print a retraction.
Because a good newspaper does not want to be in the position of
publishing a retraction. It makes them look bad. Good newspapers (and
TV news shows) are concerned with their reputation for accuracy. They
can't be perfect, of course. First of all, no mortal is perfect in any
endeavor. Second, they are under schedule pressure. They have only a
few hours, at most, to get today's news edited and to the presses.
That latter is why the courts give news organizations a lot of leeway,
especially when reporting on "public figures" -- movie stars,
politicians, those who seek out and achieve fame. There is limited time
to verify stories, and a good faith effort is all that's required. The
news organization has to avoid publishing material it knows is false, or
would know is false if it weren't looking the other way, and it is safe
from defamation suits. ("Safe" in the sense that they won't lose --
anybody can sue anybody at any time.)
> Nobody has yet offered any opinion as to whether or not news paper (or
> associated "machinery", such as the AP in this case) is protected from
> frivoulous law suits when they are trying to report a story (freedom of
> the press, free speech, etc).
Actually, I have. In most states (incl. MD and CA), a dead person
cannot be defamed. That's because a person's reputation is only of
value while they are alive. Once dead, they are "out of business,"
permanently. No lost business opportunities or sales, no loss of
employment. And no emotional loss -- dead people don't feel emotions.
So the newspaper is _legally_ safe (at least in MD & CA) in leaving out
"allegedly". But it's _still_ good journalism to use the term when
writing up something the reporter doesn't have personal knowledge of.
The right thing to do is to either quote somebody in authority (a
spokesman for the police or DA's office), or to use the generic
"allegedly" (which implies that _somebody_ said it, without necessarily
specifying who).
Mike Jacobs
> For using the term "allegedly", the responses here basically boil down
> to these two reasons:
>
> 1) it's good journalism
>
> 2) protect the paper from possible future legal action
Agreed on both counts. But both purposes are served best when the
practice is made a routine habit of editorial policy, rather than
addressed on a case-by-case basis.
> You all realize, of course, that the paper did not say that the man
> "allegedly" broke into the power sub-station. They outright say that he
> *did* break into the substation.
Because he was FOUND there and was not authorized to be there. Those
are verifiable facts. No need to say "alleged" where what is being
reported is some direct fact that can be independently verified and is
almost incontrovertibly true.
> Why not simply go on and say he was
> trying to steal copper wire?
Because that involves an inferential CONCLUSION about what is going on
in that person's mind, his INTENT, which is an element of the crime of
theft. Can YOU read the dead man's mind? I didn't think so.
Neither can anyone else. So, unless and until a jury returns a "true
statement" (ver dict) regarding THEIR conclusions about the man's
intent, which then become binding "true facts" by law (even though, as
we all know, even juries sometimes get it wrong, from an all-knowing
heavenly point of view) the only true and verifiable fact which the
paper can report as to his intent is that he "allegedly" intended to
steal wire.
> He had wire cutters.
That is a verifiable fact. And that fact _was_ reported in the news
article. The reader is free to draw his own additional, inferential
conclusions. Most readers of ethical, mainstream journals prefer
that, over having opinions spoon-fed to them, telling them what they
need to believe.
> He did cut at least one wire.
That is also a verifiable fact, and was reported in the news article.
> If it was somehow found later that he was not trying to steal wire, then
> that in itself is newsworthy (certainly an interesting or unforseen
> twist in the story) and the newspaper can always print a retraction.
Printing a retraction is an admission of having made an error in the
first report of the incident. Isn't it better to avoid over-stating
the case to avoid error, rather than have to admit the article stated
as fact some erroneous conclusion that the reporter was unable to
support with actual evidence, which later turned out to be wrong?
And it would _still_ be newsworthy later on if the man in fact _was_
found, as a fact, to have been there for some _other_ reason than to
steal wire. But if the paper had originally (and correctly) reported
that the man was "allegedly" there to steal wire rather than jumping
to an unwarranted and erroneous conclusion, then they could simply
print that as a new news article, and would not have to print a
retraction since there was no error in their first report.
> Nobody has yet offered any opinion as to whether or not news paper (or
> associated "machinery", such as the AP in this case) is protected from
> frivoulous law suits when they are trying to report a story (freedom of
> the press, free speech, etc).
NOBODY is protected from frivolous lawsuits being filed. Anybody can
sue anyone else at any time. That is a corollary of the open system
of courts we have in this wonderful country -- there is no threshold
requirement to walk in the door of the clerk's office, pay your filing
fee, and submit a complaint, which will be duly docketed and dealt
with as a request to have the government's monopoly on the use of
force aid the complainant in obtaining some form of legal relief
against the defendant, which is exactly what a suit _is_. If the suit
is in fact frivolous -- that is, if the person filing the complaint is
_not_ legally entitled to any relief, even on the face of the facts he
alleged -- the law also provides mechanisms for disposing of that case
quickly, and (in egregious cases) reversing the costs, so that the
frivolous complainant has to pay the costs incurred by the dendant in
opposing the groundless suit.
What the editorial policy we've been discussing here _does+
accomplish, is to protect the news company against MERITORIOUS suits
being filed -- because if the paper's staff did _not_ follow that
editorial policy as a routine matter, they would be acting negligently
or recklessly and if as a result they defamed someone that person
would have GOOD grounds to sue the paper for the harm that libel
caused.
I think you completely missed that step of the analysis -- when media
corporate lawyers advise their editor/publisher clients on what
internal rules they should enforce among their staff via memos, policy
manuals, etc., their main purpose is to KEEP THE CLIENT OUT OF
TROUBLE, that is, to help the client's staff prevent themselves from
doing things that are more likely to get their employer INTO
trouble. You seem to be operating on the hidden, incorrect
assumption that corporate lawyers' main job (and corporate client's
main goal) is to find ways they can GET AWAY WITH performing
negligent, reckless, or even criminal wrongs, then escape on a
technicality -- or, worse, that the bigwigs assume WHATEVER they do
is, by definition, correct, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is
reaising a "frivolous" claim. A cynical view that may SOMETIMES find
a basis in reality, but is far from what _most_ corporate legal advice
entails.
> And I also point this out: If a journalist writes that this man was
> "allegedly" trying to steal wire, then who exactly is doing the
> alledging?
Unless someone _told_ the reporter that "the man was trying to steal
wire," that conclusion should not even have been reported in the news
article at all. So, yes, SOMEONE in authority -- either an
investigating cop, or a spokesman for the power company -- told the
reporter that. Not every statement in a news article has to be a
direct quote -- if it were, it would be both overlong and
overboring. Some paraphrasing is essential. And it is not
necessary to specifically identify the source of every bit of info in
an article -- only direct quotes need to be attributed.
> Is the reporter not saying that some convienent, un-named
> third party is doing the alledging?
Yes, that's exactly what the reporter is saying. And the reporter's
notes would doubtless indicate who that "alleger" was. (There's no
"d" in "allege")
> How does that square with the bit
> about being a "good journalist" ?
It squares exactly with what a "good journalist" should do. Report
the facts, report allegations +as+ allegations rather than as proven
facts, and attribute all quotes (either by name or by category if "off
the record") but not necessarily attribute every reported allegation
so long as it is clearly stated that it _is_ an allegation, not a
proven fact.
Robert Bonomi
>For some reason, my original post (and a few responses) didn't show up
>on the server I use, so I'm just discovering that this thread was
>actually posted here...
>
>For using the term "allegedly", the responses here basically boil down
>to these two reasons:
>
>1) it's good journalism
>
>2) protect the paper from possible future legal action
>
>You all realize, of course, that the paper did not say that the man
>"allegedly" broke into the power sub-station. They outright say that he
>*did* break into the substation.
Of course, that _is_ a 'fact'. He was found _inside_ the secured
perimeter of the non-public property, without the permission of the
owners thereof. In point of fact, he was there contrary to the express
declarations of the property owner.
ANY such entry into private property, without the express consent of
the owner. and where is any sort of physical barrier, constitutes
'breaking and entering' under the law.
Now, if he'd been found _outside_ the property -- even with the stolen
wire 'in hand' -- it would be proper to say only that he had allegedly
broken in, and 'allegedly' stolen the wire. After all, he _might_
have found it outside the property, where the actual thief had dropped
it.
> Why not simply go on and say he was
>trying to steal copper wire?
Because it would be dishonest to do so.
His 'intent' is unknown, and _unknowable-.
Unless you know how to read the mind of a dead man, that is. *grin*
> He had wire cutters. He did cut at least
>one wire.
"BFD" applies. It is not actually 'theft' (aka 'stealing') until the
perp actually _removes_ it from the property.
>
>If it was somehow found later that he was not trying to steal wire, then
>that in itself is newsworthy (certainly an interesting or unforseen
>twist in the story) and the newspaper can always print a retraction.
Retractions do *NOT* eliminate liability. At best, they may reduce the
damages associated therewith.
>Nobody has yet offered any opinion as to whether or not news paper (or
>associated "machinery", such as the AP in this case) is protected from
>frivoulous law suits when they are trying to report a story (freedom of
>the press, free speech, etc).
There's a good reason for that.
Any 'informed' person KNOWS that the press is -not- immune from civil
liability for what they report.
"freedom of the press", "free speech", etc. apply *ONLY* to _government_
restrictions laid down _in_advance_ as to what someone can, or cannot
say.
You _are_ 'free' (from government interference in saying it, that is) to
say 'whatever you want' (with limited exceptions), but just because you
are 'free to say it' does _not_ mean that you are immune from any civil
and/or criminal liability that attaches to that act.
The government cannot _prevent_ you from saying that you intend to kill
the President, for example, but they *can* jail you _when_ you *do* say
it.
>And I also point this out: If a journalist writes that this man was
>"allegedly" trying to steal wire, then who exactly is doing the
>alledging?
"Somebody with an opinion." <grin>
> Is the reporter not saying that some convienent, un-named
>third party is doing the alledging?
Maybe, maybe not.
That the deceased was there 'to steal wire' is, no matter _who_ says it,
a matter of _opinion_. The dead person's _intentions_ are unknowable.
*Regardless* of how 'likely' you believe a particular motivation is, you
DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT that that was the actual motivation. Thus, it _is_
only an 'opinion'.
Reporters are trained to distinguish between fact and opinion, and to
report accordingly.
> How does that square with the bit
>about being a "good journalist" ?
"Very well", actually. <grin>
D.F. Manno
wrote:
> For some reason, my original post (and a few responses) didn't show up
> on the server I use, so I'm just discovering that this thread was
> actually posted here...
>
> For using the term "allegedly", the responses here basically boil down
> to these two reasons:
>
> 1) it's good journalism
>
> 2) protect the paper from possible future legal action
>
> You all realize, of course, that the paper did not say that the man
> "allegedly" broke into the power sub-station. They outright say that he
> *did* break into the substation. Why not simply go on and say he was
> trying to steal copper wire? He had wire cutters. He did cut at least
> one wire.
His intent could have been vandalism, not theft.
> If it was somehow found later that he was not trying to steal wire, then
> that in itself is newsworthy (certainly an interesting or unforseen
> twist in the story) and the newspaper can always print a retraction.
>
> Nobody has yet offered any opinion as to whether or not news paper (or
> associated "machinery", such as the AP in this case) is protected from
> frivoulous law suits when they are trying to report a story (freedom of
> the press, free speech, etc).
>
> And I also point this out: If a journalist writes that this man was
> "allegedly" trying to steal wire, then who exactly is doing the
> alledging?
The police, usually.
> Is the reporter not saying that some convienent, un-named
> third party is doing the alledging? How does that square with the bit
> about being a "good journalist" ?
You might not include the identity of the alleger in the lede, but would
include it in a lower graf.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Mike
> You all realize, of course, that the paper did not say that the man
> "allegedly" broke into the power sub-station. They outright say that he
> *did* break into the substation. Why not simply go on and say he was
> trying to steal copper wire? He had wire cutters. He did cut at least
> one wire.
There was no question he broke in (he was unauthorized to be in there
and he definitely was in there.) It was his reason WHY he was in there
that was still at question (maybe he wanted to cut the wires to cause a
wide-spread power outage. Still illegal but not "stealing wire." Maybe
he was insane and thus couldn't be guilty of anything. Maybe, as another
poster offered, he thought there was a danger that he could prevent by
killing the power.)
> If it was somehow found later that he was not trying to steal wire, then
> that in itself is newsworthy (certainly an interesting or unforseen
> twist in the story) and the newspaper can always print a retraction.
"Unring the bell"? Almost never works.
> Nobody has yet offered any opinion as to whether or not news paper (or
> associated "machinery", such as the AP in this case) is protected from
> frivoulous law suits when they are trying to report a story (freedom of
> the press, free speech, etc).
>
> And I also point this out: If a journalist writes that this man was
> "allegedly" trying to steal wire, then who exactly is doing the
> alledging? Is the reporter not saying that some convienent, un-named
> third party is doing the alledging? How does that square with the bit
> about being a "good journalist" ?
I'd ASSUME it was the Sheriff's Office that did the alledging (the same
one that told the newspaper the story to begin with.)