undefined | Better HN

0 pointstestfoobar20d ago0 comments

By researching, writing and publishing this article both the reporter and the news org believe there is significant public value in publishing this information.

But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed.

Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. This is left for courts.

0 comments

imiric20d ago

That's ludicrous hair splitting.

If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.

By your logic, reporting based on evidence provided by whistleblowers shouldn't exist. Things like Watergate would likely have never happened.

Journalists shouldn't accuse anyone of committing a crime, and goes without saying that facts shouldn't be fabricated, which is unfortunately common nowadays as well, but they should report events that happened based on the information they have, whether these happen to be related to crimes or not.

testfoobarOP20d ago

>If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.

In the US, careful journalistic organizations follow ethical and legal guidelines that often split hairs.

Have a look here: New York Times - Ethical Journalism A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Opinion Departments

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...

ndsipa_pomu20d ago

Reporting based on evidence is definitely allowed in the UK. Any accusation of libel/slander could be defended by producing the evidence and thus proving that the statements were true.

Going beyond the evidence and jumping straight to the crime is where the situation becomes tricky as the defense would be unlikely to prove beyond doubt that the accused person was actually guilty - that's why terms are used such as "alleged child abuser". Alternatively, the evidence/facts can be reported e.g. "Trump featured in many victim reports as an abuser".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse