• magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    2 days ago

    Throwing in the word “apparent” is cowardly, but it’s also a lot cheaper than being sued for libel by a fucking billionaire.

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nah. Getting sued for libel is what these outlets should be absolutely proud to have sent their way. That’s literally a news story in itself. It would also means he’d actually have to defend it instead of posting Nazi puns on Twitter.

      • markko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        From a legal point of view it hasn’t been tried in a court of law, which is why words like “apparently” and “allegedly” are used.

          • markko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            That is literally what happens in US news when the subject involves a criminal offence or could be considered defamation.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Yes. It’s impossible to report objectively on capitalists with enough control to sue. This has been shown again and again.

              • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Less than perfectly, due to the constraints of the system they are forced to operate within.*

                You are, of course, free to start up a news agency that fulfills every ideal you hold close, just know that you’ll have to have a lot of funding if you’re going to be spending as much time in court defending against libel lawsuits as you spend on reporting.