Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Col. Bleep, post: 90596, member: 1023"]
I have a bit of a different view.

Multiple independent sources are ideal in any story, of course, for reasons stated above.
But I think this became something that could be reported once the police opened their investigation.
It's not an easy call...because once you report something like this, even if someone is exonerated, his reputation can never be completely cleansed.
But at the point a public agency starts investigating, it's giving the story enough credence to be reported (and, no, they obviously don't investigate every complaint).

I've had debates about this position the past week.
But I look at it this way:
Suppose Davis was the only source...police opened an investigation...and it wasn't reported.
The DA & police brass then get into a nasty public dispute that winds up in court.
Is that also unreportable because of the underlying issue?
No.  It's not and it shouldn't be.
Generally speaking, when our governmental agencies say openly that they're doing something, it's reportable.

Also...bear in mind that just because you source statements to Davis or anyone else does not get you off the hook for any defamation claim
(unless you're reporting statements made in court filings or other privileged material).
If you "publish" a statement, you're potentially on the hook for any libel or slander.
That makes it all the more ridiculous for anyone to be publishing unverified statements about the accuser's mental state, physical state or past behavior.
Some people here keep doing it.
It's really an embarrassment for all of us.
But it's potentially a lawsuit for those making the claims...even if they post using pseudonyms.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?