you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 93 points 1 month ago (10 children)

It's "alleged" even though there's a verdict against them? That can't be right.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    According to Bloomberg Law, Apple didn't agree with the jury's decision nor the damages and would appeal the verdict.

    It’s alleged until the appeals stop, then it’s the final verdict

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    It's generally accepted that a jury verdict is final at the moment it's accepted by the trial court. So no "alleged" is needed. It's not technically wrong to use it as a descriptive choice, since it's now both factually established and still alleged, but it's misleadingly tentative and not required.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago*

    It’s alleged until the appeals stop, then it’s the final verdict

    It's only alleged until the verdict drops. Whether or not they appeal, they are currently found guilty of the crime, ergo, not "alleged".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Apple is convicted of but alleges otherwise isn't that difficult.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    I believe the issue comes down to not needing to later retract things to change the statement, like yeah I know Apple was convicted of this and currently is “convicted” but if they appeal and win and in 5 years the article says “Apple convicted of X, must pay Y” you’d necessarily need a follow up article to correct it OR a retraction or whatever later.

    Anyways. I bet that’s the reason, even if I agree that what you said should be the way it’s reported as it is currently the most accurate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    So just more gutless journalism focused on appeasing corporate interest rather than reporting the truth? Shocking

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    No that’s a pretty solid twist of my words

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I mean it’s exactly what you’ve said. They hem and haw and refuse to report news that could warrant a future retraction—which, by the way, is a stupid take, as news is temporal and current and what they’re reporting currently is in the interest of some unknown future verdict rather than the one before us now. So, given that they choose to report whatever is most favorable for future corporate interest despite damning current events, I have to conclude that it’s because journalists are prevented from doing their actual jobs by media conglomerates who will always side with capital. How does that twist your words exactly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment