If I’m right about your intentions, you’re attempting to portray the author and paper as minimizing what happened to the kid. That doesn’t seem valid at all, given that a) the entire article is about what happened to the victim and outlining the case, and not disputing her claims b) it’s literally in the article as a quote, just read the thing already.
Why can’t the author say she was raped? Adding quotes means it is no longer a statement of fact, it becomes a report about someone’s account of what happened.
Because in the unlikely event that this isn’t what happened and the court finds them not guilty, the paper would be liable for damages that came from making that statement. Libel law exists, so they can’t just state it.
Hence running a quote, plus using the industry standard in the article, “alleged”. After the conviction it’s a matter of legal fact.
No, it’s a single word which could have feasibly been said by anybody involved in this story, and there’s no way to tell because the headline doesn’t attribute the quote.
That’s not how quotes work. You can use individual words from someone as a quote. The number of words doesn’t matter when you’re quoting someone. You don’t have to quote the full sentence. It is not uncommon.
Why the fuck is that word in quotes.
Because it’s a literal quotation from the victim, read the article.
Oh OK, so it’s a ‘quotation’ from the ‘victim’? Am I doing it right?
If I’m right about your intentions, you’re attempting to portray the author and paper as minimizing what happened to the kid. That doesn’t seem valid at all, given that a) the entire article is about what happened to the victim and outlining the case, and not disputing her claims b) it’s literally in the article as a quote, just read the thing already.
Why can’t the author say she was raped? Adding quotes means it is no longer a statement of fact, it becomes a report about someone’s account of what happened.
Because in the unlikely event that this isn’t what happened and the court finds them not guilty, the paper would be liable for damages that came from making that statement. Libel law exists, so they can’t just state it.
Hence running a quote, plus using the industry standard in the article, “alleged”. After the conviction it’s a matter of legal fact.
It “might” be “something” that “requires” further “investigation”.
No, it’s a single word which could have feasibly been said by anybody involved in this story, and there’s no way to tell because the headline doesn’t attribute the quote.
It’s editorializing, not a quote.
It quotes the child in the article. I’d suggest reading it before commenting on it.
That’s not how quotes work. You can use individual words from someone as a quote. The number of words doesn’t matter when you’re quoting someone. You don’t have to quote the full sentence. It is not uncommon.
Plausible deniability to not get sued by not themselves making the claim but instead quoting the victim. A lack of integrity from the editors.