'Me, too'

If she had named an assailant, you'd be getting 'alleged' in every headline.

Also, don't presume the director in question was someone she actually shot a movie with. Actors go on scores of auditions and meetings every year. Could just as easily have been at one of these.

 

Isn't this one of those "I believe she believes..." scenarios?

It's not inaccurate for her to say/feel that she was sexually assaulted. It is a reveal. If she names names, then that is an allegation.

Best I got.

 

It's troubling. But very troubling? So you allege. ... Can we parse "very" next?

 

If my neighbor says he's got cancer, did he reveal it or allege it?

 

She's accusing someone of a crime.

 

So why not now? She's accusing someone of a crime. Does the fact that she doesn't name an assailant make it unassailably true?

 

"Reveal" is more dramatic, but I'm OK with it since she didn't name names.

 

Of course not.

But 'reveals' is sufficiently accurate.

Who is she accusing?

 

Whether I believe her or not is not relevant. Not my call to make if I'm writing or editing the story.

"Reveal" implies that she has disclosed an established fact.

Imagine that she named someone. Would you use it?

"Witherspoon revealed that she was sexually assaulted by James Cameron."

It's still an allegation.

 

reveal

[ri-veel]

verb (used with object)
1.
to make known; disclose; divulge:

 

It presumes the truth of her statement. Why is distinguishable from a situation in which she named a name?

 

Maybe the sentence should be "Witherspoon reveals an allegation ... "