'Me, too'

Of course not.

As I've said, if you specify an accused, you have to temper the assertion with 'alleged/alleges/claims' etc.

Same for the President Obama hypothetical.

 

Azrael, I know you're going to do everything to cling to your point, but it is not possible to be more incorrect on what's really a straightforward matter of language.

 

Why?

 

Because then it's an accusation.

And could put your publication at risk of a libel suit.

 

1) I'm agreeing that "revealed" is stronger than "claims" or "alleges."

2) I think substituting "says" into that sentence doesn't change it, or if it does, not very much.

3) I agree with @Azrael that a specific accusation needs to be more carefully handled.

4) Our collective default, when a woman says she was sexually assaulted, should be to believe her. (This should probably be No. 1.)

5) So I'm not as offended by that sentence as I would be by, say, "Reese Witherspoon revealed that [specific name] is a closet Nazi."

 

That’s what matters???!!!

 

I'm not clinging to anything.

As I've said repeatedly, "reveals" is imperfect.

 

Certainly one of the things that matters when these editorial decisions are getting made. Right?

I mean, we're talking about journalism, yes?

 

You can get sued, and lose, whether you name someone or not.

 

Except when a potential libel suit looms?

I guess I don’t see a principled distinction.

Agree with you that “says” could imply the truth of the statement, as well.

 

No Dick.

That's why you use the word 'alleges.'