'Me, too'

She most certainly accused somebody of a crime.

 

They should not have used the word revealed. But you added hypotheticals to reach a conclusion that can't be reached based on what was written.

If a media outlet uses the word "reveal" to describe the content of Witherspoon's statement, and the name of the accused director later leaks from other sources, the media outlet still did not libel an identifiable person, nor did it act as judge and jury. The accusation would still have to stand on its own merits, and it would be Witherspoon who would be on the hook for any claims that were made.

As it pertains to a libel suit against the media outlet that used the word "reveal," you would know better than me - would they even allow a subsequent leak of the accused director's name to be entered into evidence, given that the media outlet that did not print a name? I seriously doubt the media outlet in question could be held responsible for the subsequent reporting of other outlets.

You'd have to add so many more hypotheticals to reach the conclusion that a media outlet using the word "reveal" committed libel, it's not worth consideration.

 

Libel isn't the only thing you can be sued for.

 

I don’t care about the libel portion, at least not primarily. As a matter of ethics, I do care about the fact that you have now presented as an established fact that an identifiable director committed sexual assault against a 16-year-old actress.

 

"identifiable?"

 

Allege unequivocally does not have "legal/protective uses." It is not some magic word that will help you avoid libel and most journalists use it incorrectly. But since you won't take my word for it, here's what Poynter has to say:

Word Watch: Allegedly Innocent Suspects

 

Yes, a secondary consideration in not using “reveals” is that it is reasonably foreseeable that Witherspoon has identified the director to people, and the name could leak.

 

Nice understatement: "if death is only an allegation, more reporting is probably in order."

 

I have? Or were you using a generic "you," meaning the media?

Either way, you had to add hypotheticals to reach the point of calling the director "identifiable." But even if your scenario plays out, it isn't the media using the word "reveal" that will be the issue. It will become, "Is Director X the subject of Witherspoon's claims?" "Can Witherspoon support such a claim?" If and when the director's name is uncovered, the focus will never be on the word reveal - it will be on what was a nebulous claim of sexual assault becoming a specific allegation against an individual that will have to withstand scrutiny, regardless of whether the media said she "revealed it"

You mentioned the libel aspect, and it seemed worth exploring, but no media outlet that used the word reveal in that instance will face a libel lawsuit, so I suppose it is a moot point.

But I do want to reiterate, it was absurd to use the word "reveal." She didn't reveal anything, not even a specific claim of what happened to her.

 

For libel purposes, it only takes the testimony of one person - other than the plaintiff - who can credibly say they knew the statement was "of and concerning" the plaintiff when they heard it. It's a pretty low bar and certainly there are folks out there who know who Witherspoon is talking about when she made this statement.

It's like how Chris Kyle referred to Jesse Ventura as "Scruff Face" in his book. Most of us had no idea who he was talking about, but people in the Navy SEAL community knew.

 

How would you write the Witherspoon statement, based upon this?

 

Generic “you.”