Re:New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Jo...
by gambler on Saturday July 11, 2015 @06:15PM
(#9871765)
This is self-evidently true.
The statement is true, but what it speaks about is a what-if scenario.
You might not like that Pao's trial keeps appearing in the Times story about Pao's resignation, but the giant petition for her ouster chose to lead itself off with it. It's materially part of the real context of the story.
I'm not saying that NYT should be prohibited from mentioning the lawsuit. I'm saying that it's not directly related, and definitely not related enough to take up half the article.
Re:New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Jo...
by rory096 on Saturday July 11, 2015 @06:08PM
(#9871750)
That is a weird quote. Is it normal for articles mentioning past trials to say "if a mistrial is declared, the trial was invalid"? Seems like an out of place, almost tautological piece of information. Maybe if something like a motion for a mistrial was filed, but why state a fact like that just randomly? It only serves to apply doubt to the validity of the trial outcome, with no apparent basis (I don't really know anything about the trial myself).
If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair, Kleiner (and Silicon Valley, symbolically) would be on trial again.
This is self-evidently true.
You might not like that Pao's trial keeps appearing in the Times story about Pao's resignation, but the giant petition for her ouster chose to lead itself off with it. It's materially part of the real context of the story.