“The events date back to the mid-1990s, when the U.S. president allegedly assaulted the writer in a fitting room at the Bergdorf Goodman clothing store in New York.”
Do you still have to say allegedly if he has been convicted of it?
It’s a shitty way of writing it, approved by a coward of an editor more focused on ad space within an article. The more appropriate, and succinct, way of saying it would be, “Before being re-elected, the president was convicted of assaulting the writer at the clothing store in the mid-1990s. The conviction was upheld on appeal, and she successfully sued him again for defamatory comments made after the first conviction.”
Except it wasn’t a criminal conviction. “Conviction” is not a suitable word here.
Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit for the tort of sexual assault. He was not convicted of the crime of sexual assault. Many crimes also have corresponding civil torts.
I agree that it’s lazy copy editing. “Allegedly” is used in the newspaper business as a magic “get out of any libel suit” word.
However, I don’t think it’s necessarily safe for the news flat report that Trump “did” the thing. They can report on what Carroll says he did (those are the allegations). And they can report that a jury determined it’s more likely than not that he did the thing.
This is a situation where explaining it correctly requires several more words than the editors wanted to spare.
What’s wrong with “he likely did the thing?” To be accurate with the “allegedly,” you have to follow up with “oh but also a jury ruled against him multiple times.” That’s way longer! Leaving it completely unqualified, as the article does, is downright misleading
“The events date back to the mid-1990s, when the U.S. president allegedly assaulted the writer in a fitting room at the Bergdorf Goodman clothing store in New York.”
Do you still have to say allegedly if he has been convicted of it?
It’s a shitty way of writing it, approved by a coward of an editor more focused on ad space within an article. The more appropriate, and succinct, way of saying it would be, “Before being re-elected, the president was convicted of assaulting the writer at the clothing store in the mid-1990s. The conviction was upheld on appeal, and she successfully sued him again for defamatory comments made after the first conviction.”
Except it wasn’t a criminal conviction. “Conviction” is not a suitable word here.
Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit for the tort of sexual assault. He was not convicted of the crime of sexual assault. Many crimes also have corresponding civil torts.
Either way, “allegedly” is the incorrect choice of words
I agree that it’s lazy copy editing. “Allegedly” is used in the newspaper business as a magic “get out of any libel suit” word.
However, I don’t think it’s necessarily safe for the news flat report that Trump “did” the thing. They can report on what Carroll says he did (those are the allegations). And they can report that a jury determined it’s more likely than not that he did the thing.
This is a situation where explaining it correctly requires several more words than the editors wanted to spare.
What’s wrong with “he likely did the thing?” To be accurate with the “allegedly,” you have to follow up with “oh but also a jury ruled against him multiple times.” That’s way longer! Leaving it completely unqualified, as the article does, is downright misleading