this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
1604 points (99.2% liked)

News

23367 readers
3134 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 101 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why don't news organizations address the elephant in the room? They can say there is no evidence of foul play but the circumstances warrant further investigation as his death is quite convenient for Bowing. I don't see how that could be libelous.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 72 points 8 months ago

Because news organizations no longer do any work investigating, only propagandizing for the sweet greenback$. 💰

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They can be sued if they claim Boeing executives murdered a guy unless there are court records showing Boeing executives were convicted for murdering a guy. However, I guarantee you people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver will absolutely run with this bit if they get the chance.

"WhY iSN't ThE MEdiA CoVEriNG tHe NeWs" people scream in the comments of a news feed that alerted them to this exact issue.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's simply not true. Defamation/libel against a public company requires "actual malice", which essentially means that the news outlet would have to have evidence that what they're saying is not true.

Fox was going to lose to Dominion because they 100% knew they were lying about the company, and there were records proving it. It's not actually common at all for cases regarding defamation against public figures or corporations to go anywhere.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You bringing up the Fox News counter-example and claiming it was a one off is kind of self-awarewolf.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I'm bringing it up because it was a remarkably rare thing that recently happened.

The reason Fox lies 50 times a minute is because defamation is incredibly difficult to prove.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

did you even read the comment you're responding to?

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not only did I read it but I answered the question.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You absolutely did not. The question was not: "Why don't news organizations claim Boeing execs murdered a guy...?" The commenter was clearly aware of the problem of libel, which you completely ignored. They asked why news orgs aren't discussing the fact that the death comes at a suspiciously convenient time - because they aren't. This is not the same as claiming that he was murdered by Boeing.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He claimed it shouldn't be libelous and I explained that it would be libelous. You're implying that journalists are somehow dancing around the issue, which is silly because we're all pretty well informed that the whistleblower was probably murdered.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it's not libelous to discuss the elephant in the room. you did not explain anything. you just disregarded the question with your assumption.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you say a person or entity with a public image did something really bad that they haven't been strictly proven to have done, with exceptions for things such as parody, then that is defamation. So, yes, it can be libelous to talk about the fucking elephant.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

wowdaft. it couldn't be more clear that the suggestion is discussing the suspicious nature WITHOUT making direct accusations.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Welcome back, bud, we missed you.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

heh, the subtle suggestion that one shouldn't have a life away from here is embarrassing.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh goodness, imagine being so depressingly homely as to spend 30s checking an inbox more than once a week. Can you imagine?

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago

what are you even talking about? you've lost the plot.