The funny thing is I don’t think there is any substantial disagreement between you and I Paul on the truth of the story, and probably not on the general quality of The Guardian’s journalism, especially in comparison with other UK media.
I’m not sure at all where you’re coming from in the discussion actually, but pedantry is a possible insight, since it was you that introduced the rabbit of courtroom standards of evidence. Lots of words have different meanings in different contexts, and different standards of proof are appropriate in different contexts too. This is reality. Messy maybe - but bear in mind the general issue with legal language: in the attempt to make legal documents perfectly clear and unambiguous, lawyers actually succeed in making them almost impenetrable to everybody else!
Somebody on trial for a crime is entitled to demand a very high standard of proof. Investigative journalists should apply those standards, perhaps, when their work might actually lead to an individual’s loss of liberty. But to condemn any journalism as ‘hearsay’ because a relatively small part of a story includes reported conversations - reported that is by people that had also directly experienced the wrongs in question - and whose reliability is also confirmed by lawyers and organisations working the field - is to apply an inappropriate standard of proof. To be honest, I think if you didn’t have the argumentative bit between your own teeth you would see this point.
The Guardian is not perfect - it actually often infuriates me by not linking sources, especially in reports of research where I want to go back to the actual data - but I think in this case the criticism is unfounded. Had it not published the story - had it for example followed up all the individual experiences it alludes to, thus delaying publication for days or weeks, more people might well have suffered similar abuse.
Being pedantic I’d suggest it was Stevie - I was only pointing out that his argument required use of the legal definition but that said definition was well established so he, to a point, had a point.
Thank <deity> for that - normal service resumed
And, yes, I agree that public exposure of this story undoubtedly added to pressure on the HO to do the right thing.
It’s just a pity it needed that pressure to be applied.
Actually, it was me, using “hearsay” as a description of much of the article. I chose the word carefully, and it’s accurate. @anon88169868 kindly reiterated the reasons it’s useful to consider the legal definition: because it helps us to identify and then to exclude unreliable evidence.
Most of the “facts” in the article were hearsay. It doesn’t stop them being true, but it does make the reporting unreliable. I think any newspaper ought to have high standards of accuracy and reliability, and just because I might support more of the Guardian’s ideals than the Mail’s doesn’t mean it’s right to apply a lower standard when I consider its writing.
I didn’t single out this article: someone posted a link to it at the top of this thread
@anon88169868 (and @Geof_Cox) “I think you can draw inferences [that the reporting is accurate] from other aspects (the fact the HO were not screaming about the falsity of the accounts speaks volumes)” - maybe I’m too cynical, but I’d have thought the last thing this government would do would be to deny these stories. There’s no mileage for them in liberalism, and there are plenty behing the “red wall” who might think locking up visitors who came seeking employment was a Good Thing.
PS @Geof_Cox - you’re not a former teacher, are you? The only places I’ve routinely heard such an impassioned defence of what was always called “the paper” (as if no one with any intelligence would read anything but the Guardian), was in school staff rooms and in theeir university equivalents.
What you said Stevie was ‘It’s sloppy journalism based on unsupported hearsay.’ It was in fact Paul that set the courtroom rabbit away. It’s not relevant at all - unless every time you use the word, say, ‘article’, or ‘share’, or indeed ‘court’ you mean it in the restricted legal sense. Come off it - who does that?
But your original statement is simply not true - nor is your re-statement here that ‘most of the “facts” in the article were hearsay.’ You’ve not only distorted the meaning of ‘hearsay’ to include all reported conversation, not just unsubstatiated rumour, you’ve also ignored the bulk of the article which is concerned with the victims and experts interviewed first hand. But I give up!
I think that at the end of the day, trying to say that reportage is hearsay may be strictly true under the definition in law books. However, if we try to apply the same criteria for journalism, then almost everything that is printed, worldwide, in print is hearsay. The only exception to this would be reporters who personally experience whatever events they are writing about, and also experience every word of that report. Because of this, it is nonsense to try to hold print journalism to the same standard as witnesses in court.
At the end of the day, for each individual, it depends upon how much you trust the news outlet. I know that I trust the Guardian infinitely more than say the Mail or Express.
Me too Ray, but some might say that’s very faint praise. Not exactly a high bar to jump. A bit like saying I trust Boris Johnson more than Donald Trump.
Well, I don’t really trust any of them.
In my rant about hearsay in Journalism, I then thought about holding journalists to account via libel laws. There, I thought, journalists would be held to strict laws about hearsay. In reality, this turns out not to be true. Apparently, hearsay evidence is allowed in civil cases.
The rules regarding hearsay evidence in civil cases is governed by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (CEA 1995), which explicitly provides in s 1(1) that ‘in civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay’.
Hearsay is defined in s 1(2) of CEA 1995 as: ‘…a statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated.’
Not “inside the Home Office” where the staff are suffering but the Boss of the HO - Priti Patel. Just one of a number of MP (all Tory) who are causing misery and disruption throughout the UK (and elsewhere too)
I saw that in the 70s in Brazil. Censorship meant that newspaper articles would be redacted by the censor. Newspapers had several ways of dealing with this - some just left blank spaces. Another approach, ingeniously, was to print a recipe (or part thereof) in the gaps. It was always the same recipe - Bolo Inglês - English Cake. Amusing - except of course it wasn’t.
I’m not. I’m with Paul Flinders on this - hearsay is exactly what it says ‘hear … say’ or more accurately ‘heard it said’
This is a leading British newspaper report. What I have read of the piece - only what’s been quoted above - reminds me of my Guardian-reading friend who declared, “Tesco has killed the High Street”. Implying High Steets everywhere.
This was a headline in a Grauniad piece about the shopping area of Notting Hill Gate, either side of the u/g station of that name. It’s my friend’s local shopping area.
Being sceptical of Grauniad pieces of this nature I did some delving at the Kensington Ch of Commerce and found that in fact any change had been for the better, as far as the turnover of the shops in the vicinity of the Tesco - which includes a Waitrose…
I’d suggest it was Stevie - I was only pointing out that his argument required use of the legal definition but that said definition was well established so he, to a point, had a point.
