@Teri_Kanefield
Read it. Understood it.

P.S. I do adore your mind and analysis.

@Teri_Kanefield not directly related to your topic, but I have been sort of following the Manhattan case. and I still feel like they have a looooooong way to go to prove a felony. And if they are planning on wrapping up in a week or so, I don't see how they will make it.

Of course I am not on the jury (and not a lawyer!) so I could be way off base!

@Teri_Kanefield I have noticed this effect too, when I post links to my own sites -- and of course, as you say, it will be much worse for accounts with a large following.

Yeah, something needs to be done about that. (I'd ear-burn Gargron, but I assume he ignores those anymore.)

@Teri_Kanefield: I suspect that part of the problem for some folks is coming up with the right questions to get the clarification they seek even if they aren't being sauteed in rage-inducing headlines and simplifications. Dr. Google is a powerful tool, but asking the wrong questions can unintentionally send folks into a deeper quagmire.

One way they can better parse the information they take in is by reading and understanding your latest book - A Firehose of Falsehood. While the book itself is at turns entertaining, informative, and scary, it provides solid advice on recognizing disinformation and protecting one's self from it. Recognizing it for what it is is the first step.

And then of course there's the fun of reading the legal documents themselves as we've learned to do from your "fun with reading legal documents" and "fun with criminal prosecution" courses. Still waiting for the exams on those. 🤓

@Teri_Kanefield This is such a heartbreaking paragraph:

"I did the work because I naively believed that if indictments were filed, there would come a collective moment of reckoning. The legal pundits who had been misleading the public about the investigation would realize they were wrong. The public would realize they were wrong. People would magically become interested in facts instead of scorecard analysis. (I went to law school because I was a naive idealist so that hasn’t changed.)"

@Teri_Kanefield

The extent to which lawyers and politicians are held in low regard reflects our American sense of "entitlement." We feel entitled to have Right* prevail, to have lawyers only represent the innocent (or us), and to have politicians always deliver on promises as if they were Kings.

I'm a fan of both maligned groups: it takes a certain temperament to pursue either challenging career. Hat's off. To teachers and librarians, too.😎

Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo
—
*Not "the Right"!🤨

@Teri_Kanefield I appreciate, enjoy, and learn from your posts. Thank you for writing and sharing them.

A question I had while reading the comparison to sports commentators is what criteria/metrics should "pundits" be using to help inform the public (even though it won't result in clicks)? Is it consistency with other cases, is it how the specific harm was addressed and future harm prevented, or some other "metric"?

Maybe other future topic inspirations: What should the public pay attention to where they play an oversight role (e.g. voting on judges)? What are the parts that the public has more direct control over, and thus warrants some worry energy spent, vs all the other parts that the public has less control over and should instead direct their attention to a different part of the process for shaping or understanding how things work.