Hacker News Reader

Comment by yaix | Hacker News Reader

That sounds much like Richard Nixon when he first read about watergate.

Unproven and sensationalist it is, but how is it "misleading"?

"Found To Be Corrupt" suggest an official inquiry of some sorts. Not the opinion of the author.

Not exactly - in this case, a person on Twitter found a two-year-old article showing that this particular judge was corrupt in copyright monopoly cases. There is nothing denoting how "official" the conclusion is, not inherently in the expression.

In a juridical context, "found corrupt" means something like "a judge ruled that X is corrupt". It's easy to think that that is what the headline says.

And in a technical context, it means that a data file produced a read error.

In a blog context, it means neither.

"Found corrupt" in the same sentence as "judge" strongly suggest a judicial context. This is not accurate.

Judge_Dredd.avi found corrupt (SCNR, and sadly somewhat relevant, given the filename-in-a-forum issue reported in the article)

So what does "found to be corrupt" mean in a blog context? "Please sue me for libel?" (Yes, I see the note. "I don't need journalistic integrity, I'm a registered journalist!")

Good job on finding the other common meaning; you'll have noticed that a search on "found to be corrupt" yields two meanings besides this article: corrupted data, and findings of a court or investigation.

There are a lot of ways to phrase the headline that wouldn't make a reasonable reader assume that this was an official ruling, e.g. "X is corrupt", "Why X is corrupt", "Evidence that X is corrupt", "X alleged to be corrupt", or really anything but "found to be".

The facts by themselves are interesting, but the headline I found misleading.

> So what does "found to be corrupt" mean in a blog context?

It means that evidence indicating corruption has been found. Any other reading puts words in their mouth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com