Manafort Bail Revocation Motion

I had intended to post something analytical this evening, but I thought that this was more timely.

I believe that I have commented before on a running complaint that I have about news media.  That is, when there’s a report about a court case, I believe that the article should have a link to source documents.  Right now, the breaking news is the Government’s motion to revoke Paul Manafort’s bail.  As of this moment, neither the NYT or WaPo articles have a link to the motion.   But the RBC, always on the job, does.  (BTW, sometimes the link will not allow a complete download.  If that occurs, look for the tiny red button in the upper right corner.  If you click on that button, the complete document should download.)

6 thoughts on “Manafort Bail Revocation Motion”

  1. Old-style newspapermen think of the print version as the real thing, and it is much harder to change retrospectively: scripta manent. But only the online versions of articles have hyperlinks, which are increasingly a crucial part of serious reporting.
    We need new conventions here.
    – The online and printed versions of an article must be identical in upfront content, though not in format.
    – Hyperlinks to sources should be provided where possible in the online version.
    – The printed version should include a typographic marker where there is a source link in the online version. Windows does not offer an anchor, but an omega Ω will do.

    1. There is a complication (depending on exactly what's being linked to): links are sometimes/often ephemeral. So news media either have to deal with people complaining about link rot, or institute some kind of longterm monitoring system for links to source material, or wait until there are links to things that are not expected to change.

      But mostly I think it's the same kind of thing as the old-style catholic church: readers come to the truth through the interpretations given by authority figures, not by unguided personal perusal.

      1. When writing a print article, one can certainly put the source URL(s) right into the article. Yes, it's true that if I print the URL of a source, that link may rot over time. But that's equally true if I include the link in my on-line article. If the linked source evaporates, the user will get a 404 error when she clicks on the link on-line, just the same as if she types it into her browser after reading my print article.

        Google suffers with this problem all the time, so I surmise there is no good solution. Meanwhile, though, it seems little enough to ask that an author quoting a source provide a URL to the citation if one exists.

  2. Links should not be "ephemeral." When I provide material such as court opinions, etc., I first pdf the material and upload the material to my domain.

    Alternatively, one can use Because I lack an affiliation with an academic institution, I am limited to 10 postings a month. If one is affiliated with an academic institution, there is no limit.

    Finally, institutions such as the NYT and WaPo should have more than enough space on their servers to upload as much source material as necessary. BTW, WaPol did post the motion a few hours after I did. The NYT is still silent.

    1. I'm lazier than Stuart. My old posts do suffer from linkrot. But (a) there's always the Wayback Machine; (b) the context and content usually provides enough data for a new search to work; (c) we are not blogging for posterity, though it's nice when old posts do resurface. Reputable news organisations like the BBC take care to make their URLs permanent, and as Stuart says can easily do the same for their quoted sources.This is particularly valuable when dealing with dishonest sources like the Trump White House, capable of Orwellian retrospective editing.

  3. Person A appears to be Konstantin Kilimnik. So it seems we are looking at attempted witness tampering by a Russian agent. The government infers, but doesn't claim to have direct evidence, that Kilimnik was acting at Manafort's request. As an indication that Manafort is stupid or desperate, as well as corrupt, Manafort doesn't try to protect himself by letting Kilimnik do all the work, but instead attempts to influence one of the witnesses himself.

Comments are closed.