TED FRANK TAKES ON MAINSTREAM MEDIA . . .You won't go wrong reading Ted Frank's account at Overlawyered of how he investigated a mainstream newspaper's account of a recent trial and found it to be lacking. But was it? If you want to begin the long process of deciding for yourself, read the extensive comments about Frank's post at The Volokh Conspiracy. Some are supportive, but others criticize Frank for getting much of his information about the case from the defendant's expert reports and the defendant's portion of the joint pretrial brief. All the comments are good reading.

Comments

[abacab]

I had understood that in the absence of corrections relating to an article one was to assume the article correct in every detail, and thus it could be safely relied upon as 100% accurate. I had thought such second-hand stenography was the best method determining the facts underlying tort cases, particularly on sites such as OverLawyered.com. What could have left me so confused?

[Eh Nonymous]

Hey, Evan, ltn read.

Or rather, I've been reading, but by using BlogLines, not by browsing over here.

Um, you're gonna have to change the blog's tagline. If most of the fun of this baby is in the comments, then you're in serious need of a party.

Comment traffic is down here - as on mine, but my excuse is that I've been AWOL and need to get back to weekly, then nearly-daily posting.

I blame del.icio.us, for making it more fun to post there than to blog.

Anyway, keep up with the keeping up, and let us know what the book's called when you're ready to.

[Aaron]

When you read the distortion of facts in media pieces like this one, doesn't a little part of you cry out, "Where's Ted Frank when you need him?"