From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD answer
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:30:47 -0400
Thanks for the clarification. Is it still double hearsay if I direct
someone to the original article or post it in my original message. I did
both. I can see why it would be but also that it might not. Several people
also pointed to the 6ABC report in which the student can be observed
speaking. Does the same rule apply there?
Frank
Frank,
There's a legal definition of hearsay, and an everyday usage of the term.
The legal definition of hearsay is "an out-of-court statement made in court
for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted". In other
words, a person having his or her knowledge of an event based on being told
what happened by someone else, rather than having witnessed or experienced
the event him/herself. If a court was trying to determine who was at fault
in a car accident, and a witness would testify that "my friend was there and
he told me the red car ran the stop sign", that witness's testimony would be
inadmissable, because his only knowledge came from what the friend told him.
The friend would have to come in and testify.
The words of the original person is not hearsay because he or she is
speaking about something he knows from having observed it or experienced it,
and s/he can be questioned in detail about the accuracy of his observation.
Also, any biases, forgetfulness, tendencies to exaggerate, etc, can be
probed in deterimining whether or not to believe his statement. But a person
who wasn't there can only repeat what he was told, and he can't know any
other detail, can't know that the original person may have been lying to
begin with, or had some ax to grind. Plus the person repeating the story may
have forgotten some of what he was told, or intentionally or accidentally
changed part of the story. And this increases as each person hearing the
story relays it on to someone else.
In everyday usage of the term hearsay, it just means that someone is
repeating something he didn't actually witness himself. That would always
be the case with newspaper accounts, and why, as someone pointed out,
reporters are not usually called as witnesses (apart from a whole raft of
freedom-of-the press issues).
But each retelling (second hand, third hand, etc) adds another layer of
hearsay. So in our example, quoting what the reporter said makes it double
hearsay because there are two layers of people between what is being said
and the person who originally said it. We the readers are repeating [double
hearsay] what the reporter repeated [hearsay] were the words of the person
who was there.
Is it still double hearsay if I direct someone to the original article or
post it in my original message. Several people also pointed to the 6ABC
report in which the student can be observed speaking. >Does the same rule
apply there?
The article would be hearsay regardless because the reporter is repeating
what the person who was involved said. If you post it verbatim or direct
someone to the original, the original is still hearsay. And if that reader
repeats it, then that would be double hearsay. The hearsay would be the act
of quoting it in a later retelling, with each retelling being a layer of
hearsay, so I don't think your posting or directing would count, because
you're not retelling the story, just directing someone to it.
I would say that the portion of the 6ABC report where the original speaker
is recorded would probably not be hearsay because it is the original speaker
relaying the information. Once someone repeats him (reporter, viewer, etc)
then it's hearsay.
Karen
On May 30, 2007, at 10:55 AM, KAREN ALLEN wrote:
Paul,
You are correct in your characterization of "double hearsay". If the
reporter repeats (in a news report) what the original witmess said,
that's hearsay because the reporter's knowledge is not based on firsthand
observation, but on what s)he was told by someone who did have fisthand
observation. If I repeat what the reporter reported (the statement as
reported in the news story), that's double hearsay: not only did I not
have firsthand observation, but the person telling me did not have
firsthand observation either.
Karen
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
