博讯新闻网向章子怡'无保留道歉'

choi

BBC Chinese, Dec 17, 2013.
www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/chin ... boxun_apology.shtml

My comment:
(a) Boxun.com at its Chinese edition does not say anything about it: certainly no 无保留道歉 or 道歉.
(b) It says sorry in its English-language website:

Boxun News Retract Reports About Zhang ZiYi. Boxun News, Dec 17, 2013
en.boxun.com/boxun-news-retracts-reports-about-zhang-ziyi/
(c) The following is my view, not that of Yilubbs.com:

I am versed of some laws (state and federal) that protects myself in daily life. (For example, I know nothing about estate law (dealing with inheritance), for lack of use to me). From the beginning (when Ms Zhang threatened to sue), I saw the founder and managing director committing blunder after blunder. Not just legal, but moral.
(i) Speaking about Legal issues first. He never had a chance. American laws (federal and states) do not erect an absolute bar that leaves source of newspapers beyond scrutiny. In Massachusetts, a civil action of defamation against a newspaper and its reporter has to show it can not obtain information about the source through independent means, before proceeding to depose--or take testimony under oath from--the reporter (as well as editors). It is not a high barrier, because frequently only the reporter and editors knows the identity of sources. If the reporter and the newspaper wants to keep their promises, if any, to sources, they will have to elect to default (put up no defense) and a jury will decide the penalty (usually parties settle before that).

It is unlikely Boxun would/could divulge the identity of its source, whether the report was true or false. Simply because Boxun most likely does not know it (identity)--it just publishes rumors which happen to to correct sometimes (due to selective leaks from Chinese government sources). It is not like the founder can evaluate the truthfulness of sources of rumor mills, by face-to-face chat (as foreign press does in China; thus China wants it out), not least because he is based in US.

(ii) So Boxun's founder should have apologize from the outset. Instead he chose to be defiant, and vociferous. There is no excuse for it. And his outrageous words and acts merely tell me that his judgment is questionable, and remind me of bad guys in Taiwan. (About the latter, Taiwan was under authoritative rule. Many thins there and then (which last more than half a century), things were not reasonable, rational ("absurd" is more apt), only less than today's China (I can not imagine how bad China was.) So folks in high place in Taiwan behaved more or less like the Boxun founder.

I'd say a word about the founder of this website, which attracts few visitors. Surely he could have done the same (which is not bad for business, considering William Randolph Hearst). The fact that he did not, but battles it out with near-death experience for the website, speaks volume.

choi

From legal viewpoint, Boxun (and founder, who doubles as editor), having shed it defense (which had been none from the outset--  just bluff, huff and puff) is at the mercy of plaintiff. I am unaware how rich the founder is or how much revenue the website generates, whose future income can be garnished to pay for damage. But the plaintiff, having humiliated Boxun, may * * * Bowever, Boxun's reputation is ruined.

Aside:
(a) "Garnish" as a verb is a legal term in use (most often in state courts in US). To my surprise its definition as a VERB (except to mean "decorate with garnish in food") is not found in the authoritative m-w.com, which only has it as a NOUN, defined as a condiment.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garnish
(b) The M-w.com does have "garnishment"--as a noun.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garnishment
(c) etymology:

garnishment (n): "1520s, from garnish [verb] + -ment"
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=garnishment
(d) Basically "garnishment" is deduction of a portion of future wage to satisfy debt, through a court order always.