MESSAGE FOR WEEK BEGINNING 7th May 2001

'not proven'

In the leading article of the Times (of London) on April 28 there was an extraordinary statement. This was to do with an on-going case in which a certain Mr Loutchansky was suing the Times for inferring that he was a criminal with Mafia associations etc. etc.

The statement was that "what could not be proved was not necessarily false". Clearly this is logically correct. But what is not false is not thereby true. Until it has been proven to be true it is 'untrue'. Unfortunately the word 'untrue' means that it is false - which is not the case. There is a need for a word which implies 'not proven' (as in the Scottish courts). Such material may not be false but is unusable in situations where it can cause damage. I did write a letter to the Times pointing this out but, as fas as I know, this has not been published. The letter is available on www.mediadishonesty.com.

'Lynch law' is not very pretty.

Edward de Bono nmt
6th May 2001
Canada