• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t think so. I think it means they didn’t give a straight answer. What it effectively means is they’re not calling for it right now. But it’s not a definite no for doing it later. I think the distinction, for a headline, matters.

    Vedant Patel: “That is where — that is squarely where we are leaving the conversation.”

    Yes they’re saying the conversation leaves there under further info.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you do not support an investigation right now

      Then you do not support an investigation.

      What will happen in the future is not relevant. If they change their stance in the future then a new article with that headline can be published.

      We used to not let black people vote. We didn’t go “yeah but they can vote in the future so we can ignore that”.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you don’t support and investigation right now, then you don’t support an investigation right now. Losing the “right now” makes the meaning less clear.

        I’d be fine with saying they don’t support it right now

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          But that applies for everything. “Right now” would only be relevant if it is clearly implied that in the future they would support it.

          Why would they support an investigation in the future if they don’t support it right now? They cannot even “support it in the future” because most evidence will likely be lost over time. Investigations need to happen as soon as possible.