Charlene - you did a wonderful job of concisely summarizing the articles.

To get back to the OP's question, it reminds me of "decision making 301" in graduate school. They drilled us on the two kinds of errors we would make: the first is to make a decision to try something and get it wrong. Those show up easily in the measurement systems and went by the term "false positives" (ie, we thought it would work and it didn't). The second type, though, was to decide NOT to do something and miss a meaningful opportunity. These never showed up in the direct measurement system and went by the buzzword "false negatives". They showed up when compared to a competitor who figured out the potential and acted on it to their great benefit.

I was struck by the difference in the two reports. The first one focused on facts (lawyers for the EEOC had filed suit ...) and the second (NCL has violated the civil rights ..). For the millions of us, today, who must navigate multiple tasks, skimming articles is one way to get an overview. Therefore, the lead-in phrase is key in forming reader opinions. Newspapers and TV "news" sources know this and craft their stories accordingly.

When a respected news source reports, I think we are all better served if the "slant" of the articles reflect our tradition of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" for the defendant. The first article is closer to the mark than the second IMHO.

As a final point, what happens when the actual verdict is rendered? I hope it gets equal placement regardless of outcome. Appeals should also get the same attention. Otherwise, it causes us to question the balance between information and inflammatory rhetoric.

Cheers, Anne