Does anyone know why the media is being careful with the legal terms of collusion and conspiracy?

[Baitball Blogger]

I didn't hear enough to understand why it is they're being careful of how they use those two terms, but it might have something to do with what is going on with the Mueller investigation.

[Kablooie]

1. The only legal meaning of collusion is agreements to fix prices between companies.

I don't think it has a legal meaning relating to political alliances.

[RainCaster]

2. Because the small handed Shart Cannon threatens to sue

[karynnj]

3. Maybe because it is a very serious matter and care should be taken to get it right

In fact, because it is possible, it may be more important that the media not be attacked for avoidable errors due to imprecise language.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Because collusion isn't a legal term at all, except in antitrust law.

A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime, and all the conspirators have to do to be guilty of the separate crime of conspiracy is to take action in furtherance of the plan - even if the underlying crime is never committed. So you can be guilty of conspiring to rob a bank if you and your partners make plans to do the robbery and then buy ski masks and guns - even if you never actually rob the bank.

But "collusion" is just a general term that may or may not describe the crime of conspiracy.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Thank you!

[cheyanne]

7. So when Jared says that he has not colluded nor does he know anyone who has,

that's because colluding is not a crime. And that is why he doesn't say that he has never conspired with the Russians. That would be a lie that could put him in legal jeopardy'

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Good observation.

[Igel]

6. And another reason.

If the media say that Mueller's all about collusion, but he comes out with indictments ignoring collusion ... What gives? If his goal is to prove collusion and he fails, that's a setback for all democratic forces, right?

Think of it as framing the terms not for maxim rhetorical effect today but to minimize rhetorical fall-out later.

(After all, if "collusion" has no legal meaning relevant here, it's unlikely that much of a lawsuit will gain traction against the term's use.)

When it matters the media *can* pay attention to established meanings of words. Just as when it's in their interests they assist in redefining them so that the laws seem suddenly to mean something entirely novel.

[Thunderbeast]

8. And not a whisper of TREASON!

[shanny]

12. TREASON has a very high bar, per the Constitution:

we would have to be AT WAR with Russia. There is/has been no declaration of such, and calling something "an act of war" doesn't qualify.

So describe the behavior as treasonous by all means, but don't try to pin a legal charge of "Treason" on the miscreants, because it will fail and they will all claim to be Totally Exonerated afterwards.

[steve2470]

10. in addition to the other good answers....

The media, in addition to being profit-oriented primarily, is always being attacked by the Right as being pro-liberal yada yada. So, they overcompensate (usually) by being careful about these words and all their coverage, to the point where it's really ridiculous in some cases. CNN is a prime example of being ridiculous with "fair and balanced", but I get why they do it. I can easily tune out the RW idiots but I'm sure too many are duped by them.

[ClarendonDem]

11. Do you have any examples

That support your question? Always help to have context.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. Best answer is No. 4