Parrot Talk

The New York Times reported yesterday that a young man learned about his girlfriend's affair thanks to his pet parrot.  It all started when the parrot began chirping, "Hiya, Gary!" every time his girlfriend answered the phone. (She denied knowing anyone by that name.) Then came the smoochy kissing sounds the parrot made whenever the name 'Gary' was spoken on television around the parrot. (She still proclaimed her ignorance and innocence.) But when the parrot mimicked her voice and said, "I love you, Gary," she finally fessed up about her ongoing secret affair.  There went the relationship -- and the poor guy finally gave up his parrot too, because he just wouldn't quit talking about Gary.

This story especially made me laugh because as it happened, I had a talking parrot multiple choice question on my evidence exam last fall. (For the curious, no, the parrot's utterances aren't hearsay, as the parrot presumably lacks the requisite assertive intent.)

UPDATE:  As Marty Lederman helpfully noted inthe comments, the Times published, well, not exactly a correction, but an admission that they couldn't independently verify the story.  It did sound pretty implausible -- so I guess the lesson is that if sounds almost impossible to believe, well then, it probably is.  (But it still wouldn't be hearsay. . . )

Comments

[Sam]

Are we sure this isn't a hoax? It's an old joke. Of course, on this blog, maybe I should be asking what's a hoax anyway . . . .

[Marty Lederman]

From today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/pageoneplus/corrections.html

Editors' Note

An article on Wednesday about infidelity exposed by a chatty parrot described the way the parrot, owned by a man living with his girlfriend in Leeds, England, kept screeching the name of the woman's secret lover. When the parrot said "I love you, Gary," in what sounded like the woman's voice, her boyfriend (whose name is not Gary) broke up with her.

Although the article reported that the information had been obtained from reports in The Daily Telegraph and other British newspapers, The Times could not verify the former couple's accounts because the information was given to the British press by a freelance journalist who charged for the account. The Times does not pay for information. The Times should have disclosed fully to readers why we relied on other news reports. Or, perhaps it would have been prudent, given that condition, for The Times to have resisted parroting the episode at all.

[slu]

At least we now know that the NYT policy of publish first, verify later is not limited to front page news.

[Sanjay]

This story especially made me laugh because as it happened.