This article says so much in how it tries to not assert any facts. He “claimed”. Everything is in quotes. Oh, the charges were dismissed. The police department somehow lost all recordings. Huh, the arrest report didn’t mention beating him. Oh.
To avoid libel lawsuits and focus on the facts, journalists use qualifying words like “alleged” and “claimed” even when a collection of facts seems to point to particular unproven truth.
It’s the job of the justice system not the journalist to prove guilt.
Yes, I understand why they do it. That’s usually before a case is decided or settled, and they can’t say “someone did this or this” because it might be libel if they are found innocent. So they have to say “allegedly” or “police say they believe” (no offense but this is fairly common knowledge). It is okay to definitively state that someone committed a crime after they’ve been convicted.
I suppose that in this case, they had a settlement without admitting fault or something and so have to continue using that sort of language. They do not have to credulously repeat what police say about other aspects with no questions though. For instance when they say “oh oops police lost the tape” they could follow that up by discussing whether it is common or not for police to conveniently lose recordings that could be incriminating.
This article says so much in how it tries to not assert any facts. He “claimed”. Everything is in quotes. Oh, the charges were dismissed. The police department somehow lost all recordings. Huh, the arrest report didn’t mention beating him. Oh.
I worked at a newspaper.
To avoid libel lawsuits and focus on the facts, journalists use qualifying words like “alleged” and “claimed” even when a collection of facts seems to point to particular unproven truth.
It’s the job of the justice system not the journalist to prove guilt.
Which is 100% how it should be.
Social media doesn’t have the ethos. That’s why it’s polarizing how conventional media never could. Everything is an outrage now.
Yes, I understand why they do it. That’s usually before a case is decided or settled, and they can’t say “someone did this or this” because it might be libel if they are found innocent. So they have to say “allegedly” or “police say they believe” (no offense but this is fairly common knowledge). It is okay to definitively state that someone committed a crime after they’ve been convicted.
I suppose that in this case, they had a settlement without admitting fault or something and so have to continue using that sort of language. They do not have to credulously repeat what police say about other aspects with no questions though. For instance when they say “oh oops police lost the tape” they could follow that up by discussing whether it is common or not for police to conveniently lose recordings that could be incriminating.