Two visitors at Lake Mead National Recreation Area were captured on video destroying ancient rock formations and park rangers are seeking the public’s help in identifying the suspects.
Just taking a stab here, but journalists can be sued for libel. While we interpret these people in this way, a court of law needs to make it official or someone can take you to court.
Journalism is still a business and a point of authoritative information.
They’re tiptoeing around what the vandals are by using mitigating language. It’s journalistic dishonesty. It’s the same kind of shit as headlines about Matt Gaetz “sleeping with a minor” or calling the Jan 6th insurrection a “protest” or “riot”, or headlines that use softer or harsher wording to describe the same actions by people of different races.
They’re technically true. They all make it clear what they’re reporting on. But they do it in a way that mitigates or elevates the implied severity of the crime.
There’s nothing dishonest about it. They were visitors. They were destroying ancient rock formations at Lake Mead. It was entirely factual. They don’t need to be given the epithet of vandal before that has been decided in court anyway.
“visitors”, huh?
…guess it falls in line with the “settlers” carrying out a genocide in Gaza, or the “protesters” who carried out an insurrection here in the US, etc.
Why is so hard for journalist to just call shit what it is?
Edit- well this rubbed folks the wrong way. Just in case my intent came off wrong:
visitors--> vandalssettlers--> invadersprotesters--> domestic terrorists…or are we getting brigaded by MAGAts?
Just taking a stab here, but journalists can be sued for libel. While we interpret these people in this way, a court of law needs to make it official or someone can take you to court.
Journalism is still a business and a point of authoritative information.
If you go somewhere for a short period of time, as opposed to live there, you’re a visitor.
If you vandalize it while you’re there, you’re a visitor who is also a vandal.
I am assuming these two do not live at Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
So are they being criticized for visiting or vandalizing?
This is some “calling a tsunami a wave” shit. Technically true? Absolutely. Communicating the important information? Hard miss.
We see this diminishing language all the time and it drives me nuts.
Which do you think? I think both the headline and the article made it clear what they’re being criticized for.
They’re tiptoeing around what the vandals are by using mitigating language. It’s journalistic dishonesty. It’s the same kind of shit as headlines about Matt Gaetz “sleeping with a minor” or calling the Jan 6th insurrection a “protest” or “riot”, or headlines that use softer or harsher wording to describe the same actions by people of different races.
They’re technically true. They all make it clear what they’re reporting on. But they do it in a way that mitigates or elevates the implied severity of the crime.
Growing pet peeve of mine.
There’s nothing dishonest about it. They were visitors. They were destroying ancient rock formations at Lake Mead. It was entirely factual. They don’t need to be given the epithet of vandal before that has been decided in court anyway.