He said there would be an increased police presence at the shopping centre and more patrols over the coming days.
Why? Are they expecting this random kid already in custody to go back and commit more? Did the security get around to stopping it last time? Will the increased presence last forever or just long enough for the public to forget? because it’s clearly not there to stop the person already in custody.
Such a meaningless response to the tragedy at hand.
Yes, it’s all about optics.
Side note: it really irks me that almost every ABC article has “allegedly” somewhere in the title.
I get they’re all paranoid about being sued, but this isn’t alleged, a kid was ACTUALLY stabbed. That can’t be disputed, and you can’t be sued for defamation for claiming that something that actually happened, happened.
For some people it’s “POV:”. For me it’s “allegedly this situation that very obviously happened, happened”.
The headline on the article page is (currently) “Boy, 16, fatally stabbed at shopping centre in Melbourne’s west”, so I don’t know why the share-preview headline has ‘allegedly’
Thanks z! I’ve updated the title
Not in the title, but “allege” and it’s variants are used eight times in the article.
deleted by creator
It is journalistic good practice, and not merely fear of defamation suits.
Negative, it is poor journalistic practice.
Your layman opinion on this is really worthless, the media industry and media standards agree that it is good practice.
For legal reasons they have to use alleged until court proceedings make a judgement officially or it becomes defamatory.
How is it defamatory? It’s not defamatory. It doesn’t accuse a specific person of stabbing anyone, and a situation can’t be defamation. Unless shopping centres or suburbs can sue for defamation, in which case, they still couldn’t, because it objectively happened.
Because it hasn’t been tried in court and an official ruling hasn’t been made.
There are technicalities to the legal system, if you name them as a murderer and the case was acquitted or a different outcome came of it from the court ruling you have just named them a murderer when technically they weren’t and you have defamed them.
Yes, but in regard to the title, nobody was accused, therefore nobody can sue for defamation.
Saved you a click; It was Woodgrove in Melton, It wasn’t Highpoint (if it was Highpoint, it wouldn’t be News).
This comment looks familiar…
Sorry, was my tasteless joke similar to those deleted comments? I will happily delete it if you don’t approve.
Nah, but I stole the article off Reddit (although linked to a better source, because fuck 7news), and the top comment on that thread was also “Woodgrove, Melton. Saved you a click”
https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/1fo5l9z/comment/loni1r8
deleted by creator
