Another English language fail

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2018/01/26/kentucky-shooting-marshall-county-high-school-gabe-parker/1064880001/

The headline refers to the "alleged gunman." Sorry, but two people are dead and twelve people wounded by gunfire. There is no "alleged" gunman -- that would suggest that there is some question as to whether or not there was a gunman. A more accurate statement might be something to the effect that the reporter learned that the gunman was "alleged" to be her son.

I wish alleged journalists would take a few English classes before trying to play reporter.

[Fly320s]

I disagree.

Gunman is defined in this case as the person who did the shooting.  The criminal.

Alleged means unproven.

So, the headline reads as "The police believe, but have yet to prove, this person is the criminal.  And he also happens to be the son of this reporter."

[grampster]

Another media failure that rots my socks is when the criminal is shot during the commission of a crime, he is described as "victim" of the shooting.

[K Frame]

Another media failure that rots my socks is when the criminal is shot during the commission of a crime, he is described as "victim" of the shooting.

That's not a failure of media.

That's a failure of the liberal mentality.

[Ned Hamford]

It is much easier to say alleged than to do your job as a reporter and have any degree of inquiry that would prompt enough certainty to report the incident and individuals involved as being the whats and the whose.  I can't watch what they call the news any more as they read twitter feeds and rather than man on the street opinions, literally just ask people what happened.  I want my sausage; don't give me meat scraps on my plate and call it sausage. 

[Perd Hapley]

Another media failure that rots my socks is when the criminal is shot during the commission of a crime, he is described as "victim" of the shooting.

I've always rather liked to see tough-guy criminal creeps reduced to the status of "victim."

[Hawkmoon]

I've always rather liked to see tough-guy criminal creeps reduced to the status of "victim."

True -- except when there are real victims of the "victim."

[RoadKingLarry]

I've always rather liked to see tough-guy criminal creeps reduced to the status of "victim."

I prefer "deceased" when referring to violent criminals.

[230RN]

I just abut had guv up on worryin about the steat of the inglish language since misteaks repeated over the net becum kreckt inglish just by repeating.  Like I sed b4 soon every word will mean every other word and we ain't got no lingo atall.  Like victim now means doer of the dirty deed if he gets hisself shot even legal like and I don't know what their peddling in journalism school but it ain't journalism its' propagandism but they call it the new journalism.

[K Frame]

"It is much easier to say alleged than to do your job as a reporter and have any degree of inquiry that would prompt enough certainty to report the incident and individuals involved as being the whats and the whose."

That's sort of disingenuous, Ned. You're asking the media to apply a greater probability of guilt to the individual that that expected of the legal system. To reach the determination that that someone committed a crime, your own profession has exacting standards of procedure that must be followed before someone can be adjudicated as guilty. The legal system itself uses terms such as alleged and accused to refer to an individual, but with the defacto presumption of innocence until the individual is found guilty in a trial or plea deal.

Are you saying that reporters have the ability to determine guilt without the necessity of providing due process? If so, then what is your job, specifically?

Journalists are expected to refer to individuals who have not been convicted of a crime in terms that do not cast them in a prejudicial light.

[RoadKingLarry]

Wife used to be in the newspaper business.
They use "alleged" to avoid slander/defamation liability. If they straight up call them the shooter/thief/killer and the cops decided they were wrong the news outlet could be sued. Using alleged puts the onus on the accuser.

[K Frame]

Wife used to be in the newspaper business.
They use "alleged" to avoid slander/defamation liability. If they straight up call them the shooter/thief/killer and the cops decided they were wrong the news outlet could be sued. Using alleged puts the onus on the accuser.

Exactly. I cut my teeth as a reporter for a small daily newspaper, in part covering the local courts and police.

As my boss (the editor) said -- It's our job to report the facts of a case, not to inject our own opinion, not to presume guilt or innocence, not to try the case in the newspaper, and not to try to do the job of the police or the courts.


Everyone today is screeching about newspapers being biased. To adopt language that assumes the guilt of an individual before he/she receives the benefit of due process is biased as all hell. I'm rather startled to hear someone from the legal profession advocating exactly that, though.

[Hawkmoon]

Exactly. I cut my teeth as a reporter for a small daily newspaper, in part covering the local courts and police.

As my boss (the editor) said -- It's our job to report the facts of a case, not to inject our own opinion, not to presume guilt or innocence, not to try the case in the newspaper, and not to try to do the job of the police or the courts.


Everyone today is screeching about newspapers being biased. To adopt language that assumes the guilt of an individual before he/she receives the benefit of due process is biased as all hell. I'm rather startled to hear someone from the legal profession advocating exactly that, though.

I certainly was not advocating a journalistic lynching. I was commenting on the way the word "alleged" was used. As I read the article, what it conveyed to me was that the shooting itself was "alleged" -- as if it might or might not have happened. Yet they had two dead students and twelve more wounded students, and they apprehended a student with a gun who was seen by multiple witnesses shooting people. The student was not named (because he is a minor), but there should be no question that the person who shot those fourteen people was a/the gunman. Therefore, to me, referring to him as the "alleged gunman" seems grammatically incorrect.

Once they start putting a name to the gunman, then it may be appropriate to report that so-and-so is "alleged" to have been the shooter. But there WAS a shooter -- that's a fact, not an allegation. Too many reporters (and editors) get lazy about this. I understand all the reasons for using the word, but at least use it correctly.

[Perd Hapley]

I certainly was not advocating a journalistic lynching. I was commenting on the way the word "alleged" was used. As I read the article, what it conveyed to me was that the shooting itself was "alleged" -- as if it might or might not have happened. Yet they had two dead students and twelve more wounded students, and they apprehended a student with a gun who was seen by multiple witnesses shooting people. The student was not named (because he is a minor), but there should be no question that the person who shot those fourteen people was a/the gunman. Therefore, to me, referring to him as the "alleged gunman" seems grammatically incorrect.

Once they start putting a name to the gunman, then it may be appropriate to report that so-and-so is "alleged" to have been the shooter. But there WAS a shooter -- that's a fact, not an allegation. Too many reporters (and editors) get lazy about this. I understand all the reasons for using the word, but at least use it correctly.

I see where you're coming from, but the intended meaning is that "the alleged gunman," the person alleged to have done the shooting, was her son. You could interpret the wording to mean that the existence of a shooter is what's being alleged, but why do that?

[Hawkmoon]

You could interpret the wording to mean that the existence of a shooter is what's being alleged, but why do that?

Because that's what it says.

Words are the medium we use for communication. It's a two-way street, but the larger burden of accuracy in communication falls on the party issuing a statement. If a statement is made that can be construed to mean other than what was intended -- the party issuing the statement failed to communicate clearly.

[Perd Hapley]

Because that's what it says.

I disagree.

Words are the medium we use for communication. It's a two-way street, but the larger burden of accuracy in communication falls on the party issuing a statement. If a statement is made that can be construed to mean other than what was intended -- the party issuing the statement failed to communicate clearly.

All true, but you're never going to weed out all possibility of ambiguity, and as you say, it's a two-way street. If you're determined to spot the error in every news article, you're always going to find it.

[K Frame]

"I certainly was not advocating a journalistic lynching."

I was addressing Ned's comments.

[RoadKingLarry]

"I certainly was not advocating a journalistic lynching."

I was addressing Ned's comments.

Well, since true journalists are for all intents and purposes extinct that probably just as well.

[K Frame]

I'll point out that you're assuming that the reporter wrote the article's headline.

That's rarely the case.

And, bluntly, your claims of ambiguity are silly given the context of the entire headline.