A few times I've seen the word allegedly used in connection with Jared Lee Loughner. I know that he hasn't been convicted in a court of law. Therefore, in legal terms he's innocent because he has not been found guilty. I know he's just accused of the crimes, but he was caught in the act. Is it necessary for journalists to say "allegedly" for accuracy or are they just crossing their legal Ts?
BreakingNews wrote "allegedly shot Rep. Giffords"
Here Reuters wrote "the 22-year-old suspected shooter"
RTTNews wrote both "A man suspected in Saturday's mass shooting" and "Jared Lee Loughner, 22, allegedly killed six people".
Boston.com said "by a man who allegedly wanted to kill an Arizona congressman" and that seems fine, we don't actually know his motives.
I thought this LA Times article did ok saying, "the man accused of murder and attempted murder", "Jared Lee Loughner, who has been in custody" and "faces five counts of murder and attempted murder of federal employees." But then it says "Authorities said that Loughner had legally purchased a semiautomatic pistol, which he allegedly fired at Giffords and the crowd."
I suppose I wasn't there, so I can't really know. I've seen no video of the actual act. While motivations and other details are still speculation, it does seem clear he actually did do the shooting. Saying allegedly in this context seems like artifice, like alleged climate change or the alleged moon landing.
2 comments:
Yes. Journalists — and anyone else concerned about slander or libel laws — should not state as fact a matter of legal opinion.
I guess so, but to be libel it must be false. It's very hard for me to imagine that writing "he shot her" is false. Certainly immediately when it was reported, but at this point the police have identified the person they caught at the scene.
Post a Comment