That word "alleged" (and it's annoying cousin, "suspected") is often what stands between a news organization and a successful suit for libel. It's also good ethical practice to remind readers that claims made about a person are only claims, not fact. Hence world-class news organizations are religious about that reminder, and always use "alleged" until courts have ruled, investigations are closed, and the truth -- or as close to it as we will get -- is known.
It annoys me, though, that news outlets have become sloppy. "Alleged" is short (too short) for a much longer statement about the uncertainty of what we think we know. Much of what journalists know is based on hearsay, rumor, speculation, innuendo, and other non-factual sources. What someone saw or said is often less credible than what a piece of evidence, properly interpreted, will show. Presumption of innocence stands at the heart of the American criminal justice system, and even that system too frequently makes mistakes.
It's worth noting that "alleged" and "suspected" leave out a critical piece of information. Who alleges? Who suspects? In this case, multiple law enforcement officials, a slew of witnesses, and the boy's own family all "suspect" that the boy killed all those people. That's a much different situation than, for example, an alleyway mugging in which the victim alleges that a person is the assailant, even though the criminal left no known evidence and wore a ski mask at the time. News organizations leave out this information because they either failed to take time to capture it in the first place or because they failed to write it into the story. Either way, it's a failure.
0 comments:
Post a Comment