theconcourse.deadspin.com: There’s a word, and it’s quite short, for how the vast majority of information in this world is conveyed: Said. A person can say something. Multiple people can, together, say something. Old-timers in the newsroom will tell you that a document can’t say something because paper can’t talk, but that’s okay. Another, almost equally short word, stated, will do.
3 comments:
I think for a long time whenever I’ve read the word “allegedly” in an article about rape or sexual assault I kind of auto-correct it in my head to either ignore the word allegedly or replace it with something along the lines of “almost certainly”. This article makes a very solid point though, the word allegedly only gets used to decrease the credibility of the person making the claim. The US military's inaccurate story was presented as fact, but women saying what happened is hedged. I’ve always seen it as primarily a liability thing, as this article discusses, but saying “said” instead of “allegedly” is still objectively correct (unless of course that person didn’t say what the author claims they said) without implying the claim is likely false. I suppose the one advantage of allegedly is that you can say “[Perpetrator] allegedly [committed crime]” without risking getting in legal trouble. That puts all the focus on the crime the perpetrator committed, and most people probably do just filter out the allegedly seeing it as purely legal protection. I think it is important to be aware of not only the use of the word allegedly, but the word choice used in reporting in general and how that affects perceived credibility.
I understand where the author is coming from and agree the words people use, especially people with a platform like journalists really do matter. I also agree that the word “alleged” can be deployed strategically to cast doubt on purpose and that in the case of Weinstein, the weight of testimony is light years beyond “alleged.”
I am, however, cautious about calling the careful use of alleged when trying to align with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ a the “a load of horseshit.” The author says that attribution is more important, but what happens when you say, “a police officer says,” vs. “an elderly neighbor says.” The police officer might be mistaken, but who will most people believe? Attribution isn’t necessarily a safer route than using “alleged” – it hides power dynamics, too. I think alleged is a better alternative when used judiciously. Journalists have a fine line to walk – they have to find a way not to undercut victims while still acknowledging, when appropriate, that certain information is uncertain and that they are not judge and jury.
I think this article sums up my frustration over the whole Harvey Weinstein is a rapist (which has been proven) media arc. The author states: "Yet over and over again, nearly a month after the story broke open, I see the same damn word in stories about Weinstein: Allegedly. Or its close relative: Allegation. Or, for the sake of space, alleged. (And don’t forget its cousin, accusation.) It is a word that, in conversation, nobody uses, unless you want to be cheeky—I’m allegedly a good cook. So in a time when the question driving the national conversation is, “Why don’t people believe women?” it’s worth examining the media’s role in contributing to that, much of which comes down to habits of thought that can be seen in the overuse of this one word." And my gosh, does this blurb speak the truth about women protesting about sexual assault. Easiest way to undermine a witness testimony? Add the word allegedly in the report. Then it moves from a certainty to a maybe.
Post a Comment