Oh lord, the story included details of the story,but you had to read them. Fucking CNN.
And it was a stabbing.
Interesting that the headline on a Fox News story covering the case read “NYPD releases photos of suspect in stabbing of Barnard student Tessa Majors”. 
And I found a CNN story from February on the Tessa Majors murder* which had a headline referring to her “stabbing death”.
So CNN gets a pass from me on this current non-outrage.
*maybe Tessa was a really wild and vicious Barnard College student who tried to rob these teens and they had to kill her in self-defense :dubious:, but I don’t get that impression from what’s been reported. “Murder” seems an apt characterization.
CNN definitely obscures information that other news sources report in their headlines or show pictures, , they leave out information.
They recently had a story about a black, BLM activist, 19 year old girl with an African sounding name that was murdered in Florida. All they reported in the headline and the picture was that she was murdered. They didn’t even say anything about the 75 year old white BLM activist that was murdered, I guess she wasn’t worthy of any pictures or headlines, and CNN didn’t show the picture of their black killer, only reported his name.
And things like this make him [del]stabby[/del] murdery.
:like:
Who’s going to sue me over a headline reading “John Doe was murdered”? John Doe?
Now if I wrote a headline saying “Bob Smith Murdered John Doe” Smith might have grounds to sue me. Especially if he hasn’t been convicted. But I’m pretty sure I’d also be liable if my headline said “Bob Smith Stabbed John Doe”.
Either way, I feel this is a side topic to the main issue of whether stabbed or murdered (or killed) is the verb that conveys the situation most accurately.
I’ll work with the OP but you’re on your own.
Once again, I apply my universal aphorism “never attribute malice to that which is adequately explained by stupidity” both to the headline writer and to the OP.
The headline is confusing and relatively uninformative. The fact that this young woman died is rather pertinent to the story, so it should have read as “fatal stabbing”. If that makes the headline too long, WTF is the relevance of the “in custody” at the end of the headline? “Sentenced to 18 months” ought to be sufficient.
It’s ridiculous to assume that CNN was trying to “soft-pedal” this because of race issues; quite the opposite – the headline seems to try raise public ire by implying that the sentence was ridiculously short, but if they had really wanted to do that, the phrase “fatal stabbing” would have helped a lot in accomplishing that. But let’s remember that the youth in question was not the actual stabber, and the persons(s) who actually killed her are being tried as adults and are likely in for a pretty dim future.
In short, the headline was rather incompetently worded and the OP is imagining non-existent conspiracies.
When I see headlines like those, one of the first things I’d like to know, right up front, is whether the victim is alive or dead. If the victim is dead, all they need to add to the headline is the word “fatal” or the word “killed”. E.g., “Teen involved in fatal stabbing . . .” or “Shopper killed in shooting at Wal-Mart”.
Don’t you know the key to good writing is keeping your reader in suspense?
I disagree that’s the main topic. The OP is alleging that CNN is being deliberately misleading, not merely questioning which title would be more accurate.
So, rather than a side topic, I think it’s entirely relevant to give other reasons why CNN might avoid the word “murder” in the headline. And while this particular case may not result in a suit, it is likely they have a general policy on the matter.
Now “fatal stabbing” would have been more accurate, but, as others have said, it’s not uncommon to leave that first word out in headlines, as they try to keep them short. Even Fox did so, and they would be even less likely than CNN to be trying to soften the crime.
I thought about taking a murder at guessing why the OP started this thread, but it’s too dumb and he’s too dumb and it’s too hot and I’m too sleepy.
You mean this one? Or is there a different one where CNN states “murdered” and doesn’t mention Victoria Sims in the second sentence?
Most people don’t read past headlines, yes if you click the link the dead white lady is mentioned in passing but the whole story is basically dedicated to the black victim, even though the old white last was protesting the same thing. The 75 year old woman’s death is treated as if it didn’t even matter at all. No picture of the killer at all, why not?
You get sued by the other alleged perpetrators. Technically, this is a homicide at this point, right? Not yet a murder, since no one has been convicted of murder. I think “fatal stabbing” may be the right way to go.
On this message board, I’m happy to call the stabber a murderer, but CNN has higher journalistic standards than I do.
CNN is only considered a politicized source if you’re an idiot or a Fox News watcher, but I repeat myself. CNN is tilted towards sensationalism and News McNuggets, and that’s it.
However, if you have a cite that shows political bias in CNN reporting, I’m happy to read it. Note, an article pointing out that the president is a corrupt and bumbling fool would not be a valid cite.
An article in the news section ‘‘pointing out that the president is a corrupt and bumbling fool’’ would be a valid cite.
An article labeled as “analysis” or “opinion” that pointed it out would not.
A story citing facts that would lead the reader to such a conclusion would not.
I agree with this. Corry El, got any cites?
This is a dumb complaint and the world is stupider as a result of you making it.
The problem is that the article and picture gave more concentrated coverage to the death of a young black woman, than to other deaths, when as everyone knows, such high profile coverage should be reserved for young blond white women.