This is a pet-peeve of mine. On last night’s news, the perky blond news anchor reading off the teleprompter is talking about the alleged gunman at the office in Massachusetts. The guy is caught with an arsenal in the lobby of the office building. He’s not an “alleged” gunman – he’s the gunman, period.
Harris and Klebold are not the alleged shooters at Columbine – they’re shooters, period.
The definition of alleged is:
“To assert without or before proof: The indictment alleges that the commissioner took bribes.”
I think there’s a big difference between catching someone during the act of a crime and arresting someone after the fact. If you’re caught during the act, you’re not alleged to have committed the crime – you’re accused of the crime.
It’s grating to hear a journalist try to sound objective by using alleged improperly. If a person is caught during the commission of a crime, they’re not alleged to have committed the crime. Maybe they’re accused of a crime or they can be alleged to have committed a crime for a certain reason. But the fact they committed the crime is not in doubt.
“Proof” is a legal standard, not a different standard for every instance. True, in the Massachusetts case there seems to be no reason to doubt that the man in custody is the shooter. But god knows there are enough cases where the truth is not so immediately and unequivocally available. The standard that applies to them–innocent until proven guilty in a court of law–must be applied to every case, no matter how obvious the facts seem before the court process has begun. (Obvious, I might add, to someone like you or me, who was NOT in fact there, and whose only information has been received through the media. Again, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to doubt the facts of this case, but that’s an assumption I’ve made, and YOU’VE obviously made, without being one of the tiny, unfortunate handful of people who have firsthand experience of the events.)
In the first place, libel is a consideration. In the second place, accuracy is also important.
You state dogmatically that those people have been proven guilty of their crimes. Yet they have not even had a trial. Usually you read “alleged” with “alleged murderer” or “alleged robber.” Until convicted, they are only alleged. Even if one did shoot some one else, that doesn’t mean he was guilty of murder. Manslaughter, self-defense come to mind.
As far as “alleged gunman,” you say he was caught with an arsenal. Do you have proof that he was the gunman? You may answer that 10 people saw him shoot. Have those ten people testified in a court of law that they saw him shoot?
The media properly describes these people as “alleged ***,” and that’s all they are until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We’re talking 2 different things. I completely agree that the standards for a trial are different than those used in the media. I also agree that if someone is arrested after the fact, they have every right to be given the “alleged” tag for the crime they’ve been accused of.
I don’t know if the person in Mass. is guilty or not. That’s for the courts to decide. However, he is not the “alleged” gunman. If he had escaped and been caught later, then he deserves the “alleged” label. When you’re caught at the scene of the crime, it’s no longer “alleged”. It wouldn’t bother me as much if they said “accused” rather than alleged. “Alleged” to me implies that there is a doubt that they were involved in the crime they were caught committing.
I too am tired of the use of “alleged” when it’s patently obvious that a suspect committed a crime. But I also understand the need to avoid libel and let the courts do their job. So if there are any journalists out there, may I suggest that you start substituting the word “apparent” when we’re talking about somebody who’s been caught red-handed?
It may mean that for you, but for most people, “alleged” means “accused but not convicted.” The dictionary says:
These all seem to support the use of “allege” in the news reports, especially #2 – it is an assertion without proof. There is no implication that to use the word “allege” implies anything about there being doubt.
The reason why most newspapers are very liberal in their use of the term is to prevent being sued. If they said someone was the gunman and he was acquitted of the crime, he could then sue the newspaper for defamation. “Alleged” keeps the newspaper in the clear.
Further, the newspaper is rarely on the scene to see the crime being committed. All their news about it is second hand, and by using “alleged,” they are acknowledging that they have no direct knowledge about the criminal and that they are just reporting what others are saying.
The media can use synonyms, such as purported, accused, apparent, etc., but it’s main concern is libel and it is not so concerned with literary style. “Alleged” is the term of art and that’s what’s used.
I maintain that “alleged” is used incorrectly quite often by news reporters - even as a term of art. I wish I had some quotations, but I don’t. I here stuff like this all the time:
The Bullfrog County police say Jim Boe allegedly killed Jane Doe.
(So did anybody actually say he did the crime? Or do people just say other people said he did the crime? Please let’s not climb Mount Kafka in the name of protecting the innocent.)
The unknown assailant allegedly killed Jane Doe.
(So we’re protecting the reputation of “unknown assailant”? Come on, let’s employ a little basic logic here … whoever killed Jane Doe was her assailant. Case closed.)
Jim Boe, the man who allegedly killed Jane Doe, pleaded guilty to murder today after leading police to the body.
(What, so defense counsel, prosecution, defendant, and simple logic are all unanimous, but it’s still just an “allegation”? No. You don’t have to protect the rights of the guilty. Let’s move on.)
Granted, I hear it used correctly more often than not, but I have heard it used wrong more times than I can count. It’s very weird.
What about when the police say “Mr. X did it,” but he is found not guilty in a court, or otherwise later exonerated? In light of the media circus surrounding Atlanta Olympic Park bombing and the shaft job that security guard got (one example of many), smart cops let the evidence speak for itself in court (of course not all cops are smart cops).
Iffy. Was Jane Doe definitely killed by someone else? I guess the set “unknown assailant” could include “Jane Doe,” and she could have “allegedly” killed herself.
Now, I allege this is definitely a misuse of “allege,” unless the police “led” Jim Boe to confess by force and told him where to “lead” them, in order to clear the case. This happened here in Texas with Henry Lee Lucas (allegedly, he didn’t kill the girl he was sentenced to death for killing, and he “led” police to a lot of graves and confessed to just about everything they put in front of him.
Objective truth is an iffy thing… that’s why epistemology exists (I think … my head hurts) and that’s the whole point behind “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I can’t blame the press for the overuse of “alleged” to cover their hindquarters.
I hope some other journalists or lawyers join in here, but I’ll try to shed some light on this.
Only a poor, incompetent journalist would use the phrase “alleged murderer,” or “alleged ‘anything else,’” so to speak. Libel is libel. Inserting the word “alleged” doesn’t excuse journalists, or anyone else for that matter, from libel.
If I wrote: “Joe Sixpack is an alleged murderer” and if the local rag printed it and if he was acquitted of the crime, then Joe would have a pretty strong case for libel. I have, essentially, called him a murderer – a crime of which he is innocent.
I don’t have my media law textbooks in front of me, but one of the first things I learned as a journalist is that using the words “alleged” or “allegedly” do not excuse you from liablity for libel.
And if the reporter said " The police say Mr X did it" the reporter would be correct, if the police did,in fact say that. The police didn’t say he “allegedly did” it. The police said he did it. The fact that they make such a statement (in any way, even by an arrest} is the allegation, so to clearly communicate that it is an allegation and by whom it is being made, the reporter should say " The police allege that Mr X did it" or “The police have charged Mr X with the crime” or " The victim alleges that Mr X did it"(whichever fits} but not " The police say Mr X allegedly did it"
If someone wrote " The unknown assailant allegedly killed Jane Doe" and actually meant “It has not been determined if Jane Doe’s death was due to murder, suicide or an accident”, that person should not be writing for a high school newspaper. There shouldn’t be a definite reference to an “unknown assailant” unless it has already been determined that it was not a suicide or accident. If it’s not certain it should be more like “Jane Doe may have been killed by an unknown assailant”, if anything.
Oliversarmy,
I’m neither a journalist nor a lawyer, but I do have a question about this :
Isn’t this a little more complex? I mean, I’m sure you can’t just write any old thing, preface it with “alleged” or “allegedly” and be safe from libel, but on the other hand, if you’re writing about the arrest or trial, at some point you either have to say “Joe Sixpack killed X” or “Joe Sixpack allegedly killed X” or some near-synonym like “is accused of”,“charged with” or “reportedly” . If “Joe Sixpack allegedly killed X” leaves you open to libel, then so do the rest, and I can’t imagine a way to write about it.
I just want to say “Ditto,” also. I think Oliversarmy should throw away that book on journalism he has. I’m sure you can think of a case where “alleged” does not protect the journalist from libel, but in he run-of-the-mill case, as the last two posts noted, it accurately and truthfully states the case.
It’s been around 15 years since I took a course in journalism law, but I do recall that reporters have to be VERY careful about accusing anyone of a major felony. If your paper (or radio or TV station or whatever) says that Joe Sixpack killed X and Joe gets acquitted at the trial, he may very well be able to take your employer to the cleaners. As I recall, that security guard accused of the Olympic Park bombing did take legal action against the Atlanta papers (IIRC, an overzealous reporter misrepresented mere speculations by an FBI agent), but I don’t remember what the outcome was.
However, injecting the word “allegedly” (or “accused” or whatever) won’t automatically protect you from legal action. Suppose your name is Joe Schmoe, and you live at 112 Trashberry lane in the Crackerbox Trailer Park. Somebody else also named Joe Schmoe knocks over a liquor store and gets arrested, and a careless reporter flipping through the phone book mistakenly gets your address confused with his. He reports that Joe Schmoe of 112 Trashberry Lane in the Crackerbox Trailer Park got arrested for knocking over a liquor store. In that case, round up the wife and kids and start packin’, cuz you’re goin’ to Disney World. A whole dictionary full of “allegedlies” isn’t going to protect that paper from a libel suit. In other words, if you don’t get your facts straight, you don’t get an exemption from the libel laws just by using qualifiers such as “alleged” or “accused.”
On the other hand, you don’t necessarily have a case even if the reporter did screw up royally. There have to be some kind of actual damages such as damage to one’s reputation in the community. Suppose Mary Jane Slutsky is a known prostitute with several arrests for prostitution on her record. The police bust another hooker, Mary June Slotsky, for prostitution, but an overworked copy editor lets a couple of typos get by him. There probably wouldn’t be very much poor Mary Jane could do. She’s a known prostitute, so she hasn’t got a good reputation in the community to begin with. I suppose she could sue for emotional suffering or whatever, but I doubt she’d find a lawyer who’d take the case.
It gets awful complicated, folks. That was a tough course. I got a C, and I really had to work for it, too.
Anyway, I agree with the OP that the media get a bit carried away with the “allegedlies,” but journalism is usually done with a tight deadline, and literary elegance is a lot less important to most publishers and broadcasters than not getting sued.
LONESOME POLECAT (who used two qualifiers in the first paragraph of this post :D)
… my head hurts) and that’s the whole point behind “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I can’t blame the press for the overuse of “alleged” to cover their hindquarters.