This is something I have wondered about for quite some time. Why is it in the media (newspapers, television, etc.) that whenever they refer to an unconvicted suspect or crime they say “allegedly”? John Doe allegedly robbed the First Street Bank, and so forth. And I guess my question can be broken down into two parts:
(1) Why does the media have to use the word alleged/allegedly/etc.? And,
(2) What would happen to them if the didn’t?
Thank you in advance to all who reply 
They can get sued for slander stating it as a fact, if the person is judged innocent. It doesn’t seem to always stop reporters from stating a criminal act as a fact. Suing for slander doesn’t mean the person suing will win.
It’s to avoid lawsuits. If they say “John Doe robbed the First Street Bank” and it turns out later that he didn’t, John Doe could sue them for slander (or libel, in the case of printed media); and he would probably win.
And just to cover the next logical question, they usually refer to alleged perps as “John Quincy Doe of Oak St.” to avoid getting sued by all the other John Does in town.
Because them’s the facts. They say “allegedly” because it has been alleged by someone that he committed a crime.
As a reporter, I personally think “alleged” is a weasel word. I’d aim for more precision, because I want to relate the facts accurately. Sure, if you state something as an absolute (“Doe robbed the bank”), you open yourself up to potential libel charges. But the bigger problem IMO is that you fail in your goal of reporting something by adding facts that aren’t present.
Depending on where we were in the process, I’d write:
[ul]
[li]“Police suspect Doe in the robbery”[/li][li]“Doe arrested for robbery”[/li][li]“Doe indicted in robbery case”[/li][li]“Doe convicted of robbery”[/li][li]“Doe sentenced for robbery.”[/li][/ul]
“Accused” would probably work as well as “alleged” but “accused” seems to be the default word for specific allegations made by an identified person – “The prosecutor accused Doe of pointing a gun at the teller and handing her a bag to put the money in.”
As well as libel charges, could the paper also be charged by the authorities with “attempting to pervert the course of justice” (as it’s called here)? After all, potential jurors read newspapers.
I’d say it’s less about the outcome of a libel/slander case and more about proactively avoiding them. If a story says that ‘John Doe was arrested for the crime of blah’ and John Doe turns out to be innocent he might still think that his reputation has been damaged and might want to sue. It most likely would be thrown out of court but for the media company to get that far they are still going to have to spend lots of money on legal fees. Saves them time and cash if they say ‘John Doe was alleged to have done blah’.
CYA, basically.
As others have said, it’s mainly to avoid defamation of character suits, and because, well, it’s just good journalism. If the cops arrest a guy, it doesn’t mean he’s done whatever it is they said he did. All it means is they think he might have (they allege that he did). Stating anything as a fact when you don’t know it to be true is not good journalism.
At my paper, we’re told never to write “arrested FOR something,” because that implies they did it. I’m not sure that anyone has won a defamation case based on wording like that, but IMO it implies guilt. We’re instead told to write “arrested and charged with” or “arrested in connection with (the robbery of Gas-N-Go).” I’ve posted before about a reporter covering a murder case who kept trying to find new ways of saying “alleged killer” and such, and finally when the guy was convicted, we could say, “John Doe, the convicted murderer of Jane Jones, was sentenced to life in prison,” or whatever.
In the US, I believe it the onus is on the state to produce an unbiased jury (they will often move the trial to another jurisdiction, for example), and the media can generally print what they want. There have been a few cases: See State of Ohio v. Sam Sheppard, for instance. Interesting note: This case inspired “The Fugitive.”
As well as the well reasoned uses of the clause listed above, it sounds too cool to say the word than to leave it out
An additional point: they do not seem to use “allegedly” when describing animal incidents, presumably because animals don’t sue. This leads to the weirdness of them saying “Michael Vick allegedly harmed pit bulls,” but in the same paper saying “a pit bull made a savage, unprovoked attacked on a 13-year-old-boy.”
Note that we only have the word of a 13-year-old-boy (in a highly emotional state) that the attack was unprovoked – he could have been throwing rocks at the dog – but the papers act like six Federal witnesses, mountains of physical evidence (cages, chains, “rape stands,” etc.) and the FBI cannot be entirely trusted: but a pissed-off 13-year-old is absolutely reliable.
It’s annoying. And it’s often fatal to animals.
Sailboat
Who else cringes at this use? John Doe is on trial for the alleged crime of stealing.
Stealing isn’t an alleged crime, it is a crime.
I like this post. I think that “alleged” gets used so much because it’s an easy default word, and many in the business simply don’t want to think about how to use a wider vocabulary to make their articles more interesting and informative.
I especially like the fact that you pointed out: “alleged” is used because that’s the fact of the situation at the time.
I remember seeing a Charles Rodriguez cartoon in the National Lampoon. It showed a TV with a picture of a shooting. A wild eyed man was shooting someone in the head, with brains and blood coming out. The caption on the television was “Alleged Assassin”.
Not only is allegedly a weasel word, it really doesn’t protect you from lible suits. Used by itself, the allegation is not sourced to a public official, so it’s the newspaper who would bear the brunt of proving it.
Journalists are taught that it’s better to dump the word and use “police said” instead. A reporter quoting from a public document or public official can repeat those words safely.
This is different, however, from reporters using confidential sources for that information. See the hullaballo over Richard Jewell, the Atlanta security guard who was libled by news stories quoting sources saying he was a suspect.
Allegedly is still being used, however, because, as Igors on Discworld say, “Isth tradthinal.”
I understand the legal protection angle. My question is why use the adjective “alleged” and the adverb “allegedly”? If the action being discussed is truly alleged, then why not use the verb “allege” and supply both the subject and the object. Consider how better the reporting: instead of “Karlotta allegedly embezzled the funds”, why not say “Sean Conner, President of the Bank, alleges that Karlotta embezzled the funds.” Or, “Maj. Whitstone, Chief of Police for Bower County, alleged that Karlotta embezzled the funds.” This usage addresses the “who, what, when, how” of good journalism. Isn’t the verb form preferable?
And so for example, we have James Holmes who “allegedly” shot up a theater in Aurora, CO on July 20th, 2012. The facts are not in dispute. He did it and the only question is whether or not he was sane when he did. But Wiki still calls him the “accused perpetrator” as if there is some possibility that he might not have done it. I don’t get it. Fear of lawsuits? Sure, perhaps Mr. Holmes might sue Wikipedia. Is he also going to sue rapper Tech N9ne for the song “Fire in AC”? Is a song that calls him a murderer bound to burn in Hell protected differently than the printed word?
(lyrics definitely NSFW)
Concision and precision. Who is doing the alleging? You give two possible allegers for the same crime. Is either one actually true? When a bank is robbed, no one individual is in charge of alleging crimes. When the case comes to trial, it is not Maj. Whitstone, Chief of Police for Bower County vs. John Doe Karlotta. In addition to being possibly inaccurate, the usage is clunky, especially if alleged needs to be used at several points during the article. Using the passive tense avoids all the complications and is perfectly understandable shorthand for the legal process.
James Homes is an extreme case, but most crimes are not as extremely obvious. And even in “obvious” cases, there may be a great deal of murk around the details. At what point in the continuum is it safe for reporting organizations to stop using alleged or accused? Historically, that usage has been considered droppable only when a conviction has been finalized in a court of law. James Holmes has not even been to trial yet. I assume that lawyers - who are more cautious in what they allow than what most reporters would say but also are more knowledgeable in libel and defamation law - have had a great deal to do with deciding this.
The law does not prevent people from saying negative things about a person. It only reaches the legal standard of defamation when it demonstrably hurts a person in the further course of his life. And it makes a difference whether the statement is issued as a fact or as an opinion. Usually, a statement in a news story would be considered a fact. A statement in a rap song might be considered an opinion. Truth is a defense, but the truth of a statement which says someone is a murderer may be in doubt before the trial has been held.
There are few bright lines in these situations. A guilty verdict is one of those few, so everybody is advised to stay on the right side of that line, even if it seems foolish to do so.
I’m old enough to remember the brouhaha when then President Richard Nixon said that Charles Mason was GUILTY!