How the media report on fatalities.

[Simontm]

So not a conspiracy, just a lack of balls?

Tell you what, you face a libel suit and come back and tell me about it.

And since I am here, we are also bound by strict privilege laws so if it is a current investigation any editor could face criminal charges if reporting using implied liability.

Lastly, until such a case has been proven in court, there is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Lemond]

It is you who are being hysterical. The thread has drifted, thanks to you and others, from the original point about the use of passive language, as if cars have a life and volition of their own. You could consider reports like the local one I saw recently in which a driver had a lucky escape after 'her car overturned' on an empty road, as if she as driver had nothing to do with what happened. I hope this isn't too subtle for you.

"The thread has drifted, thanks to you and others, from the original point about the use of passive language". See what I mean about this place becoming a closed ideology echo chamber.

 

[Simontm]

You work for the press? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry was that about me or the innocent until proven?
If it was the latter, under privilege which we were talking about, this is still somewhat the case that yes people are still innocent before proven. In fact, the loosening of privilege towards the US system is something I oppose

 

[Lemond]

Not really no.

No. I really didn't think you would.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Where's the difficulty in following the neutral style in these examples?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33455696

"The accident happened at 13:40 when a red Ford Fiesta was involved in a collision with a white Renault Kangoo."​

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-33463576

"The 50-year-old woman suffered serious injuries when her Smart car was involved in a collision with a van on the A801 at Avon Gorge, near Torphichen Bridge, at about 10:10 on Wednesday."
​

GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

like the local one I saw recently in which a driver had a lucky escape after 'her car overturned' on an empty road, as if she as driver had nothing to do with what happened.

If I ever see a news story which reports on an RTC caused by a cyclist where the rider is completely removed from the narrative in this fashion:

A pedestrian was injured after being hit by a bicycle racing on a main road through east London. Police are hunting the rider of the bicycle, a white Pinarello, which was seen racing a green Bianchi down Commercial Road shortly before the crash.

The Pinarello failed to stop at the scene blah blah blah​

I'll... I'll... I'll start wearing a helmet!

GC

 

[Simontm]

Go back and read the OP where it says

"Mark Greenwood was killed last Thursday when he collided with a silver Golf".

If it was in fact the case that he was hit from behind by a driver who was texting at the time, then there is a significant margin between the misreporting that occurred and any libel or danger of causing a mistrial.

ASsI said further up, after a case you have to be careful/have a responsibility with the language as much as you are before so we get to the debate you are talking about.
I was talking about a situation prior to a court case which, in this case, found him guilty. Under privilege, let alone liability, I can say he was killed by a driver who was texting.
Before the case? How do I know he was texting? can IO prove he was texting? How can I report he was texting without being in contempt of court? Those are the questions an editor and journalist have to ask themselves every time.
Anyway off to avoid getting collided!

 

[Simontm]

FFS, it's not that difficult, any sub-editor just out of college could have a go at it. He died following a collision between a car and his bicycle.

Then it emerged that in fact he died when a car hit him while its driver was texting.

Neutral before the fact as I have been saying. Btw, you would have failed college if that is your sub editing

 

[Simontm]

How do you know it occurred at all? Assuming that you are confident enough to say that, you must be confident enough to say better than "he collided with" which is, as has been pointed out several times, a misdescription.

Ffs, I am saying that because of those questions 'collided' is used as the neutral descriptions before the fact. In this case, it went to court and the ,an was proven to have been texting. It is there

 

[Simontm]

But it isn't neutral, that is the whole point here.

It is neutral as far as contempt, privilege and libel is concerned. There is no liability given to one party. Whether you like that or not tough.

 

[Simontm]

Ffs, I am saying that because of those questions 'collided' is used as the neutral descriptions before the fact. In this case, it went to court and the ,an was proven to have been texting. It is there....that you then have a debate about language

 

[SD1]

Thanks, I'll let his widow know.

Okay. Will you let all the others know?

 

[Simontm]

The phrase written was "He collided with" that is not neutral. It is OK for libel because the bloke died, but for contempt or privilege it can be quite clearly seen to potentially skew the minds of a potential jury.

Ffs no again. You are wrong. Collided is neutral. You don't like it tough tits. Saying someone collided does not convey liability on any one party therefore it cannot be libellous, it cannot be contempt because it is a neutral term and you do not have to use privilege to say it.
After the fact, ie after the mobile using driver was found guilty, then you can argue that using collided is a deliberate act. Prior to the case it is a neutral term, again whether you like it or not,
I'm going off to do something more useful, like bang my head against the wall.

 

[SD1]

It would be perfectly reasonable to write this, if it is factual.

Wasn't there but a lot of people said they had ridden with a particular motorcyclist. A car pulled out in front of him killing the motorcyclist. He hit the car so hard he overturned it. He was known to reach speeds of 120 miles an hour on this particular bit of road. All those with him say "the car driver couldn't have done anything about it". Not there, just the motorcyclists in the pub saying it. So pulling out is not always their fault.

 

[SD1]

It is you who are being hysterical. The thread has drifted, thanks to you and others, from the original point about the use of passive language, as if cars have a life and volition of their own. You could consider reports like the local one I saw recently in which a driver had a lucky escape after 'her car overturned' on an empty road, as if she as driver had nothing to do with what happened. I hope this isn't too subtle for you.

Ex wife drove down an embankment cart wheeled the car across the field. Managed to to get the kids out and ran like feck. Full petrol tank burst and emptied inside the car. No other cars on the road.... they were also in the fields on their roofs ect. Her excuse black ice.