Read on Twitter
current coverage of george floyd's death is trying so hard to please this idealized journalistic concept of objectivity and satisfy potential liability in the case of his acquittal that the obfuscatory, softened language is so watered down that it paints an inaccurate picture. /1
"knelt on," "died in police custody" - why is it that journalists will only say someone killed a person when the court convicts them of that killing, rather than when we see the murder occur on video with our own eyes? /2
there is an element of risk associated with using the language "murder" or "kill" when there is no conviction - I recognize that. it's a big allegation, and it can't be thrown around lightly. /3
but at some point journalists have to accept the liability risk and understand that the video recording is objective - and chauvin's conviction or aquittal will ultimately be ~subjective.~ /4
and if we're striving for objectivity, then we should say it plainly. call a spade a spade. /5
this also has to do with how trusting journalists become of the us justice system. we put so much weight on the court's decision. /6
but we don't talk about how corrupt the system is enough. how many times have criminals been acquitted and how many times have innocent people been wrongfully convicted? /7
if chauvin gets off scot-free, will we report that he held floyd down but didn't kill him?
you see the sky is blue. if the court rules that it's purple, will you now say that it's purple?
we blindly trust a corrupt system. /8
you see the sky is blue. if the court rules that it's purple, will you now say that it's purple?
we blindly trust a corrupt system. /8
we strive for accuracy and justice- it's not due diligence to say george floyd "died in police custody" or that an officer "knelt on" him. a police officer killed him. and we watched it happen. /9
