Read on Twitter
A thread about local news and police. I’m always astonished by how much police speak makes it into the copy of local news papers, scripts and websites.
I don’t often cover crime in my current role (by choice), but used to do it a lot.
I don’t often cover crime in my current role (by choice), but used to do it a lot.
“Officer-involved” is a term you often hear. As in, “there’s been an officer-involved shooting.” What does this 3-word phrase mean? Does it mean an officer was shot? Does it mean an officer shot someone? Does it mean there’s a shooting and an officer was just there? Who can say!
It’s common in police news releases. But it shouldn’t be common in journalism.
Poynter: “It removes the actors from their actions, thereby obscuring attributions of responsibility.” https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2017/how-bureaucratic-language-strangles-journalisms-accountability/">https://www.poynter.org/reporting...
Poynter: “It removes the actors from their actions, thereby obscuring attributions of responsibility.” https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2017/how-bureaucratic-language-strangles-journalisms-accountability/">https://www.poynter.org/reporting...
What’s better? “Police shot a person,” “A person shot at police,” “officers shot and killed a person,” “Someone shot and killed an officer,” etc.
But wait, you say... “we know shots were fired, but not who shot them!” Fine. Officer-involved is still not the best. What to say?
“Shots were fired, but it isn’t clear who fired: police or citizens. We are working to get you answers.”
Use more words. Better explain. Promise more
“Shots were fired, but it isn’t clear who fired: police or citizens. We are working to get you answers.”
Use more words. Better explain. Promise more
That takes you to “shots were fired.” This has the same problem. One, it is passive voice... but two - it again takes the actor out and makes it less accurate.
Better: police shot someone. Someone shot police.
Better: police shot someone. Someone shot police.
Journalists might say “we don’t want to assign blame when we don’t know all the facts.” Fair. This is why you see “police say” or “officials say” in copy often. Here, it’s a tricky knot since the police are both “involved” and probably also the information source.
So write like a person.
“Tonight, the local police department said one of their officers shot someone.”
Or
“Tonight, the local police department said someone shot an officer.”
Or
“Tonight, a shooting happened, but we don’t yet know who fired (or fired first).”
“Tonight, the local police department said one of their officers shot someone.”
Or
“Tonight, the local police department said someone shot an officer.”
Or
“Tonight, a shooting happened, but we don’t yet know who fired (or fired first).”
Next. Remember the police department lip sync challenge of 2018 and 2019? These fun little videos showed police officers in sometimes elaborately-produced lip sync videos. They really were fun! But local media often took the fun a bit too far.
They ran these videos with mostly glowing prose on TV & online. But you often didn’t hear basic questions asked. Like, were tax dollars used? Were officers paid? Are their rules around using publicly-owned items like vehicles? What is the intent of this production?
Local news shouldn’t be a conduit for what is in effect a commercial.
Another one: Some local police departments have a policy of not giving exact addresses for business when there’s a crime. It often leads to strange syntax like “a bank on the 1200 block of Doe Street was robbed yesterday.”
First, the policy is odd and should be challenged. Why not give the exact address? If the logic behind the rule is to not victimize the business by blasting their address, couldn’t it also victimize an unreleased business by not being specific?
If there are two banks on Doe St., how do people know that it’s Brand X that’s on the 1200 block but that Brand Y is on the 1300 block? Folks don’t have google maps in their heads.
But journalists don’t have to follow these policies. So if police say in a news release, “a bank on the 1200 block of Doe St” - and you know by other means of verification that it’s really Brand X bank on Doe... say that. It’s always our goal to be specific & not confuse, right?
Police and the media have a unique relationship. Journalists need police to tell them things to do their job. Police need journalists to get their messages out. But journalists should always put extra thought into their words and actions with ANY public official.
Avoid jargon. Verify information. Don’t be used as a conduit for propaganda. Ask tough questions. Be fair to all sides.
We shouldn’t assume that police or PIOs are hiding things, shaping narratives etc., but we shouldn’t assume they aren’t, either.
We shouldn’t assume that police or PIOs are hiding things, shaping narratives etc., but we shouldn’t assume they aren’t, either.
Good piece from CJR https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/weve_frequently_mentioned_how_often.php">https://www.cjr.org/language_...
