When in doubt, euphemize.
“Counter-protest remarks”
— Mike (@MikeSouthWestUK) August 8, 2024
He said people’s throats should be slit.
Can you see, @bbcnews, why increasingly no-one trusts you ? pic.twitter.com/9G2h7rh8Bd
What’s a little throat-slitting among friends?
When in doubt, euphemize.
Comments
3 responses to “What’s a little throat-slitting among friends?”
Hmmmm.
I don’t have a problem with this. If he’s been arrested, then the matter will be sub judice; even if what he did is to the civilian blindingly obvious, it’s still the case that the Crown has to prove it, and the more vivid the headline, the closer one gets to throwing the trial.
It’s tricky.
Ah, I stupidly didn’t think of that angle. I have a feeling I’ve overlooked that angle quite a few times.
Though isn’t the journalistic convention for avoiding prejudicing the trial to say “alleged/allegedly”?
But then headlines are supposed to be short, so maybe that’s why.
Sometimes, yes. But there’s no question that he made some remarks, so it’s more than alleged. What is in question is whether they were legal. As you say, when you have limited space in the headline and the story, it’s probably a good idea to go for the blandest.