This blog likes to look generally at the usage of words in the media, mostly print. Mostly, among them, newspapers.
That takes us to the use of the word 'suspect' in stories dealing with news about crimes. In this particular case, the Boston Bombings.
The latest, and a fine example, is its use in a headline by The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. When referring to Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the younger of the two brothers, he is a 'suspect', in a New York Times syndicated piece.
In the text, he is mentioned as having been 'charged', though the 'suspect' is missing in the NYT's headline. It points to the man being already 'charged' and of the on-going investigations. In both the newspapers, he is prefixed with the honorific, 'Mr.'. This is a practice even in The Economist - pointed, but polite, courtesies to even suspects and, yes, to convicts as well.
Indian newspaper could refer to Dzhokar Tsarnaev as 'an accused' since he has been charged. Once he is, if he is, convicted, then he becomes a convict. But the tendency in Indian media is to refer to any person picked up for suspicion becomes an accused, an unfortunate tradition.
The television news networks are worse: a man could well be tried well before legally being charged. These days, even hanging is described as the best punishment in the trial by television.
Elsewhere, the law enforcers look for the suspect first. here, we look for the 'accused', even if unidentified by name.
It is all to do with the finer points of a situation. The implications of a suspect being let off but being accused of a crime in the media are not understood. The police may be poor in use of words, the media needn't be.
That takes us to the use of the word 'suspect' in stories dealing with news about crimes. In this particular case, the Boston Bombings.
The latest, and a fine example, is its use in a headline by The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. When referring to Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the younger of the two brothers, he is a 'suspect', in a New York Times syndicated piece.
In the text, he is mentioned as having been 'charged', though the 'suspect' is missing in the NYT's headline. It points to the man being already 'charged' and of the on-going investigations. In both the newspapers, he is prefixed with the honorific, 'Mr.'. This is a practice even in The Economist - pointed, but polite, courtesies to even suspects and, yes, to convicts as well.
Indian newspaper could refer to Dzhokar Tsarnaev as 'an accused' since he has been charged. Once he is, if he is, convicted, then he becomes a convict. But the tendency in Indian media is to refer to any person picked up for suspicion becomes an accused, an unfortunate tradition.
The television news networks are worse: a man could well be tried well before legally being charged. These days, even hanging is described as the best punishment in the trial by television.
Elsewhere, the law enforcers look for the suspect first. here, we look for the 'accused', even if unidentified by name.
It is all to do with the finer points of a situation. The implications of a suspect being let off but being accused of a crime in the media are not understood. The police may be poor in use of words, the media needn't be.
