'Boston bomber' is charged, but remains a 'suspect'

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.

Huge bribe case only a 'slur'?

Today's Business Standard"s lead headline is Another corruption slur on UPA.

That, even as one case of graft after another is emerging from the woodwork. It is no more a shock, no more a scandal, and having become quite routine, even the newspaper's headline writer seems to have had his pen dulled.

A slur, among other things, is only a disparaging remark which hurts one's reputation. And what is the UPA's reputation? Breeder of corruption and protector of the tribe of the corrupt.

So, in a lighter vein, to say the UPA is not corrupt would be against its reputation.

If you read the entire story, you would see that it is, aptly, only a "latest controversy". Latest, yes, but only a controversy?

Words say a lot, don't they?

Status quo and status quo ante

This is about status quo.

A headline in The Hindu on April 23 had this headline, Revert to status quo, India tells China.

Today, DNA slugged a story on Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid's China visit, thus: India wants the platoon of Chinese troops, who have erected their tents in that area, to pull back and restore the status quo.

On March 23 The Hindu had used status quo in a headline.

This usage is incorrect. Once something changes, it is not status quo, and when it has to be taken back to what it was, then it is to status quo ante. Merriam-Webster says status quo ante "s the state of affairs that existed previously". 

What India is dealing with is the status quo - about the here and now - of Chinese troops on Indian side. If they leave, then they situation would not be to status quo but to status quo ante. Status quo, as the same dictionary says, is "the existing state of affairs".

Who was chasing and who was captured on CCTV?

What does this headline, Sleuths in trail of men caught on Boston video, in The Times of India (April 19, 2013), tell you?

For one, it could mean the detectives who were going after the Boston bombers were caught on camera. Or, the sleuths were chasing the bombers whose images were captured by the videos by CCTV in the area. Going by the news item of which it was the headline, the second is correct.

The headline and the text of the news item can be read here.

News headlines in print are difficult to write for they have to explain the news in brief and also attract attention of the reader. They have to be concise and pack a lot.

J-school students and rookies who write news are often told that the headline is, generally, the summing up of the first paragraph which in professional jargon is a 'lead' or 'lede', the latter in vogue in the newsrooms in the USA. The lead or lede has to be a summing up of the entire news item.

Space available for the headline, depending on the importance of the item relative to others on the page and also its architecture, forces the headline writer to compress it as much as possible and yet be informative but could lead, as it has in this case, to confusion. It could even be hilarious.

During my college days, the equivalent of today's junior college was Intermediate and popularly, Inter. When new textbooks were introduced for these courses, the Deccan Chronicle, then confined only to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad came out with a gem: New textbooks for Intercourse. The space for the headline did not leave room for it to be in two words!

Any examples you would like to share?

'Apropos' the 'storm'

Did Jorge Heine in his The death of  poet in The Hindu need to start off 'Apropos of' when apropos is a preposition which actually means with respect to? Or Concerning.

Earlier, a headline in the same newspaper need not have used the 'into' - it was Protesters storm into Presidency University, attack students. A mob, whether of the CPM or the TMC variety, just storm.

Comments are invited.

On and off camera

While telecasting its sting on sale of medical seats, CNN-IBN kept flashing the statement in its 9 pm news slot that 'doctors said on camera'. It should have been 'doctors caught on camera'. Those who say anything 'on camera' are doing so with full knowledge of the camera being on. The anchor was Rajdeep Sardesai.

The missing 'erstwhile'

This blog's intent is to look at the use or misuse of words and expressions in journalism but here is an exception. It is about non-use of a word - erstwhile. And the confusion it causes.

The Hindu's news item on April 1, 2013 failed to use 'erstwhile' when talking about the former ruler of Bastar giving the impression that in a democratic republic which India is, royalty with titles exist. The only place where its use was not required - and not used - is in the fourth paragraph because the report recalls the past when India did have kings.

It is another matter that people in several regions, including cities like Jaipur, do look at the former rulers as royalty and refer to them as His/Her Highness but for a newspaper to treat them as royalty is ill-advised.

The use of 'Bastars' to identify the people who belong to a region is interesting.

All comments are welcome.