If the journalist is aware of the standards normally applied to accused persons, then he or she will be more careful in their choice of labels. If, on the other hand, the writer is not concerned about being sued for defamation of character, then they might choose a more emotionally charged term, like "looter".
I was reminded of a story that ran on CNN.com a couple of months ago. It featured a photo of a teenage boy, and asserted that the boy had killed some folks, and then himself. I wondered when publishers decided it was ok to print the photo of a minor accused of a crime, and why it was all right to refer to the accused as a killer. Was it because he was dead? Or because he was not white? Very annoying.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-31 12:19 am (UTC)I was reminded of a story that ran on CNN.com a couple of months ago. It featured a photo of a teenage boy, and asserted that the boy had killed some folks, and then himself. I wondered when publishers decided it was ok to print the photo of a minor accused of a crime, and why it was all right to refer to the accused as a killer. Was it because he was dead? Or because he was not white? Very annoying.