I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I ha…
I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I have a hard time imagining that any journalist would do that. Now, maybe they would if the Pope produced a documentary of it, but I can almost guarantee that any journalist using that language would be called crass and accused of insinuating that the pope is a liar. How should a journalist draw that line?
Honestly, I love your reporting overall and would support you if the subscription price was double what it is now. You are the only news organization willing to consistently report honestly about issues like this. I just wonder if there was a way to appear more neutral in this particular situation? Maybe there isn't: I'm not sure on that point, though I suspect there is in a world of perfect hindsight. Frankly, I'm glad it is you doing this job and not me, because I can guarantee that I'd offend more people than you, Ed, and the other great reporters on your team.
we would say, "Francis reported speaking to a woman about her difficult marriage," or "Francis said he .. " or "Francis reportedly ..." Maybe even "Francis allegedly..."
We would never say, "Francis spoke to a woman about her difficult marriage situation" because we have no way of knowing it was true!
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?
I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I have a hard time imagining that any journalist would do that. Now, maybe they would if the Pope produced a documentary of it, but I can almost guarantee that any journalist using that language would be called crass and accused of insinuating that the pope is a liar. How should a journalist draw that line?
Honestly, I love your reporting overall and would support you if the subscription price was double what it is now. You are the only news organization willing to consistently report honestly about issues like this. I just wonder if there was a way to appear more neutral in this particular situation? Maybe there isn't: I'm not sure on that point, though I suspect there is in a world of perfect hindsight. Frankly, I'm glad it is you doing this job and not me, because I can guarantee that I'd offend more people than you, Ed, and the other great reporters on your team.
we would say, "Francis reported speaking to a woman about her difficult marriage," or "Francis said he .. " or "Francis reportedly ..." Maybe even "Francis allegedly..."
We would never say, "Francis spoke to a woman about her difficult marriage situation" because we have no way of knowing it was true!
And thanks for the great and very kind note.
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
it's helpful feedback.
This is actually a good point. I think the words had different connotations even a decade ago.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?