Again and again I have heard the news reporters say cluelessly ignorant things about the Oscar Pistorius case. Two days ago, I felt a need to, on this very blog (which is supposed to be satirical), define murder, manslaughter and killing in self-defense, because the reporters I see on the news and read online just can’t seem to get even the easiest parts of this case right, with reporter after reporter saying Pistorius claims to have “murdered her in self-defense”. (!!!)
Well again today I see yet another person, writing (in this case for ABC News: not a novice news group!) of Oscar Pistorius: “…he allegedly shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.” No, he did not allegedly shoot and kill her: he did shoot and kill her, and he has already admitted as much to the authorities. There ain’t nothin’ “alleged” about it: it is an agreed-upon fact.
No, Oscar Pistorius allegedly murdered his girlfriend. We all already know he shot and killed her; the only thing in dispute is whether he did it on purpose because he wanted to kill her, or whether it was a tragic accident. And nobody really knows the answer to that except for Mr. Pistorius himself.
No, if Oscar Pistorius allegedly shot and killed his girlfriend, it would be a situation more like if the following hypothetical scenario had happened: Reeva Steenkamp was shot and killed with Oscar Pistorius’s gun, and his fingerprints are on the gun, but he claims that masked intruders broke into his home, disarmed him of his firearm, and then proceeded to shoot and kill Ms. Steenkamp through the bathroom door, after which they dropped the gun and fled, and Mr. Pistorius claims he then unthinkingly picked up the gun. But the authorities don’t believe him, and they’re alleging that he is the one who shot and killed Ms. Steenkamp. (See the difference? It’s kind of a big difference.)
Hey, wait a minute: You don’t suppose that the reporters figure that we all know the facts already, and that we’re probably all bored with it already, so they’re trying to mix it up, change some facts around, in the hopes of making it seem new and fresh, do you? Hmm, I never thought of that, but I guess it’s a possibility. And I’d like to think it’s more likely than the possibility that our news reporters are so clueless.
But how clueless can you get? If the news reporters get such amazingly obvious things so glaringly wrong, how the hell can we trust them with anything else that we don’t know all about already? These reporters all supposedly went to college and journalism school, and some of them are lawyers and stuff. So how come they don’t know the difference between murder and self-defense, and the difference between a fact and an allegation?
Seriously: WTF? This is not a joking matter: we’re supposed to be able to trust them to keep us informed!
No wonder nobody trusts the news media anymore: it’s not just political spin and obvious agenda-pushing anymore; now it looks like it’s just that they can’t even get the obvious things correct either. Wow, how disillusioning (and disappointing)! Oh well…
Here’s the article I’m referring to (The offending remark is in the first sentence!):
