Innocent until proven guilty

Featured on a major network news broadcast today, was the death of an 11-year-old boy, Ephraim Brown. The boy was killed by a stray bullet fired in an inter-gang show-down in Toronto. Police arrested a man who will be charged with the boy's murder. I do not remember the name of this man, but I recall that the news that was read from the teleprompter contained this remark:

"We must remember that these charges are allegations only and have not yet been proven in a court of law."

I can only speculate as to the motivations of the person who decided that the above bit of "newspeak" was to make it into the broadcast. Was the remark made out of journalistic integrity; a desire to not only keep the tone of the news neutral, but also to not act recklessly against that person who shall remain "innocent until proven guilty"? Or was the motivation less altruistic? Perhaps the statement was made out of a desire to cover the network's ass in the unlikely event that it should be accused of interfering with the course of justice.

If any of these motivations were present, none of them were served by the making of the above-mentioned remark.

To say that the allegations "have not yet been proven" does not merely imply, but states outright, that the allegations will be proved. Quite the remark to be made by an even-handed news medium. The fact that the passive voice is used, does not negate the inevitability that is the message, intended or not.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty."

Any given day, I can tune into a news broadcast and listen to some talking head read scores of grammatically incorrect utterances such as "our poll reveals that most Torontonians think that there's too many guns on our city streets" or "We got the Mayor on the phone right now. Let's get his opinion." Apparently, the news-media have hit a new low. They now make illiterate statements.

At least they "got" the grammar right this time.