06-13-2018, 04:59 PM
(06-13-2018, 01:40 PM)Canard Wrote: Thanks P - I thought I had it, and now I don’t again. I still don’t get it, I suspect I never will. Seems like it’s back to the blame thing again.
It's about being neutral. Saying there was a traffic accident isn't neutral as it implicitly includes a statement of intent on the part of the driver(s). Saying there was a motor vehicle collision, on the other hand, is merely a statement of fact. It's not placing blame, but it's also not exonerating anyone prior to the facts being determined.
Language is important in determining how we perceive a situation. "The cyclist was hit by a car" frames the incident in such a way that the cyclist is the actor. The reader automatically wonders what else the cyclist did. Were they riding recklessly? Did they have bright clothing on? Were they riding tight to the edge of the road? "The driver hit a cyclist with their car," on the other hand, frames the incident in such a way that the driver is the actor and the reader is lead to consider their responsibility in the collision. Were they drunk? Were they distracted? Were they angry at the cyclist? What about "There was a collision between a motorist and cyclist?" They are equal actors, and the reader is lead to consider the role of both in the situation equally. None of these statements assign blame, but the reader is influenced in how to perceive the situation differently in all of them.
I personally think that traditional media is often neutral to a fault and that there can be a bias that emerges from that, but it's a difficult balance to find.