Because nothing says “accident” like leaving a prisoner in the middle of a railroad crossing!

  • pqdinfo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is just the way our natural grammatical structure works.

    We’re not having a discussion about grammar, we’re having a discussion about how phrases can be misleading even if technically correct, and how those phrases can end up serving inhuman agendas.

    While “Hit by car” the driver is usually at fault. Note news articles will generally go out of their way to avoid “hit by car” on the rare occasion someone jumps in front of one.

    Hit by a pitch? Not sure what this means.

    Hit by stray bullet is modified to describe an unusual set of circumstances so inappropriate here. That’s the equivalent of “Man hit by derailed train”. We’re not talking about that kind of situation. The nearest equivalent of “Man hit by train” where the direct cause of death is an aimed bullet is “Man shot”, or "Man shot by ", it’s never “Man hit by bullet”

    Struck by new knowledge doesn’t really apply here too.

    The underlying message of “Hit by train” is that transit was at fault (the train “hit”). Rather than the drunk driver. Rather than the reckless idiot who decided to go around the barrier. Rather than the suicidal cyclist who stepped in front of it. Rather than, in this case, the cop that parked on the tracks and locked a prisoner inside the car.

    Words are about communication. And all phrases have subtexts and good writing recognizes those subtexts and avoids misleading ones and uses accurate ones that convey as much information as possible.

    "Train hits " is an intentional choice by journalists to focus the blame on transit rather than the person whose actions lead to death. Whether it’s technically correct ignores the fact that there are better phrases that could be used that also focus the blame on the person who caused the situation. "Colorado officer who trapped prisoner in path of train sentenced to " doesn’t have the misleading nuances that the headline does. It’s more accurate and more informative as a result.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We’re not having a discussion about grammar, we’re having a discussion about how phrases can be misleading even if technically correct, and how those phrases can end up serving inhuman agendas.

      We’re having a discussion about the way a person wrote a headline, and I explained that, rather than believe an elaborate conspiracy theory, you could acknowledge that this is just the way English grammatical structures work.

      The alternative to “hit by a train” is going to be multiple sentences long to convey the same information. Your conspiracy theory about it being a deflection falls apart because the entire article is about how the officer is legally and ethically at fault, accepts that, and that the family understands that.

      “Trapped prisoner in path of train” oddly enough, is slanted language with misleading nuances.