Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Too many times I've listened to media (local and national) report on a recent crime and use a phrase like this, "Police aren't saying/don't know exactly what caused the crash/led to the deaths." Well, of course, they aren't saying/don't know the exact cause. It seems that reporters like to use the word "exact" because they think it makes them sound more professional, or maybe it just makes their story two seconds longer.
In any case, often I see and hear the word "exact" used when it should not be. Or is that just me as a journalist-turned-communication specialist wanting to be correct, yet non-overbearing?
I think what some reporters are trying to do - maybe trying too hard - is to convey with one quick word that they seem to know the general cause of death, for example, but not all of the circumstances/details/contributing factors. Maybe someone looks as if he has accidentally drowned in a bathtub, but was actually murdered by asphyxiation first and then placed in the tub. Or, taking murder out of it, the dead guy with his head in the bath water might have a piece of hotdog stuck in his throat, and when he died he slumped under the water. Terrible examples, I know. But the point is I think some reporters and journalists like to hedge their "conclusions" a bit, just in case their assumptions turn out to be wrong. One way to hedge is to say something like "don't know exactly."
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)