And Now a Gripe about the Media

Today I heard one of the stupidest things I've heard an alleged news anchor say on TV (and that's saying a LOT).

This national news anchor who shall remain nameless stated about a high profile court case that, "[The witness] testified that he saw B allegedly doing X."

Say what?  I'm sorry, I am usually pretty "liberal" when it comes to interpreting fleeting attempts to express oneself in English ... but accurate communication is supposed to be these people's JOB.

You cannot testify that you saw Cookie Monster allegedly putting his fingers in the cookie jar.

You either did or did not see Cookie Monster putting his fingers in the cookie jar.  And you can testify to whichever of those is the case.  If somebody did not observe your testimony first hand but only heard about it 2nd hand, they can say that you allegedly testified that you saw Cookie Monster put his fingers in the cookie jar.  But there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that anybody could possibly testify that they SAW Cookie Monster allegedly putting his fingers in the cookie jar.

By the very definitions of the words, you can't see somebody allegedly doing something.  UGGGG.

This drives me completely NUTS and makes me think that these so called news anchors don't actually know anything whatsoever about what they are allegedly reporting -- they are just reading scripts put together by people who don't know enough about legal terminology to know that the witness could not possibly have testified that he allegedly saw X.

Is there a question here?  I guess the question is, am I the only person who gets driven completely crazy by this kind of thing?

There's a reason it's intentionally reported that way.  The defendant is "alleged" to have done what he's accused of until a jury actually determines one way or the other if he did what has been alleged.  The news has to be very careful to not report what someone says as undisputed fact in a pending criminal case.  It was worded inarticulately but the idea is to not taint the jury pool.

But ,,, but ... but .... (sputter...)

It is still an uncontroverted fact (or should be by the time they are reporting it) that "The witness testified that X."  (If they aren't certain what the witness testified then they should be checking that out before they report it.)

"X" could still be either true or false independent of what the witness testified about X.  But the FACT that the witness testified such-and-so about X is true independent of whether X turns out to be true or not.

So why can't the media report factually about what the witness testified (IF they are going to report that sort of thing at all)?

No, not the only person.

I've got a few language pet peeves, too.

After 35 years in the inSURance business it makes me crazy to hear somebody say INsurance.

And don't get me started on irregardless.

LegalSecy:

So why can't the media report factually about what the witness testified (IF they are going to report that sort of thing at all)?

They can and do AT TRIAL.  Understand that you are assuming the witness is credible and what they are testifying to are facts.  THAT is for a jury to decide.  The witness only testified at the preliminary hearing in front of a judge where the defense most often doesn't present any rebuttal evidence so there's only one side being heard AND, the defense's purpose in cross is strategic in setting up the defense for trial.   Right now, it's just the witness's perceptions and you can't give them any more credibility than that.  Prelims are probable cause hearings--is there a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed by the defendant--that's all and nothng more.  Juries decide what they believe the true facts are and only after hearing ALL the evidence presented by BOTH sides.  If you report just what the prosecution witness said in a prelim and in any manner paint them as facts, you are tainting the potential jury pool.   Folks already have enough trouble distinguishing what are facts and what are not when they hear it on the news.  The defendant has a constitutional due process right to a impartial jury not tainted or biased by TV or newspaper-reported supposed facts heard outside of the trial itself.  The defendant is presumed innocent and simply alleged to have committed a crime until a jury hears all the evidence and renders their verdict.  Not before.

As for me personally, I wish there were no reporting of any criminal court proceedings other than the defendant was arraigned, he bound over after the prelim without specifics as to the testimony, news that the case is set for trial and then reporting that the jury reached a verdict and what it was.  Everything else that's reported pretrial already causes enough taint in our criminal justice system.  Just because someone is arrested and charged does not mean they're guilty and I, for one, want an untainted, unbiased jury who knows nothing about the case, the defendant, any witnesses or news reports to listen to the evidence and decide.  But then, I've done a lot of jury trials where that hasn't been the case and overcoming that pretrial news taint is just something more for me to stress over....

LegalSecy:

So why can't the media report factually about what the witness testified (IF they are going to report that sort of thing at all)?

While worded inartfully if you quoted the anchor correctly, the reason why they toss the "allegedly" is because repeating a defamatory statement made by another may itself be defamation. For example, witness Amy testfies falsely that "I saw Bob stole cookies from the cookie jar." Reporter Carl then reports that "Amy said she saw Bob steal cookies from the cookie jar." Since Amy's statement is a lie, she's committed defamation against Bob. Carl's repetition of the false statement is also potentially defamatory against Bob, giving Bob now claims against both Amy and Carl. What Carl would typically report instead is something like that "Amy's testimony alleged that Bob stole cookies from the cookie jar."

gemini47:

As for me personally, I wish there were no reporting of any criminal court proceedings other than the defendant was arraigned, he bound over after the prelim without specifics as to the testimony, news that the case is set for trial and then reporting that the jury reached a verdict and what it was.  Everything else that's reported pretrial already causes enough taint in our criminal justice system. 

 

I agree with you on that one. 

And just as a consumer of "news" I really hate hearing endless speculation about what "might" happen tomorrow or next week or when the Fed convenes or when the voters go to the polls or when the case goes to the jury, etc., etc.  I want to hear what is known about what already DID happen, not talking heads speculating about what "might" happen in the future given various clues that they believe they have detected that they believe might predict the future.

Wow, good thing I am not a news reporter.  I still see no problem with saying or writing, "Amy testified that Bob did X" if that is in fact what Amy testified.  That isn't making a judgment about whether Amy was telling the truth or not.  Heck, I wouldn't know.  That's for the jury to decide.  But it is still true that Amy said whatever she said, even if it turns out that what she said was false. 

I really kind of enjoyed the class I took that talked about defamation - and I remember having discussions like this all the time.    Same with the discussions about why surgery doesn't count as an assault (when else could a person consent in advance to being cut with a knife while unconscious?) and why I'm not comitting battery if you push me out a window and I land on Bob's head.  I always thought of "Amy said that Bob did X" statements in the same kind of category (in my own mind anyway).

This is probably a prime example of a little knowledge being dangerous.  (ahem)

The first thing drilled into journalists is that statements made prior to, or not confirmed during court proceedings, generally open avenues to slander or malice cases. 

Were life that simple insofar as assumptions being definitive, all cases could be completed in an hour.

The word "alleged," which appears in practically any report involving an identifiable person related to criminal activity, and pending criminal trial, helps to neutralize potential libel/slander countersuits or false judgments by jury.

SIGH. I feel so outnumbered.

What I originally wrote (which was an accurate description of what the news anchor reported) was,  

"[The witness] testified that he saw B allegedly doing X."

Maybe this is an English grammar issue more than a legal reporting issue.  I dunno,  But it still drives me nuts.  I DO know and understand all about news organizations concerns about defamation and liability.  I DO understand what function the word, "alleged" has in news reporting,

BUT ... my complaint here is that they are mechanically sticking the term "allegedly" into places where it doesn't even belong.

The witness literally COULD NOT have testified that he "saw Bob allegedly doing X."  COULD NOT have, That sentence does not make any sense.    If I SEE Bob with his hand in the cookie jar, I do not see Bob ALLEGEDLY with his hand in the cookie jar.  The person who is making the allegation is ME.  My vision does not "allege" things to my brain, (Well, maybe in some philosophy class somewhere, but not in the real world.)

The witness can ALLEGE that he "saw Bob doing X."  Or the witness can TESTIFY (with the truth of that testimony yet undetermined) that he "saw Bob doing X." 

But the witness CANNOT POSSIBLY testify that he "saw Bob allegedly doing X."  You can't see somebody "allegedly" doing something,  You either see it or you don't.

But I'm outnumbered here.  I'm going to take my thesaurus and go sulk on the sun porch while hubby watches football.

If it's any consolation, the term is often misused from the grammatical aspect, and it is often within the media:

Read the title

When the news report is accompanied by film showing the action taking place, it's no longer an "allegation." 

The one thing I do have to say is that media has a right to be paranoid ... : )

LegalSecy:

"[The witness] testified that he saw B allegedly doing X."

Maybe this is an English grammar issue more than a legal reporting issue. 

It could well be a grammar issue.

LegalSecy:

The witness literally COULD NOT have testified that he "saw Bob allegedly doing X."  COULD NOT have, That sentence does not make any sense.  

Actually, the witness COULD have done exactly that. First, it's possible the witness is grammatically challenged and said it even though it would not have made sense to say it that way. People screw up grammar all the time, so I would not discount that possibility.

Second, it matters a whole lot what "X" is. For example, suppose the witness stated "I saw Bob allegedly steal a hammer." Certainly it's inartful phrasing, but it could occur when the witness isn't sure about the legal issue of whether what he saw Bob do constitutes theft, so he uses the word allegedly to indicate that he thinks what Bob did MAY have been theft, but he's not stating for a fact that it WAS theft. Now, of course, that answer may draw an objection if the issue in the case is whether Bob stole the hammer since witnesses cannot testify at to the legal conclusion at issue in the case. Also, the attorney would need to backtrack in his questioning to get out the essential facts that lead to the witness' conclusion of theft, i.e. exactly what Bob did that appeared to the witness to be theft. But I think it is possible for a witness to testify in that manner and arguably have a (nearly) correct use of the term.

It may just be that he anchor or newswriter was not very careful as to how the sentence was written or read and screwed up the grammar in the sentence.

You're right it's odd wording, no argument there. But that could have come about several different ways, and at least so far I cannot tell which of them it might be.

Taxagent:

It may just be that the anchor or newswriter was not very careful as to how the sentence was written or read and screwed up the grammar in the sentence.

Agreed.  It's actually quite common with online media today.  The days of writer to copy desk to pressroom are almost passé.  News stories change hourly.  Keeping it "pretty" is secondary to doing the utmost to ensure no retractions are needed.  On the other hand, broadcast media still has its time to keep their stuff clean. 

LS -- "[The witness] testified that he saw B allegedly doing X."  I'm interpreting that as witness testimony regarding an action based on an assumption.  (e.g., if this witness was a significant distance away, or is visually impaired, then what he claims to have seen may be questioned.).  The media didn't affirm what apparently had yet to be confirmed.  (Were I the writer I would have looked at the statement as an opportunity to save fifty-four character spaces ... I agree that it could have been better worded, or just placed in the "Save" file until more information was received.).

Right - hopefully the witness would have been coached in how to testify so that the witness would say something like, "I saw Bob take a hammer out of Amy's toolbox and put it in his own toolbox," rather than, "I saw Bob steal Amy's hammer."

If the witness were not so coached, I'm sure some attorney somewhere would object to Bob's testifying about a conclusion which is supposed to be the subject matter at trial.

LegalSecy:

Right - hopefully the witness would have been coached in how to testify so that the witness would say something like, "I saw Bob take a hammer out of Amy's toolbox and put it in his own toolbox," rather than, "I saw Bob steal Amy's hammer."

Coaching witnesses what to say is a problem; the lawyer can give general instructions on what to do when testifying but cannot tell the witness exactly what to say.