# How the media report on fatalities.



## glenn forger (7 Jul 2015)

https://medium.com/@lastwheel/how-does-the-media-pick-a-victim-9eb29f52cc6d



> A RESPECTED North East vicar died after his bike *was clipped by a moving car*, an inquest heard. […A] central reservation caused the road to narrow, and Mr Strong’s Skoda car clipped the kerb of the reservation as he tried to pass. His car *turned slightly* towards Mr Malleson, an experienced cyclist, and* lightly clipped* his handlebars. The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who was not wearing a cycle helmet, to lose his balance and fall to the ground.



The persistent car-washing of driver responsibility where the report describes events as a vehicle “hitting” then deciding to “drive off” is clearly a police narrative:



> Mark Greenwood was killed last Thursday when he collided with a silver Golf



Mr Greenwood was hit from behind by a texting driver:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...sing-cyclist-death-180831#Drz4xmhldtGok7EV.99

If you are feeling generous you could say it's just a mistake. So how come the mistake is always made the same way, so the rider is the active party and the driver is passive?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Jul 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Mr Greenwood was hit from behind by a texting driver:
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...sing-cyclist-death-180831#Drz4xmhldtGok7EV.99



I see that driver has been jailed for 21 months. 
http://road.cc/content/news/156568-...-checking-whatsapp-messages-leading-collision

GC


----------



## NorvernRob (7 Jul 2015)

No offence meant here, but do you (the OP) just constantly trawl the web for stories about cyclists being killed? I don't know how you manage to get on a bike.


----------



## Levo-Lon (7 Jul 2015)

NorvernRob said:


> No offence meant here, but do you (the OP) just constantly trawl the web for stories about cyclists being killed? I don't know how you manage to get on a bike.



yes he does...the argue section must be quiet again..perhaps theres been a ban hammer session?


----------



## Lemond (7 Jul 2015)

Zzzzzzzz. Same old guff from GF.


----------



## mickle (7 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> Zzzzzzzz. Same old guff from GF.



Who's farking side are you on?


----------



## mickle (7 Jul 2015)

NorvernRob said:


> No offence meant here, but do you (the OP) just constantly trawl the web for stories about cyclists being killed? I don't know how you manage to get on a bike.



You just need to be able to read a newspaper. And he has a point, which you seem not to want to acknowledge, that the language of reporting of RTAs involving cyclists is out of whack.


----------



## Markymark (7 Jul 2015)

mickle said:


> You just need to be able to read a newspaper. And he has a point, which you seem not to want to acknowledge, that the language of reporting of RTAs involving cyclists is out of whack.


I think it's a dislike of the poster rather than the point. Something I whole heartedly agree with.


----------



## Lemond (7 Jul 2015)

mickle said:


> You just need to be able to read a newspaper. And he has a point, which you seem not to want to acknowledge, that the language of reporting of RTAs involving cyclists is out of whack.



It's just poor journalism, that's all. Hardly a shocker.


----------



## mickle (7 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> It's just poor journalism, that's all. Hardly a shocker.



It's a farking scandal, that's what it is.


----------



## Sham69 (7 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> It's just poor journalism, that's all. Hardly a shocker.



I think it's more insidious than that. Reporting such as this demonstrates a particular mindset that, worryingly, seems prevalent amongst many road users.


----------



## Lemond (7 Jul 2015)

mickle said:


> It's a farking scandal, that's what it is.



No, it's really not.


----------



## Lemond (7 Jul 2015)

Poor journalism is just poor journalism. You've got to be some kind of fruit loop to read it and see conspiracy or an agenda.


----------



## Lemond (7 Jul 2015)

User said:


> Or, looking at it the other way around, you have to be a fool to see it as nothing more than mere poor journalism.



Spoken like a true fruit loop.


----------



## slowmotion (8 Jul 2015)

I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them. If I was feeling paranoid about it I might think that the subtle message is "If you ride a bike on the roads, you are partially to blame if a couple of tonnes of steel does you some major harm. You would only have a dinged wing if you were in a sensible vehicle like a car".

"Man killed in collision with handgun bullet in Tottenham pub", anybody?


----------



## anothersam (8 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> Zzzzzzzz. Same old guff from GF.


The issues involved are old and the OP bringing them up is the same as often posts about them, but it's hardly guff. It's important. Sometimes important stuff puts people to sleep.

The media thrive on narratives (i.e., stories), like the rest of us; and they get to choose how the conversation is framed by virtue of the fact they have always bought ink by the barrel.


Lemond said:


> Poor journalism is just poor journalism. You've got to be some kind of fruit loop to read it and see conspiracy or an agenda.



The media, particularly in these days of massive conglomeration and moneybags corporate ownership, most assuredly does have certain agendas. Stories are often not reported as a result of original investigation, but press releases from interested parties and other "news" outlets. Certain stories turn into feeding frenzies which by definition involve endless repetition, which works like a (lucky?) charm. I'm not sure what brand of cereal you have to be to swallow everything you're fed: Frosted Flakes? If only for the crowd-pleasing alliteration.


Lemond said:


> Spoken like a true fruit loop.


Repetition. So you see how it works.


slowmotion said:


> I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them.


Gentle or otherwise, it's constant and relentless.


----------



## raleighnut (8 Jul 2015)

Cyclists generally do not 'collide' with cars but are involved in a collision with one far too often (Generally as the 'collidee' rather than the collider)
I agree that the journalistic 'slant' on this is that cyclists shouldn't be there to be hit.


----------



## hatler (8 Jul 2015)

Yup, not a conspiracy (as in, there isn't a hidden cabal of journos meeting regularly to agree the language to use for these stories), but there's clearly a very stilted point of view which is both widespread and wholly out of order. Three cheers to GF for continually trying to raise the profile of this critical subject.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jul 2015)

Journalists (and some police) often use language which serves to diminish blame from the driver or indeed omit the presence of the driver altogether. A perfect example is the use of the word 'clipped' when referring to fatally striking a cyclist, or phrases like "the car lost control", removing all suggestion that there might be someone behind the wheel with responsibility for its control.

If you want a measured review of this widespread bias I can do no better than recommend this blog on the subject.

GC


----------



## raleighnut (8 Jul 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Journalists (and some police) often use language which serves to diminish blame from the driver or indeed omit the presence of the driver altogether. A perfect example is the use of the word 'clipped' when referring to fatally striking a cyclist, or phrases like "the car lost control", removing all suggestion that there might be someone behind the wheel with responsibility for its control.
> 
> If you want a measured review of this widespread bias I can do no better than recommend this blog on the subject.
> 
> GC


Good link.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Jul 2015)

An incident report should avoid any suggestion of blame.

The phrases used are purposefully neutral.

Statements by police officers, deemed to be made on behalf of the chief constable, are covered by qualified privilege and can be reported without any fear of legal comeback.

This would often be a witness appeal where the report would inevitably suggest blame on whichever party had cleared off in a hit and run.

A court report is a different animal in which what is said in court can be accurately reported.

The points made in the blog linked by @glasgowcyclist cannot be assessed unless you attended the inquest on which the blog is commenting upon.

In the nicest possible way, the journalist couldn't care less either way, it's just a matter of getting the job done.

Thus the language complained of by the blogger will almost certainly have been what was said at the inquest.

There is no point in the journalist putting his title and himself at risk of legal proceedings by inserting anything that wasn't said at the inquest.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> the journalist couldn't care less either way,...



There's part of the problem, the journalist couldn't care less; he's lazy and churns out crap that conforms to stereotypical thinking and thereby perpetuates it.



Pale Rider said:


> ...it's just a matter of getting the job done



The job is to be accurate and fair.



Pale Rider said:


> The points made in the blog linked by @glasgowcyclist cannot be assessed unless you attended the inquest on which the blog is commenting upon.



It wasn't only about the reporting of the evidence at the inquest stage, it deals with the initial reporting of RTCs themselves. 

See also https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/when-words-collide/

GC


----------



## Simontm (8 Jul 2015)

hatler said:


> Yup, not a conspiracy (as in, there isn't a hidden cabal of journos meeting regularly to agree the language to use for these stories), but there's clearly a very stilted point of view which is both widespread and wholly out of order. Three cheers to GF for continually trying to raise the profile of this critical subject.


Actually we are, I'm just a masochist 

In all seriousness, a lot of the language will come from the summation, or the police PR rather than the journo themselves. They will pick up on the language being spoken to them. 

Thanks to the likes of All the Presidents Men, there seems to be an idea that we are crusaders setting the tone for the agenda etc etc. In reality, it is a long-houred, poorly paid trade, gradually being taken over by those with trust funds rather than the skill as it is hard to sustain a life when starting out on the wages or 'internships' that exist. 

24-hr news means a high churn rate of news and a large reliance on PR but at the end of the day, if the reader doesn't like it, the reader goes away. The Sun doesn't win it, the Sun reflects the prejudice of its readers - that's how it makes money.


----------



## hatler (8 Jul 2015)

User said:


> In part maybe but it also shapes and reinforces those viewpoints


I don't think it's either just one, or just the other, it's surely a bit of both. But the statement of a prejudice leads to its reinforcement, and in turn to an increased credibility, which leads to its re-statement, ad infinitum. Auto-catalytic if you will.


----------



## Simontm (8 Jul 2015)

hatler said:


> I don't think it's either just one, or just the other, it's surely a bit of both. But the statement of a prejudice leads to its reinforcement, and in turn to an increased credibility, which leads to its re-statement, ad infinitum. Auto-catalytic if you will.



Wanted to reply to both you and @User Yes there is a reinforcement cycle but people's prejudices change and it is a good editor who can swing round at the speed of social thought. Some of the stuff the Sun thought would be acceptable to print in the 80s would not be now.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the Telegraph, it is trying to push a change through online - Buzzfeed style lists etc - which its readership (at least those that comment) hate. It is slowly suffering and is trying to up the pace of change and dragging its readership with it and falling between two stools.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Jul 2015)

Simontm said:


> The Sun doesn't win it, the Sun reflects the prejudice of its readers - that's how it makes money.



When a General Election is called, the first task in The Sun newsroom is to predict who will win, then back that party.

The idea is to back a winning horse not a losing one.

It's reflected kudos - back the winner and the paper - and its readers - are seen as winners.

Feelgood factor all round.

Back the loser, and you are all losers.


----------



## subaqua (8 Jul 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them. If I was feeling paranoid about it I might think that the subtle message is "If you ride a bike on the roads, you are partially to blame if a couple of tonnes of steel does you some major harm. You would only have a dinged wing if you were in a sensible vehicle like a car".
> 
> "Man killed in collision with handgun bullet in Tottenham pub", anybody?




it wasn't in a pub , it was at the side of the road


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Jul 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There's part of the problem, the journalist couldn't care less; he's lazy and churns out crap that conforms to stereotypical thinking and thereby perpetuates it.
> 
> GC



What I mean by couldn't care less is the journalist reporting an inquest has no view either way.

The hearing is clearly important to those directly involved, but to the experienced journalist it is a routine job, he will have done dozens, if not hundreds of inquests before.

Thus if a witness says "the man bit the dog", that's what goes in.

If the witness says: "the dog bit the man", that's what goes in.


----------



## hatler (8 Jul 2015)

Simontm said:


> Wanted to reply to both you and @User Yes there is a reinforcement cycle but people's prejudices change and it is a good editor who can swing round at the speed of social thought. Some of the stuff the Sun thought would be acceptable to print in the 80s would not be now.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if you look at the Telegraph, it is trying to push a change through online - Buzzfeed style lists etc - which its readership (at least those that comment) hate. It is slowly suffering and is trying to up the pace of change and dragging its readership with it and falling between two stools.


I can see where the ability to identify a shift in public opinion is what can make an editor successful. Especially so if the new trend is counter to the one they have thus far promoted. But how does that shift occur ? If I could answer that I wouldn't post it here but would transfer all my energies into the political sphere instantly.


----------



## hatler (8 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> When a General Election is called, the first task in The Sun newsroom is to predict who will win, then back that party.
> 
> The idea is to back a winning horse not a losing one.
> 
> ...



And there's no hint of, say, the Sun's proprietor just possibly sounding out the parties to see which of them might provide the most lucrative business environment should that party win (where the result is in the balance) ?


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Jul 2015)

hatler said:


> And there's no hint of, say, the Sun's proprietor just possibly sounding out the parties to see which of them might provide the most lucrative business environment should that party win (where the result is in the balance) ?



Party leaders court the proprietors/editors, because the leaders also believe the influence of the paper is greater than it is.

There has been a bit of a change recently.

Everyone is a publisher now, so it is easier for political parties - or anyone else - to get their message across directly.

For example, when I wanted to have a brief look at the policies of a couple of parties at the last election, I looked at their manifestos on their websites, rather than rely on a summary from a media outlet.


----------



## Simontm (8 Jul 2015)

hatler said:


> I can see where the ability to identify a shift in public opinion is what can make an editor successful. Especially so if the new trend is counter to the one they have thus far promoted. But how does that shift occur ? If I could answer that I wouldn't post it here but would transfer all my energies into the political sphere instantly.


Hah. I wouldn't be the editor of my current job that's for sure! 

It can be an accident of timing, after all The Sun was a left-wing paper prior to Murdoch.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Jul 2015)

[QUOTE="Simontm, post: 3785283, member: 37586"
It can be an accident of timing, after all The Sun was a left-wing paper prior to Murdoch.[/QUOTE]

Spot on.

Take cock-up - or simple chance - over conspiracy every time and you won't go far wrong.


----------



## Simontm (8 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> When a General Election is called, the first task in The Sun newsroom is to predict who will win, then back that party.
> 
> The idea is to back a winning horse not a losing one.
> 
> ...



less than 2 million people read the Sun and, for example, of them less than 40% backed The Conservatives in 1992 (if memory serves). Papers influence the Westminster circle far more than the outside world. I've been a journalist for nigh on 20 years and graduated in politics and stuff that fascinates me and the bubble bore the heck out of a lot of people. 
Far more should be examined in terms of aspirations, family and friendship pressures rather than the influence of media. 

Though the growth of social is going to be an interesting study in a few years time.


----------



## NorvernRob (8 Jul 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them. If I was feeling paranoid about it I might think that the subtle message is "If you ride a bike on the roads, you are partially to blame if a couple of tonnes of steel does you some major harm. You would only have a dinged wing if you were in a sensible vehicle like a car".
> 
> "Man killed in collision with handgun bullet in Tottenham pub", anybody?



So how exactly would you want it reported? 'Cyclist killed by car driver'? What sense would that make? Did the driver get out of the car and beat the cyclist to death? It's not clear which is why it doesn't make sense to say it.

It doesn't just apply to cyclists, for instance:

"Motorist killed in collision with train' would be used, rather than 'train driver kills motorist', which again isn't clear at all. For all we know reading that the train driver might be nowhere near a train. 

I think it is just paranoia.


----------



## hatler (8 Jul 2015)

NorvernRob said:


> I think it is just paranoia.


Seriously ?


----------



## SD1 (9 Jul 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I see that driver has been jailed for 21 months.
> http://road.cc/content/news/156568-...-checking-whatsapp-messages-leading-collision
> 
> GC


Well the courts don't seem to be bias.although the hit and run bit might have been worth a bit more than 21 months.


----------



## SD1 (9 Jul 2015)

[QUOTE 3784715, member: 9609"]Glen campaigns tirelessly for better justice for cyclists, and when he stays focussed he is very good at it, (unfortunately he regularly looses the plot and has an unpleasant out burst) As cyclists we could do with many more "grown up" versions of Glen.[/QUOTE]



slowmotion said:


> I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them. If I was feeling paranoid about it I might think that the subtle message is "If you ride a bike on the roads, you are partially to blame if a couple of tonnes of steel does you some major harm. You would only have a dinged wing if you were in a sensible vehicle like a car".
> 
> "Man killed in collision with handgun bullet in Tottenham pub", anybody?


Where does he campaign other than Cycle Chat?
Calling parents child abusers for making their children wear a cycle helmet, just means nobody will pay any attention to him anyway.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jul 2015)

Mr Forger is spot-on. Lad at work was killed when 'his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction'. What actually happened was the driver pulled out of a side road into his path whilst texting. Boils my piss.


----------



## SD1 (9 Jul 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Mr Forger is spot-on. Lad at work was killed when 'his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction'. What actually happened was the driver pulled out of a side road into his path whilst texting. Boils my piss.


And there is nothing unusual there. Cars pull out all the time at junctions in front of other cars.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jul 2015)

SD1 said:


> And there is nothing unusual there. Cars pull out all the time at junctions in front of other cars.



Thanks, I'll let his widow know.


----------



## Lemond (9 Jul 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Mr Forger is spot-on. Lad at work was killed when 'his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction'. What actually happened was the driver pulled out of a side road into his path whilst texting. Boils my piss.



Perhaps when the journalist wrote that line of copy, the circumstances of what happened weren't known?


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

Just had a thought - but at what point after an incident have reports like the motorcycle above been aired/published? 
Until and unless there is a case proving liability, 'collision' is legally neutral providing no blame. If I was writing something prior to a court case, I probably would write 'collision' rather than twat on phone 'hit motorcyclist whilst exiting side road on phone'. 
If these are after a case, then yes there should be some thought put into the language used just as there has to be before.


----------



## Lemond (9 Jul 2015)

Simontm said:


> Just had a thought - but at what point after an incident have reports like the motorcycle above been aired/published?
> Until and unless there is a case proving liability, 'collision' is legally neutral providing no blame. If I was writing something prior to a court case, I probably would write 'collision' rather than twat on phone 'hit motorcyclist whilst exiting side road on phone'.
> If these are after a case, then yes there should be some thought put into the language used just as there has to be before.



Exactly. Problem is, that kind of thinking doesn't fit too well within the closed ideology echo chamber this place seems to be. Dare to not share the view that drivers are killers, the media are anti cyclist and the police bend over backwards to get drivers off whenever a bike is involved, and you get called an "apologist for drivers who kill" and other such hysterical nonsense.


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> It would be perfectly reasonable to write this, if it is factual.


Uh-huh. Implied liability, wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> So not a conspiracy, just a lack of balls?


Tell you what, you face a libel suit and come back and tell me about it. 

And since I am here, we are also bound by strict privilege laws so if it is a current investigation any editor could face criminal charges if reporting using implied liability. 

Lastly, until such a case has been proven in court, there is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Lemond (9 Jul 2015)

User13710 said:


> It is you who are being hysterical. The thread has drifted, thanks to you and others, from the original point about the use of passive language, as if cars have a life and volition of their own. You could consider reports like the local one I saw recently in which a driver had a lucky escape after 'her car overturned' on an empty road, as if she as driver had nothing to do with what happened. I hope this isn't too subtle for you.



*"The thread has drifted, thanks to you and others, from the original point about the use of passive language". *See what I mean about this place becoming a closed ideology echo chamber.


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User13710 said:


> You work for the press? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Sorry was that about me or the innocent until proven? 
If it was the latter, under privilege which we were talking about, this is still somewhat the case that yes people are still innocent before proven. In fact, the loosening of privilege towards the US system is something I oppose


----------



## Lemond (9 Jul 2015)

User13710 said:


> Not really no.



No. I really didn't think you would.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Jul 2015)

Where's the difficulty in following the neutral style in these examples?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33455696
_"The accident happened at 13:40 when a red Ford Fiesta was involved in a collision with a white Renault Kangoo."_​
or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-33463576
_"The 50-year-old woman suffered serious injuries when her Smart car was involved in a collision with a van on the A801 at Avon Gorge, near Torphichen Bridge, at about 10:10 on Wednesday."
_​GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Jul 2015)

User13710 said:


> like the local one I saw recently in which a driver had a lucky escape after 'her car overturned' on an empty road, as if she as driver had nothing to do with what happened.



If I ever see a news story which reports on an RTC caused by a cyclist where the rider is completely removed from the narrative in this fashion:

_A pedestrian was injured after being hit by a bicycle racing on a main road through east London. Police are hunting the rider of the bicycle, a white Pinarello, which was seen racing a green Bianchi down Commercial Road shortly before the crash.

The Pinarello failed to stop at the scene blah blah blah_​
I'll... I'll... I'll start wearing a helmet!

GC


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> Go back and read the OP where it says
> 
> "Mark Greenwood was killed last Thursday when he collided with a silver Golf".
> 
> If it was in fact the case that he was hit from behind by a driver who was texting at the time, then there is a significant margin between the misreporting that occurred and any libel or danger of causing a mistrial.


ASsI said further up, after a case you have to be careful/have a responsibility with the language as much as you are before so we get to the debate you are talking about. 
I was talking about a situation prior to a court case which, in this case, found him guilty. Under privilege, let alone liability, I can say he was killed by a driver who was texting. 
Before the case? How do I know he was texting? can IO prove he was texting? How can I report he was texting without being in contempt of court? Those are the questions an editor and journalist have to ask themselves every time. 
Anyway off to avoid getting collided!


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User13710 said:


> FFS, it's not that difficult, any sub-editor just out of college could have a go at it. He died following a collision between a car and his bicycle.
> 
> Then it emerged that in fact he died when _a car hit him while its driver was texting._



Neutral before the fact as I have been saying. Btw, you would have failed college if that is your sub editing


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> How do you know it occurred at all? Assuming that you are confident enough to say that, you must be confident enough to say better than "he collided with" which is, as has been pointed out several times, a misdescription.


Ffs, I am saying that because of those questions 'collided' is used as the neutral descriptions before the fact. In this case, it went to court and the ,an was proven to have been texting. It is there


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> But it isn't neutral, that is the whole point here.


It is neutral as far as contempt, privilege and libel is concerned. There is no liability given to one party. Whether you like that or not tough.


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

Simontm said:


> Ffs, I am saying that because of those questions 'collided' is used as the neutral descriptions before the fact. In this case, it went to court and the ,an was proven to have been texting. It is there....that you then have a debate about language


----------



## SD1 (9 Jul 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Thanks, I'll let his widow know.


Okay. Will you let all the others know?


----------



## Simontm (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> The phrase written was "He collided with" that is not neutral. It is OK for libel because the bloke died, but for contempt or privilege it can be quite clearly seen to potentially skew the minds of a potential jury.


Ffs no again. You are wrong. Collided is neutral. You don't like it tough tits. Saying someone collided does not convey liability on any one party therefore it cannot be libellous, it cannot be contempt because it is a neutral term and you do not have to use privilege to say it.
After the fact, ie after the mobile using driver was found guilty, then you can argue that using collided is a deliberate act. Prior to the case it is a neutral term, again whether you like it or not,
I'm going off to do something more useful, like bang my head against the wall.


----------



## SD1 (9 Jul 2015)

User said:


> It would be perfectly reasonable to write this, if it is factual.


Wasn't there but a lot of people said they had ridden with a particular motorcyclist. A car pulled out in front of him killing the motorcyclist. He hit the car so hard he overturned it. He was known to reach speeds of 120 miles an hour on this particular bit of road. All those with him say "the car driver couldn't have done anything about it". Not there, just the motorcyclists in the pub saying it. So pulling out is not always their fault.


----------



## SD1 (9 Jul 2015)

User13710 said:


> It is you who are being hysterical. The thread has drifted, thanks to you and others, from the original point about the use of passive language, as if cars have a life and volition of their own. You could consider reports like the local one I saw recently in which a driver had a lucky escape after 'her car overturned' on an empty road, as if she as driver had nothing to do with what happened. I hope this isn't too subtle for you.


Ex wife drove down an embankment cart wheeled the car across the field. Managed to to get the kids out and ran like feck. Full petrol tank burst and emptied inside the car. No other cars on the road.... they were also in the fields on their roofs ect. Her excuse black ice.


----------



## Goonerobes (9 Jul 2015)

[QUOTE 3788101, member: 45"]"His bike collided with"

"a collision between a car and a bike"

See the difference? *Both use the word "collision"* but only one implies blame.[/QUOTE]

Umm, actually they don't, one uses the word "collided".


----------



## Markymark (9 Jul 2015)

the media also do this with

Immigration
Asylum seekers
People on benefits
Teenage mums
Travellers
Alternative religion
Etc,

Cyclists aren't beubg singled out. In fact it is minor compared to the wholesale discrimination perpetuated to some.

It's how the media makes money. By appealing to some and bring controversial to gain readers for advertising


----------



## stoatsngroats (9 Jul 2015)

An interesting thread, but one which argues the (in)delicate points of reporting correspondents, whom have particular views which skew their own angle one way other. This angle will direct the reader (listener/viewer) in a particular way, and will sometimes be blatant, other times subliminally, and very rarely (these days) without dramatic or sensational emphasis. the perception is that the 'public' have a need to be guided in what to think, or what feelings to have as a result of the report. It appears that we can't make our own minds up, and need to be led.

Facts are rarely reported without this personally judged impression being included, and judgements by the population will always therefore be 'misinformed'.


----------



## Gasman (10 Jul 2015)

On a related matter, the BBC news bulletins yesterday had an item about safety while mucking about on the beach/in the sea. A couple of times in each bulletin they repeated that,

"More people die in the sea around the UK than are killed in cycling accidents!"

The unspoken implication being (to my mind) "and we all know how dangerous cycling is, don't we?"

Give me strength!!


----------



## Lemond (10 Jul 2015)

Gasman said:


> On a related matter, the BBC news bulletins yesterday had an item about safety while mucking about on the beach/in the sea. A couple of times in each bulletin they repeated that,
> 
> "More people die in the sea around the UK than are killed in cycling accidents!"
> 
> ...



Or that cycling is quite safe...compared to swimming.


----------



## classic33 (10 Jul 2015)

[QUOTE 3788138, member: 45"]Ok.....

"A car and a bike collided"
"A bike collided with a car"[/QUOTE]
I'd lay the blame with the car driver on the first, the cyclist on the second.
Based purely on the order of the words


----------



## stoatsngroats (11 Jul 2015)

Gasman said:


> "More people die in the sea around the UK than are killed in cycling accidents!"
> 
> The unspoken implication being (to my mind) "and we all know how dangerous cycling is, don't we?"


I never saw the report, but i find this weird, because I take this to show that 'we' (the population) seem to be unaware of the risks of 'being in the sea', putting our OWN lives in danger, whereas cyclists get 'killed' (by the actions of others), and that the correlation, and therefore the statement makes no sense.... Quite apart from the sensationlist inclusion of the comparison, it is like comparing apples with sweets...
As for being informative, for me it adds nothing, other than the desire to make statistics seem relevant to a news report, possibly to indicate that the report is unbiased, and factual.

It reminds me of John Majors statement when he stated "I am absolutely convinced beyond any doubt.." which is another over indulgence on a meteoric scale imho!


----------



## lastwheel (14 Jul 2015)

srw said:


> The original article in the Standard is lazy journalism. The "Blog" is very lazy journalism. Your reporting of the "blog" is very very very lazy journalism.



Author here. My piece has been very well received. It's telling that know-it-all-know-nothing cynics like srw have to leverage 3 words out of 5000 to discredit the whole, that's very very very lazy critique even making a falsehood of a truthful claim. It's probably self preservation otherwise the complexity might blow his tiny mind. The Standard is 30% owned by the Dailymail via the DMGT (which stands for Daily Maily and General Trust) and The independent has 60%. Even if I'd have included that which was a conscious choice not to I'm still "very lazy" having not accounted for the last 10%. It's a deliberate poke at those that snootily don't link to the Dailymail but link to Dailymail brands like The Standard or any of the 70 town publishers it owns through Localworld.



Lemond said:


> Poor journalism is just poor journalism. You've got to be some kind of fruit loop to read it and see conspiracy or an agenda.



This is sentiment I expected and is the laziest or most dishonest critque of them all. One has to be particularly credulous or complicit to explain mass standardisation as "poor". Bad journalism would be incoherent but for some reason (which I'm covering in an unpublished part 3) 100s of publishers (1000s if you look globally) reproduce the same car-washed narratives. Perhaps Part 2 (https://medium.com/@lastwheel/the-ideological-war-on-cycling-ii-df7731ddd814) can give you some ammunition against these sorts of dullards.


----------



## lastwheel (14 Jul 2015)

Simontm said:


> Ffs no again. You are wrong. Collided is neutral. You don't like it tough tits. Saying someone collided does not convey liability on any one party therefore it cannot be libellous, it cannot be contempt because it is a neutral term and you do not have to use privilege to say it.
> After the fact, ie after the mobile using driver was found guilty, then you can argue that using collided is a deliberate act. Prior to the case it is a neutral term, again whether you like it or not,
> I'm going off to do something more useful, like bang my head against the wall.



"Man collides with knife". It's not neutral. I've updated the article since first publication, a few times actually—there is a never ending supply of bizarre language. "Ambulance left the road and collided with a field". If it's neutral then perhaps that can be inverted: "field collided with an ambulance". It's not neutral.


----------



## classic33 (14 Jul 2015)

lastwheel said:


> "Man collides with knife". It's not neutral. I've updated the article since first publication, a few times actually—there is a never ending supply of bizarre language. "Ambulance left the road and collided with a field". If it's neutral then perhaps that can be inverted: "field collided with an ambulance". It's not neutral.


How could anything collide with a field, usually an area? Collide with the ditch or something in the field I can understand.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jul 2015)

classic33 said:


> How could anything collide with a field, usually an area? Collide with the ditch or something in the field I can understand.



I dare say you got the point for all that


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jul 2015)

lastwheel said:


> "Man collides with knife". It's not neutral. I've updated the article since first publication, a few times actually—there is a never ending supply of bizarre language. "Ambulance left the road and collided with a field". If it's neutral then perhaps that can be inverted: "field collided with an ambulance". It's not neutral.



Although I agree "collided with" is often not neutral, problems arise with a factually and indeed common-sense correct "cyclist collided with car" when said car, possibly now stationary, has pulled out in front. Blame is with the car, yet finding language which conveys who was moving without being misleading as to fault, is tricky


----------



## lastwheel (14 Jul 2015)

classic33 said:


> How could anything collide with a field, usually an area? Collide with the ditch or something in the field I can understand.



That was a real quote so go ask the journalist involved. It's probably language taken from police press releases.


----------



## classic33 (14 Jul 2015)

lastwheel said:


> That was a real quote so go ask the journalist involved. It's probably language taken from police press releases.


My thought upon seeing it, unable to ask the journalist involved, because I don't know who he was/is. If that's from a police press release then the person responsible needs it pointing out to them.


----------



## lastwheel (15 Jul 2015)

classic33 said:


> My thought upon seeing it, unable to ask the journalist involved, because I don't know who he was/is. If that's from a police press release then the person responsible needs it pointing out to them.



This style of reporting has been consistent for decades. Broken things gets fixed, therefore inductively the person is doing what their boss wants.


----------



## Lemond (15 Jul 2015)

lastwheel said:


> Perhaps Part 2 (https://medium.com/@lastwheel/the-ideological-war-on-cycling-ii-df7731ddd814) can give you some ammunition against these sorts of dullards.



Seriously, who writes this crap? It's just dreadful, hysterical nonsense.


----------



## Profpointy (15 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> Seriously, who writes this crap? It's just dreadful, hysterical nonsense.



rather colourful and emotive hyperbole perhaps - but there's more than a little truth to most of it


----------



## Lemond (15 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> rather colourful and emotive hyperbole perhaps - but there's more than a little truth to most of it



Emotive hyperbole is an understatement. Don't deserve to be taken seriously if you describe bus drivers as "killers".


----------



## Profpointy (15 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> Emotive hyperbole is an understatement. Don't deserve to be taken seriously if you describe bus drivers as "killers".



well people end up dead through their actions; what word would you use?


----------



## Lemond (15 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> well people end up dead through their actions; what word would you use?



How about "the driver" or "the bus driver".


----------



## Profpointy (15 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> How about "the driver" or "the bus driver".



but that doesn't convey the killing part of his point.

Of course, the chap has written a deliberately provocative article, but fir all that, for any activity other than motoring, there'd be a huge outcry if the same numbers were killed each year as killed daily on our roads. Using emotive language is justifiable to get the point over - from your posts you yourself seem to think it's exagerated and dare I say accept the death toll as "normal" but really you and all of us really should find it shocking


----------



## glenn forger (15 Jul 2015)




----------



## lastwheel (15 Jul 2015)

Simontm said:


> Uh-huh. Implied liability, wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole



Yes, compare it to the national witch hunt for the "speeding" person that "grinned after running down mcveigh" or when BORIS HAS TAKEN TO THE MEDIA TO ACTIVELY UNDERMINE UNFINISHED LEGAL CASES on several occasions. I've covered much of the criticism that has persisted in this thread. I have to believe some people didn't read it. From my stats, about 60 people have clicked through from this thread about 20% have then read it.


----------



## glenn forger (15 Jul 2015)

Riders get killed in London, Boris appeals for cyclists to stop wearing headphones. Not one of the dead cyclists was wearing headphones. Headphones have never been directly implicated in a single cyclist fatality. Dozens of news outlets publish Boris's words. 90% of people say they support a ban on cyclists wearing headphones.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/headphone-ban-backed-9-10-143008

Reversing van driver kills a child.



> Sgt Manson said: "When we switched on the ignition we found the stereo to be extremely loud.
> 
> "We had a number of officers some distance away who could hear it.
> 
> "Being as loud as it was it was unlikely that Blair Fearn would have heard a thump."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-27037766

Number of articles that subsequently attack drivers for playing loud music? Well, you're probably way ahead of me.


----------



## benb (15 Jul 2015)

Anyone who thinks there isn't a persistent bias in favour of motorists in the media is either being dishonest or not paying attention.


----------



## lastwheel (15 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> Seriously, who writes this crap? It's just dreadful, hysterical nonsense.


I write crap like that, you don't seem to notice I'm the author, but who writes crap like this?

http://www.lancashire.police.uk/news/fail-to-stop-collision-at-poulton-1.aspx

"We are appealing for information after a fail to stop collision in Poulton earlier today (Wednesday, July 15th)
The incident happened on Breck Road at Poulton at the junction with Moorland Roadat shortly after 12noon when a vehicle, believed to be a light blue hatchback overtook a cyclist and then turned into the bike rider’s path causing them to fall off.
The cyclist, a 62 year old local woman, suffered a serious head injury and was taken by ambulance to the Royal Preston Hospital.
We are appealing for any witnesses and for the driver of the car involved to come forward. We are also keen to speak to the driver of a second car which overtook the cyclist moments before the collision.
Sgt Rob Gomery, of the Road Policing Unit, said: “This incident has left a cyclist with a serious injury and I am keen to speak to anyone who saw what happened to come forward. I would also appeal to the driver of the car involved to get I touch with us so that we can establish exactly what has happened.”
Anyone with information should contact 101 quoting log number 0488 of today (Wednesday, July 15th)"

Would "hit and run" be too emotive, hysterical? A "fail to stop collision" described then as an obstruction of "path". Odd.


----------



## lastwheel (15 Jul 2015)

Lemond said:


> Emotive hyperbole is an understatement. Don't deserve to be taken seriously if you describe bus drivers as "killers".



Do you think this is a bit emotive? Why is the headline allowed to portion blame before court decision? Is it because the press release was written by police? Why isn't it alleged assault or "assault" (with quotes)? Needs to be neutral.

*Kingston police officers assaulted after confronting driver on his phone*

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1...aulted_after_confronting_driver_on_his_phone/

Why isn't it "man arrested after police collide with fists"?


----------



## Lemond (15 Jul 2015)

lastwheel said:


> I write crap like that, you don't seem to notice I'm the author, but who writes crap like this?
> 
> http://www.lancashire.police.uk/news/fail-to-stop-collision-at-poulton-1.aspx
> 
> ...



Maybe "hit and run" isn't an accurate description of what happened? It's certainly not clear from the article. The use of the word "collision" suggests that an impact occurred. But that appears to be contradicted by the words "turned into the bike rider’s path causing them to fall off". That suggests no impact / collision. It's very confusing. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident is a specific offence. Maybe "fail to stop collision" means something specific within police parlance?


----------



## Lemond (15 Jul 2015)

lastwheel said:


> Do you think this is a bit emotive? Why is the headline allowed to portion blame before court decision? Is it because the press release was written by police? Why isn't it alleged assault or "assault" (with quotes)? Needs to be neutral.
> 
> *Kingston police officers assaulted after confronting driver on his phone*
> 
> ...



Hilarious. You should do stand-up or something.


----------

