When it comes to language choices, I try to decide matters based on accuracy.
This is why I want to call on all journalists and news organizations to stop using the term “alleged victim,” especially in stories about sexual abuse (almost the only type of stories where it appears).
It’s a blame-the-victim term we should banish forever from the journalism lexicon. You want to know why? Here’s the second definition of “alleged” at Dictionary.com:
doubtful; suspect; supposed
And here’s a fact about victims of sexual abuse: Their stories are almost always credible. So, in most cases, alleged victim is not only insensitive, but inaccurate.
(The first definition for alleged, “declared or stated to be as described; asserted,” is accurate, but if people could read a second definition as the meaning, we should look for a more accurate word.)
In a tweet this morning, Rick Mills made the point that we can’t simple say victim before a case is decided:
@stevebuttry @lizzieohreally Attorneys tell us to, up to point of conviction. But in this case legal settlement he signed would seem proof.
— Rick Mills (@RickMills2) October 26, 2012
I’ll grant that we need to listen to lawyers and avoid identifying a victim prematurely (not a problem in crimes such as murder or robbery, when it’s clear that crime happened and only the culprit is in doubt; in most sexual abuse cases, either one specific person did it or he didn’t, so identifying a victim kind of says he did).
But we also should avoid casting doubt on victims of crimes (and nearly all turn out to be true victims; even in cases where the defendant gets off, that’s often because of the difficulty of meeting the high reasonable-doubt burden, not because the person wasn’t a true victim).
We’re good with words. We should insist on accuracy and find an alternative. Here’s a neutral word that doesn’t say whether someone is telling the truth or not, but identifies that person as the source of an allegation: accuser.
Michael Gold questioned that on Twitter:
@stevebuttry @rickmills2 @lizzieohreally You don’t think “accuser” has a more negative connotation than alleged victim?
— Michael Gold (@migold) October 26, 2012
I don’t think accuser is negative. Here’s the definition:
a person who accuses, especially in a court of law
It’s one word instead of two and journalists should write tight. It’s neutral and it’s accurate, especially in a criminal case. The only case I can imagine where it would not be accurate in a sexual abuse case would be the rare case where the person identified as the victim is unable or unwilling to make the accusation, but police made the charge (or others publicly accused someone) based on physical evidence or eyewitness accounts. In those cases, we should use a longer neutral description as I did in the italicized phrase in the previous sentence.
This discussion was prompted by an otherwise-outstanding (and horrifying) story in the Washington Post in which the term was used to describe a swimmer whose coach paid $150,000 to a swimmer’s family under a non-disclosure agreement after the girl’s parents read about her sexual relationship with the coach, starting when she was 13. The story was published in July, but came to my attention today in a tweet by Lizzie O’Leary (the coach was charged Thursday):
If you swam competitively in DC/MD/VA in the 80’s, this will shock the hell out of you. washingtonpost.com/sports/olympic…
— Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) October 26, 2012
I wouldn’t pick on this outstanding story (I will invite the author, Amy Shipley, to respond; update: I emailed her at the address listed on the Post website and it bounced. Also can’t find her on some social media, though I’ll keep looking. If you know her, please forward this link) if this wasn’t a common practice in journalism. I got 116,000 hits when I Googled “Jerry Sandusky” and “alleged victim.” In my reporting career I wrote dozens of stories, maybe more than a hundred, about sexual abuse. I know you can avoid that term and report on these difficult cases.
A final note: Don’t start whining “political correctness” about this. That’s a name-calling phrase people use in an attempt to shut down discussion and skew arguments in their favor. This is about accuracy and if you don’t care about accuracy, I don’t care what you have to say. If you think alleged victim is accurate, I’ll be glad to have an argument without calling names and we can agree to disagree if neither of us persuades the other.
Update: Thanks to Cynthia Parkhill for a thoughtful response to this post, calling on her personal experience.
My husband the copyeditor taught me never to use the word alleged in a crime story. He said it was not a protection if someone sued and that reporters should always choose other words.
LikeLike
“Alleged” is used too much in news stories, especially when there’s attribution elsewhere in the sentence. I edit out most uses.
In criminal cases of sexual abuse, the “accuser” is the prosecutor. The person who the prosecutor says is injured is nominally the “complainant.” Try using that and see how far it gets you.
I have a problem with “alleged victim.” It’s the *crime* that’s alleged. So the defendant is an “alleged rapist.” Until a crime is proved at trial, or the defendant pleads guilty, what happened is an allegation.
I’m editing coverage of a domestic violence trial this week. The current web hed: “St. Paul: Engineer beat, knifed, raped his soldier-wife, she testifies; she’s a liar, his lawyer says.”
We included this sentence, which is standard for this sort of story: “The Pioneer Press generally does not identify victims of alleged sexual assault.”
We drop “alleged” once there’s a verdict.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Hal. One disagreement, though: “Accuser” isn’t even in the law.com dictionary: http://dictionary.law.com/ I was using it as a term in the vernacular, not the law. However, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court refers to (and upholds) the right to face one’s “accuser,” meaning the citizen making the accusation, not the prosecutor making the case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html
LikeLike
Might depend on which law dictionary one consults. I usually use a bound Dictionary of Legal Terms by Steven H. Gifis. “Accuser” is not there, but “accuse — to institute legal proceedings charging someone with a crime.” The prosecutor institutes criminal legal proceedings on behalf of the public.
LikeLike
Still, I think that Supreme Court ruling and the vernacular use of the right to face one’s accuser makes it the right term to use here (at least far better than “alleged victim”).
LikeLike
I’m interested to hear (as a nonlawyer) why the term plaintiff isn’t used?
LikeLike
Plaintiff is a person who sues: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plaintiff?s=t Doesn’t apply in a criminal case (where the state brings the legal action, not the accuser). Doesn’t apply in a case that doesn’t reach court.
LikeLike
I see. Thanks.
As for the use of the term accuser (versus victim), is that applicable if the state brings the action, particularly when the victim may not want or is not able to be accuse, as such?
LikeLike
Yes. Sometimes the victim in a sex crime case is a reluctant accuser,
LikeLike
“Alleged victim” is an awful construct; even the word “victim,” has a certain amount of baggage that comes with it. “Accuser” is a good word in most cases, but doesn’t work when the accuser is only an infant or a toddler. Best build sentences that need neither.
LikeLike
I think ‘accuser’ is just as negative, if not more negative, than ‘alleged victim.’ The phrase ‘alleged victim’ in my mind indicates the potential innocence of the ‘alleged suspect’ because in our country, they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. At the same time, ‘alleged victim’ denotes someone whom might have suffered a violation of their rights, which is to be determined in an appropriate court proceeding.
LikeLike
So you go with your own impressions, rather than with the dictionary?
LikeLike
But of course. As native English speakers are we not qualified to judge the connotation word has? Dictionaries are great for when you encounter a new word, or hear an old one used in an unfamiliar context, but not particularly suited for explaining the subtle connotations.
I can see both sides to this one though, I think in many child abuse cases “alleged victim” makes perfect sense, because it’s a third party who’s actually making the accusation. In an adult rape case I would lean somewhat more towards accuser, but it does sound somewhat hostile to me.
I do think complainant might be a good choice, the only failing is that it might be unfamiliar to some. It also sounds quite bland, which I think is good, but some journalists may not agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Complainant” can be used in circumstances where the person who alleges that he/she is a victim of a crime makes the complaint that results in criminal charges. It is a tad formal, but it is neutral and (once a complaint is brought to the police) it is accurate. We should remember though that a report of a criminal or court matter is referring to victim in a legal sense. There is no victim in that sense until the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And indeed, I’ve seen enough criminal cases to know that sometimes the “victim” turns out to be the person wrongly accused of the crime.
LikeLike
Thank you for this. Victim-blaming is an important issue for me and perceptions created by the media are doubly important because of my occupation.
LikeLike
Rather than using alleged as an adjective, how about as a verb: “So-and-So is alleged to have …”?
LikeLike
That doesn’t bother me, other than the passive voice. I think the people whose newsrooms have banished the word altogether might go to far. It’s a word that journalists probably use more than the whole rest of the world combined.
LikeLike
I prefer to go right to the alleged act and attribute it: “So-and-So did X, the prosecutor said.”
LikeLike
Alleged victim can be accurate. If police find two people, and one doesn’t come forward to say they were the victim and the other was the attacker, how can they be an “accuser”? It seems alleged victim can work, plus it is (I think) a police term.
Plus in this context alleged is taken to mean “declared/asserted” not “doubtful”.
LikeLike
Interesting that you know how readers interpret your words. Your example is quite a stretch (and I acknowledged in the post that “accuser” doesn’t fit all situations). I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about “alleged victim” being a police term. I think it’s strictly a journalist term, perpetuated by lazy writers who think it provides them more legal protection than it does.
LikeLike
Thanks for linking to my blog post!
LikeLike
You’re right; we shouldn’t call a victim “alleged”. It sounds like it’s only a step off from actually blaming the victim, which happens too often.
LikeLike
The term “accuser” is practical and concise. It also saves time used in checking the style book. Thanks.
LikeLike
This made me think, and here are my thoughts on it.
Dictionary definitions should be a guideline not a hard fast rule, it doesn’t matter what a dictionary says a word means if everyone uses it in a different way then it becomes that since words and language is a constantly evolving thing, and dictionaries are pretty much just a list of definitions of words at the time they are printed.
Not saying that saying alleged is any better then anything else, just saying that using strictly a dictionary definition as a basis for one’s choice for or against the use a word is a bad way, in my opinion, to decide it or not.
LikeLike
I agree that we shouldn’t decide things strictly by the dictionary definition, but it’s important to understand the actual meaning of the word. The disagreement in the comments here underscores why it’s not a good word to use. The dictionary definition is just one of many reasons we should use other terms.
LikeLike
People need to read this blog next time they use Alleged Victim! Nice blog!
LikeLike
Great post and discussion. Perhaps journalists should use a host of terms leaving “alleged victim” by the wayside when possible. If a person, say a woman, has been raped and the police are involved, then she either has “reported” a rape or, the evidence shows that a rape/assault and/or other injury or death has occurred, i.e. a woman has reported a rape, or, a body was found and tests show that there was sexual assault. Then perhaps, the police begin investigating a “suspect.” “He” is not an alleged suspect. “He” is actually a suspect. If he’s not actually suspected, then he’s a person of interest, a possible witness, he’s “being questioned.” Once the suspect has been arrested and charged, he/she becomes the defendant, not the alleged defendant. He’s actually a defendant, being charged with rape. The complaint of rape, the evidence of rape has not been altered. Later the defendant will be tried and acquitted or convicted. Even if acquitted, the person will still have been accused of rape. If acquitted because there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, yet there was no challenge whether the injury of rape occurred, then the complaint, the report, the evidence of rape, stands. In this case she is not an alleged victim. She has been raped, victimized. Just like in an assault — somebody got beat up, we just couldn’t prove that “he-dun-it.” (So Nicole Brown Simpson is still dead, though O.J. walked. She was murdered, even though the state did not find a murderer. She did not kill herself; it was not an accident.) If, however, the defendant is acquitted or charges aren’t even brought because upon further investigation the evidence showed that no rape occurred at all, (someone was framed, someone fabricated a story) then there was no crime, then the “victim” is no longer a victim, but rather only an accuser, a wrongful accuser. I guess what I’m saying is that sticking to the facts might help tremendously, that using shorthand to protects rights or to dumb things down may have effects not intended and should be avoided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and congrats on the FP!!!!
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
my news writing professor is always telling us to use the word “alleged” sparingly because of its negative connotations. I was surprised to see a post on the same topic “freshly pressed” today.
LikeLike
Interesting. Do you have the Freshly Pressed link? I haven’t seen that.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I was just referring to your post I commented on here regarding the word “alleged.” 🙂
LikeLike
OK. I’m a rookie journo here, but for simplicity and accuracy sake isn’t it ALWAYS just easier to describe the situation as accurately and succinctly as possible and then identify people by their last names beyond that point.
Ex: Jennifer Smith was sexually assaulted Saturday night near her home and filed charges against her attacker. Smith refused any further questioning at this time, asking for privacy in a difficult time.
Etc.
I know sometimes you can’t print their name. I guess then you have to defer to some other hideous term, but we are people, not labels. The news, especially, could do better to portray that.
LikeLike
the problem with that sentence is that you can’t verify that she was assaulted either. you can never confirm that something was done to someone unless you witnessed it firsthand. even after someone is convicted, you don’t have proof they did it.
LikeLike
There is a definite probability of turning *everything* into a he-said, she-said for fear of not being definitive. I agree with attributing your sources. I agree with needing proof. I’m just questioning how we use labels to dehumanize people and what level of proof we actually need for something like that.
As the OP wrote, the whole reason “alleged” is wrong, is because very, very few woman fake this.
LikeLike
Actually, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics), the percent of false rapes reported has been found to be 3 percent, 8 percent and 41 percent, according to the study.
LikeLike
As the Wikipedia piece noted, the finding of 41 percent was roundly rejected. That was complete bullshit. This is one of the hardest crimes to prove because there are almost never any witnesses. And note that the entry also said “unfounded” (which is what those figures actually apply to) is not synonymous with “false allegation.” The section above false reports noted that rape is the most under-reported crime. Part of that is because of society’s skepticism about rape charges, reflected, I believe, in the media’s willingness to use a non-neutral term such as “alleged victim.”
LikeLike
The Complainant, The Witness … and really is there a reason to refer to the person as anything at all that has legal connotations ?? How about “The woman claimed that …. or “It has been reported that …. ” There are plenty of ways to avoid using the word alleged without implicating the validity of the accusation in a way that might cause legal issues. Perhaps there are many crime reporters who could benefit from some basic lessons in using the English language?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Rajnie's Blog and commented:
Wonderful Insights. Cheers! 🙂
LikeLike
I completely agree. I never understood this word choice myself. Thanks for getting this message out there!
LikeLike
While I don’t completely disagree, this post doesn’t sit well with me.
I’ve had the honor of knowing a good man who was falsely accused of a sex crime. I’ve heard in the news of many others. On the one hand I don’t want to add insult to a victim’s injury, on the other I believe in the rights of the accused, chief among which — in these great United States — is the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Your statement with regard to innocence was, in my esteem, flippant:
“even in cases where the defendant gets off, that’s often because of the difficulty of meeting the high reasonable-doubt burden”
High reasonable-doubt burden? I read the transcripts of this man’s trial. The young lady was supposedly held against her will for years, yet in all that time she had her own car, her own job and her own home. She drove her own car to her own job every day, trysted with this man in the evenings, and returned to her own home by night. The prosecutor argued that hypnotism was used to enslave her.
The papers lambasted this man I know, gave him degenerate nicknames. Yes, in truth he was sexually eccentric, but not criminally so. He was found guilty before the trial began, but neither is this unusual in our country. Sex Offenders are the bogeymen of choice for many a fear-mongering politician, paper, or pulpit. Being accused is often tantamount to being sentenced.
This man I know was consigned to the long dark of prison for a term of nine years before a Federal Appeals Judge overturned his conviction. If you’d ever been inside for anything more than an overnight in the drunk tank, you’d never wish nine years on anyone, let alone an innocent man. The ‘alleged victim’ in this case was no victim at all. As the term implies there was ambiguity to the truth of her accusations.
And, after rhapsodizing on the secondary meaning of the word alleged, I’m surprised you prefer the word accuser. Is that not the name given, in the Book of Job, to Satan himself? The term is more precise, certainly, but I thought the intention was to avoid giving the victims of sex crimes a negative connotation.
As for political correctness, call it accuracy if you like. I say a rose by any other name still smells as sweet. And if you think political correctness is a benign force, I invite you to examine Mr. Ray Bradbury’s thoughts on the matter in ‘Farenheit 451’.
I am not sure that I have a solution to propose, I’ll have to give it some thought. But I’ve been in low places and it’s often opened my eyes to how fragile is our hold on the rights supposedly god given. They can be shattered by the careless brush of the government’s fingertips. I’ve seen plenty of news articles about the rights of the victims of sex crimes, as well as plenty about the heinousness of the accused. Perhaps you, sir, could journal us up some articles about why it’s so important to preserve the rights of the accused.
LikeLike
Hmm… an editorial comment: it’s in the Book of Revelations — not the Book of Job — that Satan is referred to as ‘the accuser’.
LikeLike
“…the whole reason ‘alleged’ is wrong, is because very, very few woman fake this.” I thought we were talking about the term “alleged victim” in a generic sense. A crime isn’t necessarily sexual assault , and the “alleged victim” is not necessarily female even in sexual assault cases. Even for sexual assault, before trial you have to make sure in choosing your words that you don’t lead the reader to believe that the accused is guilty as charged. That comes, if at all, after the trial. In Canada, by the way, a complainant in a sexual assault case can ask for a publication ban placed on information that could reveal his or her identity, and this has been held not to be in violation of freedom of the media provisions in the constitution. Complainants can be sure their identities are not revealed in the press, although recently some sexual assault complainants have asked that there be no such publication ban. (In my recent experience I can think of three such cases locally, one female, and two male.) I agree that even with the complainant’s identity under a publication ban, “alleged victim” is simply an ugly term. It is pseudo-legalese, pretend cop-talk, and sloppy writing
LikeLike
Nobody seems to have any reservation about naming an accused before the “accused” becomes a “convict”, even though the accused is in most civilized countries assumed by law to be innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. How many newspapers will report that so-and-so has been charged with an offence, putting his or her name into the public record in the newspaper and online, and yet not have a court reporter in court the day that so-and-so is acquitted at trial?
LikeLike
As a student, journalistic jargon makes me depressed. The sad thing is they mark you up for it.
LikeLike
correct. so rightly pointed out.
LikeLike
I lived in France for a while and struggled with the way crime stories were reported in the press. Instead of using an equivalent of alleged, they use some kind of conditional tense in their writing, which to a non-French speaker sounds odd. You might read, for example: “whilst walking home last night X would have been sexually assaulted. Her assailant would have been Y”. I assume that is their solution to not printing anything which could upset their lawyers, but it certainly makes you wonder what’s going on, until you realise that is the normal way to report such things.
LikeLike
I agree in principle, however the problem arises when the person being accused is named in the story or in the public domain. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I know (as I have encountered them) cases in which false allegations have been made. So until a court of law has decided the case, there must be some element of uncertainty given to what is said by either party. As heinous as child abuse is, being falsely accused or imprisoned for child abuse is pretty dreadful too.
LikeLike
I fully agree that a false accusation is dreadful. “Accuser” does not imply truth or falsehood of the accusation. It fits our legal and cultural view of innocent until proven guilty without casting doubt on the accuser.
LikeLike
Generally, I find the language used in the media, political platforms and the like is almost never an accident. So, if it’s a fact that “alleged victim” is used mostly in sexual abuse cases I would have to say that this is not an accident. Unfortunately. For the second part, how to change the language, my suggestion would be to take a synonym for the meaning of “alleged” that you are looking for, though “asserted victim” may be a bit of a stretch. I thought “professed victim” until i saw that the first dictionary definition of that one also says “often insincerely”. How about “avowed victim”? This one would seem to work on many levels and also make no assertion as to the validity of the charge. I also likes that it comes from vow and asserts that making an accusation is also taking a vow as to its validity. Works for me. You?
LikeLike
I would not find fault with “avowed victim,” though I prefer “accuser.”
LikeLike
I am not sure which was more interesting to read, the post, or the comments below the post. Perhaps the problem is less language and semantics,but rather more the broad culture surrounding journalism, libel and the way information is transmitted and received.
I would suggest that the dictionary definition approach is risky: many people cannot, despite easy access to dictionaries, use the word “fulsome” correctly.
Alleged victim is an awful construction, agreed. But perhaps we should also consider that passive voice is not always evil, that brevity is not always the soul of wit (brevity is wit, as the bard so nearly said), and taking some time and space to report more deeply would resolve this tangle?
But on the upside, there are clearly a few people who care, and that’s got to be good news.
LikeLike
This is a very thought-provoking point. I’m in broadcast at the Univ of Missouri and see this a lot. While I understand why we say “alleged,” I completely agree with your rationale. So much so i’ll bring this up to my news director. Thanks for sharing and please check me out. http://bit.ly/S4a6ID
LikeLike
As ‘alleged’ is used because by law we can’t substantiate that the person was victimized until a hearing or investigation has been done. The whole innocent until proven guilty gives ‘accuser’ a negative connotation; i.e. she accused him/he accused her therefore leading the public to believe it could be false accusations. & it may be odd, but I think accuser gives the person/victim less credibility because of the connotation behind accuser.
But maybe it’s really all about tomay-to or tomah-to.
LikeLike
“Accuser” is a terrible suggestion. On hearing the word “accuser”, I think of several negative things. First, “accuser” and “accusation” are so commonly associated with the words “false” or “wrongfully” as to strongly invite the reader/listener to question whether the crime really took place. In other words, the same problem as with “alleged victim”, but worse.
Secondly, to accuse is perceived as an aggressive or hostile action. If you say “he accused her of stealing a loaf of bread”, my sympathy is immediately with “her” (the victim of the accusation), rather than with the victim of the alleged theft.
Finally, as has been pointed out, the victim of a crime may not, in fact, be the accuser.
If you want to retire “alleged victim”, you will need to come up with something better.
LikeLike
Here’s one that drives me crazy…”Person of interest.” Has word this replaced “Suspect?”
LikeLike
A person of interest need not be a suspect. The same way an alleged victim or indeed victim may be an accuser (as mentioned before)
LikeLike
[…] Because I have mild writer’s block but, even in it’s worst case, can still manage to write about myself, I am going to put out a short(ish) blurb. I commented on a freshly pressed blog about two days ago. This one. […]
LikeLike
You’ve missed one of the biggest points of all: the modifier does not change the meaning of the word that follows; it only modifies it. In other words, “alleged” doesn’t work as a modifier unless the word behind it accurately describes the person. For example, an “alleged murderer” only works if the person has already been convicted of murder and is accused of something else. An “alleged journalist” is not someone who is accused of being a journalist. It’s a journalist who is accused of something. In other words, it simply doesn’t work as a modifier. We avoid it all costs.
LikeLike
As a therapist who has had her share of appearances in court, I shy away from both “alleged” and “victim” in my case notes. Victim implies powerlessness, which does little to further one’s healing, and “alleged,” as you pointed out, implies ‘doubtful.” Thank you for a thought-provoking post.
LikeLike
Right on! ‘Alleged’ is like saying, “the supposed victim” in a sarcastic tone. Can I also put a vote in for getting rid of the word ‘blasted’ from media dictionaries (“Today, the Obama administration blasted the Romney campaign over its comments about…”)? 🙂
LikeLike
a couple of people have previously mentioned “suspect” — which is one of my “pet peeves” when, and quite often there isn’t any doubt (“a bunch of people saw him/her to it” — etc.) IT’S OBVIOUS HE/SHE DID IT.
— i rankle when the term “suspect” (or something else which infers “not quite sure”) is used in situations of approaching 100.00% certainty. (thanks for the podium. i’m done).
LikeLike
I love interesting uses of the English language. “Alleged victim” goes a long way to describe that nobody is wrong, or has done any wrong. It is one more step toward a society built upon coddling everyone, where nobody can be wrong, and nobody can be right, until proven so through a systematic process of wasting hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars.
Make that billions.
We have an entire system of law based on people not liking the words others choose, and it’s all about protecting one person’s ass from being sued. The problem here is: that shit never works.
I’ll admit, it does for a time! But only for a little bit, until another person comes along and sues someone else for that. Now they have to write the rules again, and that takes money; those who don’t follow the rules soon enough are then punished.
A constant, never-ending chase of making sure people feel good, nobody is hurt, and everyone is happy.
But it always fails. It always fails because it never satisfies.
They can’t say, “an old man murdered his wife” in front of police, and was tried and convicted. No, they have to say, “An elderly couple engaged in an altercation that resulted in the termination of the male spouse’s significant other.” All in an attempt to not leave out the gays, lesbians, etc.
Still, the more people keep thwarting the language to “feel good” about what others say, the more material I have to write about.
LikeLike
I’m not sure your rant has anything to do with what I wrote or anyone else said, but I hope you feel better.
LikeLike
I meant that to be dry humor. I like picking on the words people choose, usually in their attempt not to offend someone or say something that’s not entirely 100% correct, which ends up being vague and indirect, completely nullifying the entire point of them saying something at all.
LikeLike
Steve Buttry you said in your original post: “A final note: Don’t start whining ‘political correctness’ about this. That’s a name-calling phrase people use in an attempt to shut down discussion and skew arguments in their favor.”
It seems to me this is exactly what you are trying to do here with your flippant response to this man’s comments, which seem to me to be quite on point. I don’t necessarily agree with the hyperbole in making the point, but you were the one who said to stick to discussing ideas and avoid name-calling.
LikeLike
Thanks for that candid feedback, Tim. We’re at 70 comments and counting, so I think the discussion has been pretty robust. This discussion has been about accuracy, not feeling good, so I think it merited noting that that hyperbolic comment was not related to what we were actually discussing.
LikeLike
Even though “accuser” has an innocent enough definition, it has some negative connotations associated with it. “Alleged” always sounds bad, but I see how it could protect the writer and media from lawsuits for defamation of character (like alleged assailant). Alleged victim should go and journalists just use “victim” instead.
LikeLike
You can use “victim” when the evidence you’ve seen makes it reasonably clear that there is a “victim”. Using “victim” automatically is as bad as using “alleged victim” automatically.
LikeLike
I would just like to thank you for writing this post. It needed to be said.
LikeLike
My human works with “alleged victims.” She, too, has always hated that phrase. Why does a victim have to prove anything? In her mind, it is another way we categorize people. If the victim is young and blonde and pretty, it’s acceptable to believe her and feel outrage. If the victim is a young black female, she must have been asking for it.
LikeLike
I think I get what you are trying to say. And I think I agree with what you call your premise.
But, honestly? Your blog reads like political correctness gone amok.
You worry more about the choice of words regarding the blame game more than you do about the accuracy of content. I know you wrote other wise, but you wrote:
“It’s a blame-the-victim term we should banish forever from the journalism lexicon.”
Actually, in MOST cases ‘alleged’ harkens back to simple cultural attitudes about discussing a person having sex …. we usually do not discuss SEX in public where children might hear us.
Alleged softens the subject matter for all to read without offending young readers and their parents ….
IMHO.
LikeLike
As both a former copy editor and crime desk editor, I have to say it’s always good to avoid throwing “alleged” into copy as a crutch. However, it gives me serious pause when an otherwise well-reasoned approach to word choice rests part of the argument on these two notions:
“And here’s a fact about victims of sexual abuse: Their stories are almost always credible. So, in most cases, alleged victim is not only insensitive, but inaccurate.”
“But we also should avoid casting doubt on victims of crimes (and nearly all turn out to be true victims; even in cases where the defendant gets off, that’s often because of the difficulty of meeting the high reasonable-doubt burden, not because the person wasn’t a true victim).”
There is no shortage of national and local stories where accusers are, in the end, not victims. The suggestion we change our language in crime stories because the odds are good the accused is guilty taints the rest of this valuable discussion. Further, there are different legal protections at play during a breaking news story versus court coverage, and the nuances of local law also need to be considered.
If a news organization is going to be sued for libel, it’s most likely going to come from someone suspected of a crime, not from someone reporting one. With the financial situation this industry is facing, it may only take one good libel lawsuit to close the doors for good.
Steve is right: Word choice matters. Make sure your choice is the correct one for your organization.
LikeLike
I agree with you that using the word “alleged” in reference to a victim is highly insensitive. Too often in our society we blame victims of sexual assault for their victimization. “How dare she wear that outfit.” “If she didn’t want to have sex then she shouldn’t have been out drinking.” I hear this everyday and it angers me. To call a victim “alleged” implies that he or she did not experience what he or she knows happened. It is a way for others to minimize the pain and embarrassment of assault.
Anyway, thanks for a great post.
LikeLike
Interesting post and discussion. I guess I’ve tended to read – and use – alleged in the context of the first dictionary definition you’ve provided; perhaps without awareness that it might be misconstrued or considered insensitive. I agree that it’s probably often used with the mistaken notion that it provides some legal protection: Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye magazine and a panel member on popular UK satirical TV show ‘Have I Got News For You’ often tacked ‘allegedly’ onto potentially libellous/defamatory statements about politicians and celebrities, to, it must be said, fine comic effect; though he was still sued on a number of occasions. With regard to victims of sexual assault, I find your comments particularly pertinent as I’m inclined to agree with you when you say ‘And here’s a fact about victims of sexual abuse: Their stories are almost always credible. So, in most cases, alleged victim is not only insensitive, but inaccurate.’ It’s something I’ve been blogging about recently in relation to the Jimmy Savile case here in England. I’m not a journalist, just interested, and my words are unlikely to be that widely-read but I’ll certainly be reviewing my language in future. Thanks for a good read.
Andy.
LikeLike
The legal papers that go back and forth between the lawyers and the judge should have all the stark, non-accusatory diction. The papers that go out to the public, be them online or on paper, should respect the readers’ connotation. The word “alleged” is used in the sense of the first definition, but understood in the sense of the second definition. The accuser’s story should be questioned (in the sense of the 5 Ws), but not doubted (in the sense of skeptical). I vote “accuser” since it is more accurate, and shorter than “person affected.”
LikeLike
~ Nice article, man. Two of the most abused words, “alleged victim”. Thanks for enlightening us. More Power! (=
LikeLike
[…] second-most-read post of the month (and the one with by far the most comments, 77) suggested that journalists stop using the term “alleged victims.” The post was already generating some discussion when it was featured on the WordPress Freshly […]
LikeLike
[…] ethics in the digital age. I also blogged about whether to name mass murderers, the use of the term alleged victim, about a plagiarism quiz I developed to teach proper attribution to journalists, about a plagiarism […]
LikeLike
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here. I am not a professional writer in the sense that you or the some responders here are, but as a CEO my job is about 80% reading and writing. I am a public servant, and serving low income populations I am particularly aware of our cultures language around those who are considered less full members of society. I disagree in that I do not think there is any doubt about the term “alleged victim” being used by rape apologists in a rape culture. The fact that journalists are struggling with it is an indication of how deeply entrenched in rape culture we are.
An easy way around this is to only use the term as a verb, which is usually how the term is used when reporting on alleged perpetrators: “The Stockton PD alleges that….”. So in this case it would be easy to say “Prosecutors allege that…”. If a reporter is reporting a first person interview or testimony at trial, they could say “The victim testified that….” or “The victim claims that”. When seeing interviews of victims of home invasion robberies, interrupted burglaries (see I really do live in Stockton CA) etc I have never once heard a reporter say, while standing in front of a shattered door frame or bullet riddled wall, “The alleged victim”.
I know this post was ages ago, but #Steubeville has my blood boiling.
LikeLike
[…] blogged last year about my irritation about the use of the term “alleged victim” in sexual assault cases. I’m pleased that the Register Citizen did not use this terminology […]
LikeLike
Just say, “Prosecutors accuse Smith of raping the woman … ” No “allegedly” or “victim” needed there, because that’s what prosecutors are doing — accusing Smith of rape. The end.
LikeLike
[…] Alleged victim: a phrase journalists should stop using […]
LikeLike
Thank you so much for bringing this point to discussion. I agree that tacking the word, “alleged,” on creates an atmosphere of doubt. It makes those of us who have shared our secrets remember why we kept them in the first place. This also sets back our cause to bring these secrets to light, as it forces survivors to ask the question, “Will anyone believe me?”
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Erin. Whatever merit arguments for using “alleged victim” might have, your point blows them away. A journalism practice that gives crime victims a reason not to report their crimes is indefensible.
LikeLike
[…] ‘Alleged victim’: a phrase journalists should stop using […]
LikeLike
[…] ‘Alleged victim': a phrase journalists should stop using […]
LikeLike
“But we also should avoid casting doubt on victims of crimes (and nearly all turn out to be true victims; even in cases where the defendant gets off, that’s often because of the difficulty of meeting the high reasonable-doubt burden, not because the person wasn’t a true victim).”
This is highly presumptuous. By this logic, we could dispense with Courts entirely as there is only one acceptable outcome.
LikeLike
Bullshit. It’s not presumptuous at all. It’s based on police data showing incredibly small percentages of reports of crimes against people are unfounded. With property crimes, you have the motivation of insurance fraud. But there is hardly any motivation for going through the ordeal of accusing someone of sexual assault. The reasonable-doubt burden of proof is and should be high, but most accusers in cases where prosecutors failed to meet that burden are still true victims. The cops may have caught the wrong person or the prosecutor simply failed to persuade a jury to convict the right person. But the crime happened. We don’t call victims of robberies or burglaries (many of which never result in convictions) alleged victims. We shouldn’t use the term with accusers in sexual assault cases.
LikeLike
“It’s a blame-the-victim term” No, it’s an accurate, legal term, used in court before EVIDENCE prodivded of the accusation brought before the defendant. Are you really that stupid that you don’t know that false rape accusations actually exist, and have been PROVEN to exist? No? Here, let me help you in your naivety:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10934144/Oxford-Union-rape-victim-knew-her-claim-was-false.html?fb
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-cleared-of-rape-still-not-welcome-at-his-college/article/2581088
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture
http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Local/reading-police-woman-makes-false-rape-claim-to-get-revenge-on-exboyfriend/27791550
http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Local/reading-police-woman-makes-false-rape-claim-to-get-revenge-on-exboyfriend/27791550
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/18/lubbock-tim-cole-exonerate-state/15813943/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/08/false-rape-accusation-leads-to-alaska-mans-beating-death/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/09/false_rape_accusations_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html
LikeLike
I believe your name-calling speaks well for your own bias and level of intelligence.
Of course I know that false allegations of sexual abuse are made. I also know (and you do, too, if you know anything about this issue) that they are exceedingly rare. Nothing that you have said changes the fact that “victim” is not a crime and not something to be alleged. “Accuser” is accurate and fits either a false accusation or one that is upheld in court or an accusation that is true but cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
LikeLike
Get back to me if you can find any news stories calling Nicole Simpson an “alleged victim” of murder.
LikeLike
If there are doubt that someone was murdered or not, you can call them a deceased, because it most definitely be a corpse.
How do you call someone if you don’t know if they are been raped or not?
LikeLike
“Alleged victim” is a clunky term, and I agree “accuser” is probably better. You also have a good point that we don’t use “alleged victim” in a lot of other cases, such as burglaries, fraud, theft, even supposed armed robberies, etc. where the “victim” may be making it all up. (We see those in insurance fraud cases.) However I am not sure I see the relevance of the argument that because it only happens in a small number of cases in sexual assault matters, the term should be abandoned. That may be true, and I personally think it is indeed true, but what we usually don’t know is if the specific case about which we are writing falls into that small percentage. So while I agree that “alleged victim” is a term to avoid, I don’t see that particular objection of unlikelihood as a relevant factor. Just because something is unlikely to be so does not mean it definitely is not so. Possibly I am misunderstanding your point…I don’t want to set up any strawmen…
LikeLike
My point is that we should be accurate. And most rape accusers actually were raped (even if police sometimes arrest the wrong suspect). So, given the second definition of “alleged” as doubtful, suspect or supposed, “alleged victim” is inaccurate in most cases in sexual assault stories (not to mention being insensitive). Where’s the justification for using a word choice that is usually inaccurate, when a choice that is nearly always accurate is available.
LikeLike
You dont really know if most rape accusers were actually raped, because there really isn’t a way to actually know that. That’s a fallacy.
LikeLike
I answered that. Call the person an accuser. Of course, in some cases the fact that a person is a victim is clearly established, even if the rapist’s identification is in doubt until convicted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Worse, and even more pervasive: “alleged suspect” (suspected of being suspected)”
LikeLike
Alleged suspect is stupid, but not worse. It’s poor word usage, but not offensive.
LikeLike