this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
255 points (97.8% liked)
Not The Onion
16247 readers
409 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
LOLWUT
I'm personally happy that The Casanova Killer is now dead. Obviously The Hill didn't notice The Innocence Project passed this guy right the fuck by.
I thought that was a little strange, but after looking it up, it's probably a defensible phrasing.
He was only convicted of two murders, while the definition of "serial killer" is three+ murders (plus some other qualifiers). The list of other killings he was suspected of doing, but which were never proven or convicted, would put him in the serial killer category. So it's fair, in a journalistic sense, to say he was "an accused serial killer."
A convicted murder, who was also suspected of being a serial killer, ....
It's almost as if clear and concise communication is effective
Hmmm, can you expand on this? Not sure I understand.
Ohhhh, OK that makes sense then. I believe he did do those other murders so yeah, accused serial killer fits.
Modern journalism sucks. Can't use affirmative voice for anything. Everything is "alleged" this and "sources say" that. Even with a concluded court case that has found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the fairest way that we as a humanity have settled on for determining the truth or falsehood of questions like this - they still won't say the words.
I think there are far bigger problems with modern journalism than being technically correct in favour of the affirmative voice.