New guidelines have been created for reporting on road collisions...
Did we need them?
...following in the footsteps of similar best practice on stories relating to suicide, domestic violence and refugees.
Oh, wait, I see where this is going...
The draft guidelines, which have been put out for consultation in the hope of becoming an agreed industry standard, come after years of cyclists feeling frustrated by road deaths being painted as “unavoidable accidents” rather than “the result of very avoidable criminal behaviour”.
But not by them, of course. Oh no!
The new suggested rules could ban the use of the word “accident” when describing collisions and crashes to meet higher standards of impartiality, especially when the facts of what happened are not yet known.
Well, that's actually quite logical, I'll grant you.
They also want journalists to avoid mention of helmets, high-vis or any other protective equipment “except when demonstrably relevant” and call for human actors to always be mentioned in coverage of collisions – for example by saying a driver, not a car, hit a cyclist.
And so's the latter. It's always been a personal peeve of mine. But the mention of lack of safety clothing is perverse...
Who is arguing for this, anyway?
The guidelines have been produced by the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy in collaboration with the National Union of Journalists’ ethics council, state-approved press regulator Impress, road safety charities and a range of policing, academic and expert figures.
Ah. The usual suspects.
H/T: James via Twitter
9 comments:
A refugee is someone who has been recognised as such and granted asylum. Someone who wants to be a refugee is not (yet) a refugee. Most of those now seeking refugee status will never get it either.
I wonder if the linguistic guidance insists upon us being accurate in describing such people, and those seeking such status, or if it promotes further obfuscation. I wonder.
I always wear yellow and fluorescent clothing and a helmet when cycling. Once while driving after dark I followed a cyclist, not a lycra type, a guy in normal clothes. Dark clothing, no lights, he turned right into a side street, no signal, no rear observation, no change of road position. If that guy gets knocked off his bike I'm not sure that you would say that it was an accident exactly.
Yep, our Fearless Seekers After Truth in the MSM bowing the knee once again to fanatics and wierdoes.
It's a mystery why their circulation is crashing but we should totally give them a bail out!
I must admit, I find it very annoying reading stories about apparently driverless cars being involved in collisions
So, am I understanding it correctly? - the cyclist hasn't been hit by a car, h/she has been hit by the driver - doesn't that imply that the driver got out and punched the cyclist rather than was involved in a collision?
"...National Union of Journalists ethics council...."
I doubt that I am alone in seeing an oxymoron in that part of the sentence.
Penseivat
AndyM @ 15:36. Damn - you beat me to it. Exactly how I would interpret it !
Penseivat, Sadly I'm forced to agree with you on this. I used to be a member of the NUJ many years ago but left when my Mother of Chapel wanted to thrown money at a leftist cause rather than fight for my right to get paid by a newspaper that was being reluctant to send me a cheque. I have toyed with rejoining the NUJ in recent years but I'm not at all sure that they would let me back in because the NUJ is now even more lefty than it was back in the 1980s/1990s.
"I wonder if the linguistic guidance insists upon us being accurate in describing such people..."
Perish the thought!
"If that guy gets knocked off his bike I'm not sure that you would say that it was an accident exactly."
He's certainly an accident waiting to happen!
"It's a mystery why their circulation is crashing but we should totally give them a bail out!"
Let them go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. At least they stayed useful right up to the end.
"I must admit, I find it very annoying reading stories about apparently driverless cars being involved in collisions"
Me too. Stay tuned.. ;)
"I doubt that I am alone in seeing an oxymoron in that part of the sentence."
Think the 'oxy' part is redundant!
Post a Comment