John Annese: Of course, there are better ways to say it than "officer-involved shooting" in a first pass of a story. But news shops without the resources may never be able to send reporters to the scene to talk to witnesses, and some PDs don't release follow-up details for months or years, under duress.

This case appears to show one downside of the “Fair” Report Privilege most reporters get. I intentionally put “fair” in scare quotes because the rule generally immunizes journalists from defamation claims if they parrot what cops tell them, even flat-out lies, but not for anything the reporters add.

This euphemism may be the cops’ fault if they only told reporters that the woman used “racial statements.”

Fair Report Privilegefirstamendment.mtsu.edu The fair report privilege is a state-law defense to defamation claims used by journalists, although the level of protection may vary by state. Under the privilege, a journalist is insulated from a def...

How could I not know about this? It seems very important. Is this partially behind what some people call "cop-tense" or "exonerative-tense" in reporting on shootings by police? Locutions like "officer-involved" shootings etc.?

I try my best not to use the term (you may find a few uses from me dating back to the late '10s), but I get why a lot of reporters fall into the trap, especially when they're under pressure to put something online fast. Passive voice gives wiggle-room if, say, the guy shot himself in front of cops.

Of course, there are better ways to say it than "officer-involved shooting" in a first pass of a story. But news shops without the resources may never be able to send reporters to the scene to talk to witnesses, and some PDs don't release follow-up details for months or years, under duress.

Post