“The Curious Grammar of Police Shootings” by Radley Balko brings multiple perspectives of specific shootings into comparison. In particular, he’s comparing the grammar used by police departments in both police involved and non-police involved shootings. He makes a claim that in shootings where the police were not involved – the incidents were described in greater detail, but the ones which involved the police would be worded in a manner to defend the officers. This is where one can argue that “everything is in the language we do NOT use”. The biased grammar and wording used to defend the officers would portray an image of innocence and attempt to brush the blame off of the officer’s shoulders, thus discarding the truth in the words and language which was not used.
To me, this article further justifies that sources of news and media, even police reporting, have their own agendas and biases when it comes to the information they put out. They twist the truth and impose it onto the public in efforts to defend themselves or support a side. Meaning, with all the information that gets spewed out, chances are unlikely you will ever hear the truth, all you hear are opposing views, leaving you confused on who to trust.
Great response Daniel. I agree with your point on how the language that was not used is actually able to take away most of the blame from the officers. These sort of grammar tricks hide the truth from many civilians and really make one wonder if they will ever know the full story. Also, do you think the government should do a better job at handling how media sources and companies present information to the public and if so, why?