8 ms·
Please don't call it an "accident". The Associated Press recommends using the term "crash" instead. https://www.transalt.org/news/releases/9545 https://www.tra
by thescriptkiddie 9y ago
Please don't call it an "accident". The Associated Press recommends using the term "crash" instead.
https://www.transalt.org/news/releases/9545 https://www.transalt.org/news/releases/9545
- cappsjulian 9y agowho gives a shit
- dang 9y agoPlease don't post uncivil or unsubstantive comments here, even if another comment also is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- RickS 9y ago>avoid the word “accident” in stories about traffic crashes, saying the word “can be read as exonerating the person responsible TFA indicates that the person has indeed been exonerated.
- speg 9y agoFeatured or fucking?
- chrismcb 9y agoSo are you suggesting that it was intentional? Unless it was intentional, it was an accident. Even if someone screwed up, it was all an accident.
- btrettel 9y agoIf the cause were incompetence (unintentional), is that an accident? I don't think so. The word "accident" to me and many people seems to imply little or nothing could have been done to prevent the tragedy, not whether it was unintentional. (Note that I'm not writing about the incident in the link here, just making a general statement.)
- Crontab 9y agoTo me, accident implies intent.
- jackvalentine 9y agoWhat kind of intent?
- chrismcb 9y agoThat is the exact opposite definition of accident. An accident implies the incident was unintentional.
- Crontab 9y agoMy apology, I misspoke.
- chrismcb 9y agoAccident is basically the opposite of intentional. Accident doesn't imply anything about it being avoidable. An accident can happen due to negligence. An accident just means the incident was unintentiona, not unavoidable.
- btrettel 9y agoThe dictionary I checked doesn't agree, but I accept others use this definition.
- davidgh 9y agoThe AP recommends this so a reporter can describe the event without casting judgement on the cause of the event. This is similar to the reason why reporters say things like the “alleged” robber when there were perhaps many witnesses and maybe the individual in the report even confessed to the theft. It keeps the reporter in the position of fact rather than judgement. This is important distinction for a reporter of an event. Non-reporters are not under the same requirement to maintain a position on non-judgement.
- c22 9y agoYou're publishing your editorial content to a large number of strangers here, it is not that different from the situation of reporters. While it is true that no such requirement exists, the reasons to choose the alternate wording are still the same.