"Thanks for calling the FBI, how may I direct your call?"
"I like to discuss what actually constitutes child pornography and how to rectify the laws that are causing my beautiful sensual artwork to be unfairly maligned on the internet."
"I couldn't agree more. What's your home address, we'd love to hear your complaint in person"
You do understand the importance of editors in a newspaper, and their role in crafting headlines for articles....right?
Simply because a student said it, doesn't mean it should be included in a headline, especially if use misrepresents situation i.e. a battlefield or terrorist attack, and not everyone just shitting their guts out.
Editorial discretion and competence, it has meaning. Or, at least, it should.
Butchering language is an example of slang with a well-established context. But more than that, you're not going to confuse my use of butchering when it's discussing the concept of language.
Saying a scene is full of carnage, directly implies it resembles a war zone, mass shooting, or an explosion. Not 100 kids shitting themselves from a foodborne illness outbreak.
What if the headline said "It was an orgy of bodily fluids...". This is called poor editorial discretion, and while that also could technically be understood to be accurate, it would also be editorial malpractice.
Oh, and lol. Seriously? What makes you think I didn't spend 90 seconds reading that article about the mass food poisoning event....?
So what? Are you saying that all slang is appropriate when reporting on real world events? Even if it completely changes the context of the article to mean something entirely different?
This is The Guardian, not a blog post.
Any editor that uses the word "slammed" in it's current cliche slang context, should be immediately fired.
The fact that you're defending that overwrought example of the degeneration of our media, and moreso, citing it as why this particular butchering of the English language is actually correct, is disheartening.
You can cite all of the other poorly written articles you want, stacking wrongs upon wrongs, won't make this right.
Carnage is a real word, and it's definition isn't broad enough to encompass a mass vomiting and diarrhea event.
carnage /kär′nĭj/ noun
Massive slaughter, as in war; a massacre. Corpses, especially of those killed in battle. Flesh of slain animals or men.
Corpses, especially of those killed in battle. Flesh of slain animals or men.
Flesh of slain animals or men.
I say this not to be pedantic, but because I had to read the article to confirm this wasn't a mass death event.... because words matter.
Doesn't matter that it was a quote, the editor shouldn't have run with it. Find another quote, or use your own words. JFC.
There wouldn't be any press....
No lawyer would take the case. Hell, a lawyer might even get sanctioned for even attempting to file it.
This isn't like an uphill legal battle where there's a process that can draw attention. It's a non-starter.
Pretend you file a lawsuit by filling out a form online, but whenever you try and submit this lawsuit, it goes to 404 not found. You're suggesting they spend thousands of dollars, for a 404 error.
However, suing the hospital, is a very long and drawn out legal process.... So if your goal is to bring attention to the issue, well there you have it.
You are aware that legislatures cannot be held directly criminally responsible for the laws they pass, right?
I'm not disputing that their actions killed their daughter, I'm trying to explain to you that they cannot be held legally responsible in the manor you're suggesting.
What are you talking about?
Are you saying that instead of suing the hospital, she should start up a PAC to go after hundreds of Texas state politicians...?
Because if you meant sue them for wrongful death, they are exempt. So even if they are more directly culpable in their daughter's death, she cannot bring direct legal action against them for that.
As risky and escalatory as it is, I can at least understand using freight airplanes to deliver incendiary packages to shipping warehouses.
I'm not saying I think it's good, but I can at least piece together the rationale for such actions from Russia.
The same cannot be said for blowing up civilian airliners.
Just from a realpolitik perspective, domestic support for military aid to Ukraine is broadly down across the voting populace in most, if not all, of Ukraine's biggest ($$$$) partners. Eventually that will likely result in the election of candidates who reflect that view.
Want to know the fastest way to not just immediately reverse that, but have 75%+ of the voting populace support radically escalating Western involvement? Blow up one of their civilian airliners.
Shit, blow up a French airliner and I'd say it would be coin flip whether they deploy active duty military ready for combat operations, in theatre, within a month.
Downing a civilian aircraft with a SAM battery, or MANPAD, near an active conflict, is galaxies apart from planting explosives on civilian airliners.
And I don't mean legally speaking, although it is, I mean they aren't even in the same universe when talking about blowback, politics, military responses, threat management, PR, escalation ladders, etc.
STOP. POSTING. NEWSWEEK.
It is trash and has been for sometime.
Go find this story being run In a credible outlet, and repost.
Oh, and last I saw, pretty much all credible pollsters had this election at a resounding, "heads or tails, pick one".
Go vote.