On Oct 15, 2:07*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article , Home Guy wrote:
Robert Neville wrote:

No namby-pamby use of the word "allegedly" here.

That's because dead people can't be libeled.

That was not given as a reason by others here when I started this thread
back on August 4 where I point out the idiosyncratic use of the word
"allegedly" in this media story:

===============================
http://www.wafb.com/story/15201683/m...le-allegedly-s...
iring

Man electrocuted while allegedly stealing wiring
Posted: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT Updated: Aug 03, 2011 11:33 AM EDT

HOUMA, LA (AP) -

A 34-year-old man was electrocuted while allegedly breaking in to steal
copper wiring.
================================

Everyone here that was posted in defense of the use of the word
"allegedly" was saying that it was done to protect the newspaper or
newswire company from a lawsuit that could or would be launched by the
dead criminal's family or estate.

how is "investigators believe he was trying to
steal." any different from "allegedly"?

Even though every fiber of my being tells me not to, I'll defend Home
Guy here.

He said: "Finally, a *headline writer* with some guts/balls."

In the vast majority of instances, the author of the article (e.g. the
person who used the words "investigators believe") is not the same
person who write the headlines.

Headlines are usually written by the copy editors as they piece the
paper together, trying to fit everything onto the pages while grabbing
your attention so that you'll buy their paper and/or hang around their
website.

In this case, the copy editor had the sack to leave out the word
"allegedly". In addition, the author simply regurgitated what the
"investigators believe" and didn't write anything that could be
considered libelous or non-libelous.