Why ‘nonlethal’ isn’t the right word for the weapons used on journalists
In Tuesday’s edition of The Poynter Report newsletter, I wrote about how journalists have come under attack while covering the protests in Los Angeles. I wrote about how several, including an Australian TV reporter, were hit by law enforcement using “nonlethal” bullets.
But as one Poynter Report reader pointed out, is there such a thing as “nonlethal?” Any weapon can be deadly if a person is hit in just the right spot.
It feels like the phrase “nonlethal” is used by authorities to soften the weaponry. And while such weapons — rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper spray, tear gas — are meant to subdue individuals without causing death, they still can be dangerous and even deadly.
Related stories
Related Knowledge Center: Inside the newsroom
As newsrooms struggle with rickety business models and precarious finances — as well as new technologies — they are deploying an array of editorial responses.
The Times and its critics | Washington Post mortem
Related Knowledge Center: Democracy and politics
News organizations are scrambling to find a coverage approach that adequately informs the American public about the country’s slide from democracy to authoritarian rule.
Related Knowledge Center: Free speech and public protest
The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.
The White House vs. the press | Voiceless America