strangenh
NES Member
After reading yet another article calling an armed criminal a "gunman" (as if that was a criminal act) instead of "armed robber," or something more descriptive of the actual crime involved, I wondered if the obsession of some news personnel went so far as to not even realize that the term "gunman" already meant "armed" rather than being a synonym for "criminal." How totally obsessed is the press with the object rather than the act?
So... I searched Google News on the exact phrase, "armed gunman" - a total redundancy stemming from an assumption that "gunman" == criminal, not "armed person."
Here's what I found so far for the wall of shame for using the phrase, "Armed gunman":
That's US-domestic news only. I did not count syndicated articles except for the originator. Did not count articles in which the phrase was only in a quote. Did not count op eds except news-related ones by the outlet's own editorial board. Did not count "culture" or other non-news pieces that happened to contain the phrase. Recent news only.
Things that make you go, "Hmmm."
So... I searched Google News on the exact phrase, "armed gunman" - a total redundancy stemming from an assumption that "gunman" == criminal, not "armed person."
Here's what I found so far for the wall of shame for using the phrase, "Armed gunman":
- San Jose Mercury News
- The Virginian-Pilot
- WNCF (ABC affiliate)
- KHQ (NBC affiliate)
- WHBQ (Fox affiliate)
- WZZM (ABC affiliate)
- Orlando Sentinel
- WCSC (CBS affiliate)
- KENS (CBS affiliate)
- The Buffalo News
- Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.
- The Journal Times
- Lake News (Lake Media)
That's US-domestic news only. I did not count syndicated articles except for the originator. Did not count articles in which the phrase was only in a quote. Did not count op eds except news-related ones by the outlet's own editorial board. Did not count "culture" or other non-news pieces that happened to contain the phrase. Recent news only.
Things that make you go, "Hmmm."