I was always under the impression that when they do this, it's because the word abducted was taken as a direct quote from authorities. They can possibly get sued should the information turn out to be wrong or challenged, so it's a way for the media to protect themselves from liability by quoting the source who claimed it.
It's a way to start discrediting the victim early incase the abductor was one of theirs. She was captured and held somewhere - that's an abduction.... you don't need permission to use words that define the situation.
The 'news' is already protected from liability anymore with the obama's cancellation of the Smith-Mundt (sp?) act.
Good, but why is abducted in quotes, as if abduction isn't abduction? They are so desperate
I was always under the impression that when they do this, it's because the word abducted was taken as a direct quote from authorities. They can possibly get sued should the information turn out to be wrong or challenged, so it's a way for the media to protect themselves from liability by quoting the source who claimed it.
Interesting.
Great question. Wonder if it was by somebody known publicly?
It's a way to start discrediting the victim early incase the abductor was one of theirs. She was captured and held somewhere - that's an abduction.... you don't need permission to use words that define the situation.
The 'news' is already protected from liability anymore with the obama's cancellation of the Smith-Mundt (sp?) act.