I’m gonna soapbox here for a minute, because I’ve been getting right salty over this…
I hate the way journalism is stretching the meaning of neutral words in the supposed attempt to appear unbiased (there’s the correct use of the word appear) and avoid litigation, and the way it’s defended as a practice.
Doing so passively takes a stance and contributes to the erosion of our critical thought mechanisms as a culture.
As you said, he certainly doesn’t appear to do anything, he told them to call his number to tell them what entrance they are at so he could exit, and thus allow them to illegally enter the capital.
Just because he did a wink, wink, nudge, nudge while he was giving instructions (because that’s what they were) does not mean that isn’t exactly what he did.
Then when protesters showed up, he did exactly what he said he would. I read another article where they stated “he appears to exit there building and then reenter from a nearby door a few minutes later” – no he doesn’t appear to do those things they are on tape, my dude.
What that appears like is that he followed the instructions that he gave a group of citizens earlier. What isn’t a debate is whether he did either of those things separately.
But the funny thing is…
His lawyer isn’t even arguing against him purposefully letting protestors in because he is framing this (under Operation Hall pass) as the right of citizens to enter during active session to become more involved in politics, something this same dude has been vocally expressing for months before he even let them in. He thinks this is civil disobedience, really.
It’s the same with allege. Which means to make an assumption in the absence of facts.
Now when a cop shoots someone, there is civilian shot video of the cop shooting someone, there is a report from the cop himself that he shot someone, there are confirming reports from his colleagues, the department itself has released a statement saying he shot someone, there is body cam of the cop shooting someone… … what do you suppose the headline will be… cop allegedly shot someone.
Where the alledging comes in is when we discuss whether that is murder, whether it was justified, sometimes even whether they were armed or died of the gunshots.
Protesters allege it was murder, pro cop people allege it was justified, then an investigation ensues to provide the facts necessary to decide whose assumptions were more true. (Now, I don’t think that process is a fair one, either, but that is where the alleging comes into play).
That kind of seemingly soft, neutral language comes with a hard, screaming passenger passenger… it makes people doubt actual facts or mistake facts with allegations, and the result is obviously dangerous.