"The pedestrian has been identified, but his family has requested to not release his name. Friends have identified the man killed by a train early Sunday as Brendan Swanson." -- thespec.com
Perhaps odd isn't the most accurate description, but these two sentences definitely felt dichotomous or incongruous.
For now, ignore the question of whether the identity of this particular individual was of sufficient newsworthiness that the release of his name overrode his family's request for anonymity. Why even mention that the family had requested to not release his name if in the following sentence you identify him by name?
It feels like the author is flaunting the fact that he has ignored the family's wishes. That probably wasn't the author's intention, but that was the impression I had while reading it. Maybe I'm thinking too much.
Still, it's... odd.
No comments:
Post a Comment