Pedantry - the use of 'after' in news

[FaFoutis]

Why do TV news and newspapers use 'after' to mean 'in' or 'due to'?
Am I wrong or is it stupid to say '50 people hurt after earthquake'?
Unless it actually happened AFTER the earthquake and not DURING the earthquake.
It's everywhere.

Never noticed that before but now you mention it, it's rather annoying.

Isn't it just headline speak for '50 people are hurt/dead in the aftermath of the earthquake/tsunami/crash?

Never closed my quotation marks, sorry.

Rather more worrying to me today is a tendency in my students' essays which I can only assume has leached in from the tabloid coverage of c-list celebrities who are always 'showcasing their curves' in a string bikini or a daring gown is the use of 'showcases' as a synonym for 'features' or 'portrays', or even 'contains', eg. 'This novel showcases many aspects of the Gothic' or 'This scene showcases the author's anti-racist ideology'.

Maybe Tanya, but Cambridge Dictionary says this:
"the period that follows an unpleasant event or accident, and the effects that it causes: 'Many more people died in the aftermath of the explosion.'"

So it doesn't fit, it's still after.

Yes! I get that too. Bloody showcasing. I'm marking today I bet there's lots of showcasing going on.

I feel slightly consoled other people's students also have this repellent habit.

Am I wrong or is it stupid to say '50 people hurt after earthquake'?

I'm not sure I agree. It also depends on the exact phrasing

50 people have been reported dead after an earthquake struck...

Plus, the effects of an earthquake last longer than the original shake.

I'd have to hear an example in the news to really agree or disagree

Look out for it Museum, once you start you will see it everywhere. (I made up the earthquake one as it's not very nice to be pedantic about the wording of reports of real people being killed.)

• Am I wrong or is it stupid to say '50 people hurt after earthquake'? Unless it actually happened AFTER the earthquake and not DURING the*

It depends whether you take "hurt" to be perfect or imperfect tense. They (mostly) presumably didn't sustain injury AFTER the earthquake, but they were still casualties in an injured condition after the earthquake.

Now that makes sense Cole.

Sub editors' love of short little words never does aid clarity,

"50 people hurt after earthquake" is a contraction for headline purposes, it's not grammatically correct.
But I actually think it's fine... whichever way you extend the sentence.

"50 people ARE hurt after earthquake" - fine IMO - it is now after the earthquake, they are still hurt.

"50 people WERE hurt after earthquake" is more questionable, if you are talking about the moment they were hurt, rather than the state of being hurt. But not all earthquake related damage is immediate, and normally it takes a little while to determine an injury/death count, which is why people tend to use "after" - you can't necessarily differentiate between those hurt immediately and those hurt shortly after, nor is it really relevant - what's relevant is the final number of injuries.

When I hear it, my brain thinks that if they were hurt AFTER the earthquake (or shooting or whatever), it could have been anything that hurt them.

Thanks bingo this explanation will save me the energy used in doing slight froths at newsreaders:
you can't necessarily differentiate between those hurt immediately and those hurt shortly after, nor is it really relevant - what's relevant is the final number of injuries