...to loathe the use of the word "casualties"?

[SpeedyGonzalez]

Maybe a journo on MN can explain why nowadays reporters and writers so often say "casualties" when referring to people who have been killed in an accident, etc. It feels like such a throwaway term, which completely diminishes the humanity of the people concerned. And, practically speaking, "people" is shorter!

I also hate "lost their lives", as if to say "Whoops! Bit careless there, matey!"

I find it incredibly hypocritical. For years the buzz across the media has been all about personalisation, finding the human interest angle in any and every story. Just yesterday no less than three local news presenters were wittering on pointlessly about how the scant snowfall in their area had affected them. Yawn. And yet if 1000 people are killed on the other side of the world, suddenly the human interest angle isn't so important because they're only casualties who were careless enough to lose their lives.

Grand scheme of things contextualisation fail.

YABU

Casualties is the normal term (for all those harmed, whether fatally or not), in use by medics, emergency services and the forces.

Nope, sorry, lost me there. I thought the word described those killed or injured in an incident. Does it just mean slightly miffed then?

Casualty isn't a throwaway term.

So far you seem to be inadvertently supporting my complaint! As I said in my OP, the feel of the word 'casualties' is impersonal, hence why the armed forces and medics use it. Much as I hate the word, in frontline/ emergency contexts, I'm sure that personalisation can sometimes be a hindrance. However, in the media, personalisation is supposed to be king.

So it looks like perhaps journalists use it for the same reason they use phrases like 'friendly fire', i.e. they've 'cut and pasted' /adopted these words wholesale from the military, etc.

How can you personalise your 1000 people on the other side of the world? Do you want their names read out during each bulletin?

Hmm. Did you read my op, robin?

What term would you prefer, OP?

'People' isn't shorter.

There were 10 people.
There were 10 casualties.
There were 10 people injured.

at MrManager! True! But it's still more personal.

I don't understand the problem
Casualties is the correct term. It isn't longer, and I think, since it is often associated with those killed in conflict, it is quite an emotive term.

Do you wan them to name them all on the news, every person that died today around the world?

YABU, and daft. Take up your problem with the english language!

I thought "friendly fire" was a recently coined (Gulf1))civilian term, and I don't know why the media use it.

"Casualties" is however a longstanding, correct and well understood term used both officially and informally.

Oh silly me, I forgot to read the op... And you're still not making sense.

I think you are looking for offence where none is intended.
"People" needs to be placed in context (as MrManager points out).
Do you want them to say there were X people killed/injured/affected?
Actually - I don't understand your point .

Don't understand your point. Casualty = someone who has been killed or injured. 'X casualties' is faster/shorter than 'X people killed'. Useful when 'killed' may be repetition or blindingly obvious from context/previous lines.

Kurri, really? I always thought it was a matter-of-fact term, which is why it's the preferred choice of the military. "Civilian casualties" has a different connotation to "civilian deaths", as it feels more impersonal.

"Friendly fire" was thought up by the US military and is now used across the board.

Bonnie, did you not notice that this is a discussion about the English language?

Mowiol - yes, in a context where the news is generally made more personal, I think "x people were killed" is more fitting. And I'm not looping for offence, I just happen to hate the term.

But the News is just that - the "News". It's supposed to be unbiased and objective.
You say the buzz in the media is all about personalisation - what does that mean exactly? I don't understand what that is!

We could all lament the lack of "personalisation" as you put it but frankly, the job of the News media is to report in an objective fashion.

In my opinion the term "casualty" is just as emotive as any other - someone is still hurt or dead. The word you use to describe that is secondary.

The US military don't call it friendly fire, they call it 'blue-on-blue' or something.

I think the OP wants reports to use 'people' to remind viewers that these were individuals who were affected. I get that. But I don't think it will work - who doesn't realise that casualties are people? The words are only important to an extent.

My question in the above post should be clarified - what do you mean the "buzz" is all about personalisation - can you give examples of where this is evident? Is there a "policy" that states it should be "personal" and if so who/what organisation drafted the policy?

I think casualties is fine. However, I do remember my mother being very upset after she was almost killed at work (health & safety balls up on part of her employers and some contractors) when people described the incident as her 'accident'. She was very sensitive at the time mind you.

Mowiol, an example of personalisation in the media is if you compare documentary styles now and 20 years ago, there's a huge emphasis these days on portaying the emotional. News is the same - check out news reports on YouTube from the 80s.

I've done a bit of a search and found someone who agrees with me! Ok, it's a subset of Wiki and you never know who really writes those things, but I promise, it wasn't me! scroll down to 'euphemism and spin' if you're interested.