Dear CBC: I do not think that word means what you think it means

[jsburbidge]

This morning on Metro Morning, CBC once again (they've done this before, many times) seriously misused the term "alleged".  They were dealing with a criminal case and made reference not only to the "alleged perpetrator" but to "the alleged victim".

Now, I understand why they want to use "alleged" for the accused: if he's not found guilty, it would be libelllous simply to refer to him as the perpetrator.  (It would still be better just to follow legal use and say accused rather than alleged, but we'll let that pass.)

However, in this case it was very clear that the victim was a victim of violence -- who committed the violence may not be determined fully, but it is certain, based on published medical evidence, that he was a victim of violence.  This isn't a case of someone (say) claiming to be abducted where it turns out that they've been having a holiday in the Berkshires.  So he is "the victim", outright, not "the alleged victim". I'll allow "his alleged victim", which is borderline, since it can correctly be taken to modify "his" or incorrectly taken to modify "victim" -- but not "the alleged victim".

ETA: The Globe and Mail is also guiltyof this.