I'll admit up front I'm always suspicious of the mainstream media; I know, they rarely if ever show any bias (and certainly never display any sympathies toward dirtbag criminals), but darn it sometimes I just can't help myself.
When I saw the headline in the Argus Leader today, "Snitch evidence to be allowed at trial," my radar went off, so I read more:
A jailhouse snitch was not working for the government when he began obtaining statements from an accused killer about the rape and murder of a Wyoming runaway, a judge ruled Friday.
Circuit Judge Steven Jensen's ruling strengthens the state's case against James Strahl, 39, for the 1998 killing of William O'Hare, 52, of Beresford. But it remains unclear how much snitch evidence will be allowed in court.
Why was this guy referred to as a "snitch" and not by the more professional term "informant" or even "whistle-blower." After all, if you snitch on a Republican or conservative, you get elevated to the level of "whistle-blower." But it seems if you provide information on a murderer and possible rapist, you're a "snitch."
I Googled the news for "snitch" and other than this story, only found nine stories that used the word "snitch." Of these nine, four of them used the word in italics, either in a quote, or to denote the word as a slang term for informant.
Maybe there's nothing to it; I just found the Argus' choice of words, shall we say, interesting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment