This may not be a "talking point", but there really is no other place to put it and I doubt it's worthy of it's own thing, as it's merely a passing thought. Anyways, on facebook some of us were talking about Fergusen and Shane mentioned passive voice. It occurs to me that sometimes journalists write this way so as to not color public opinion ahead of the trial.
For example, if I say: "Shane shot Travis with a baretta," I'm potentially contaminating Shane's chances of an impartial trial, because I've essentially convicted Shane in a trial of the press. But if I say, "Travis was shot, and Shane was arrested at the scene, while holding a baretta," I did not comment on Shane's guilt or innocence, just reported the facts. I'm just saying the reason for it may not be to absolve the police of guilt.
For example, if I say: "Shane shot Travis with a baretta," I'm potentially contaminating Shane's chances of an impartial trial, because I've essentially convicted Shane in a trial of the press. But if I say, "Travis was shot, and Shane was arrested at the scene, while holding a baretta," I did not comment on Shane's guilt or innocence, just reported the facts. I'm just saying the reason for it may not be to absolve the police of guilt.