A dead detail
23:47 Wednesday 15 Feb 06
The BBC have a story about a blue plaque being unveiled to commemorate a famous US broadcaster Edward R Murrow. Nothing unusual there - until the last sentence:
He died from lung cancer in 1965.
The fact he died isn’t the point - why mention it was lung cancer ? The article does not mention smoking (or not) nor it does not have a picture of him smoking. So why mention it ? It’s not like the BBC give reasons for everyone’s deaths. I can’t find another page but I know they routinely write things like “He died in 1970″ and do not give causes. Is it because the reason was found by the researcher (but then shouldn’t everyone’s) ? Is it because it just happens to be topical because of the smoking ban ? I cannot see the relevance of indicating the cause of death and if they are going to do it, be consistent !
1
They do that more often than not, especially if it was a death that was “before their time”.
In fact I’d say it’s more unusual to see them not do it, even if it’s just “natural causes” or “peacefully” they usually put something.
01:37 Thursday 16 Feb 06
2
It’s just to add information… it’s better to say “he died from lung cancer in 1965″ than “he died in 1965.”
01:57 Thursday 16 Feb 06