Freudian slip? News Anchor Says the "ACTORS" have been caught instead of suspects.

I know there is always a lot of talk about "Crisis Actors" during these situations, so maybe this news anchor had it in the back of his mind too. Who knows. But I think that would be very unprofessional to say the least. But hey, we never know I guess. The following video is from the San Bernadino mass shooting.

In fact, the news anchor says "Actors" more than once.

You be the judge.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

The guy probably meant attackers but yes, it certainly could be taken in another way.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

to ACT...

it has two meanings.

one is to take action...
one is to pretend to be something..

In a sense we are all actors on the world stage.

Meh, they're playing out an act. It's like talking about very influential people as global players. The whole world stage is a play full of actors, in a sense.

a reply to: ringdingdong

hey almost creepy we said the same thing

a reply to: stargatetravels

Yep.
I hear them calling people attackers quite often on the Emmy awards.
Only natural to confuse the two words.

Btw: There have been 140 some mass shootings under Obama.
There were 14 under Dubya.
Something's not right here.

'Actors' is just an synonym for perpetrators.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Bloodydagger

to ACT...

it has two meanings.

one is to take action...
one is to pretend to be something..

In a sense we are all actors on the world stage.

Its funny how he used a word with such a broad scope though when there are simpler words to use for the "suspects".

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


'Actors' is just an synonym for perpetrators.

yes

To be honest I don't think there is much to this.

More and more I am seeing this word actor being used to describe someone carrying out some kind of event such as within syria and even the Paris attackers were persistently called actors.

But it doesn't change my view of the world and the corruption etc that occurs to take away what little freedoms we have.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

so now its conspiracy because an idiot doesnt know the multiple context of the word " actor "

originally posted by: Bloodydagger


Its funny how he used a word with such a broad scope though when there are simpler words to use for the "suspects".

I hear you..

There is no way to read the guys mind who said it though...

And being that they are actors in one meaning of the word..

It's not much here..

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
so now its conspiracy because an idiot doesnt know the multiple context of the word " actor "

Yeah. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard during a news cast, 'The bad actors who committed this heinous crime...'

They are referring to criminals, not a bunch of Nick Cages running around pretending to do bad s***.

It seems to me that he is using the word "actors" to mean "those carrying out / involved in the act(s)". Technically, I think he could also have used the word "agents". Having said that, either one of these would raise eyebrows, given that they are now used in rather different contexts.

I wonder if he is following station policy based on legal advice. Do they have to use neutral terms until the perpetrator has been found guilty by the courts?

Yep, not exactly a word to use when "Crisis Actor" is being thrown around on the regular when these situations happen.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Bloodydagger

so now its conspiracy because an idiot doesnt know the multiple context of the word " actor "

Who are you referring to as an idiot?

I agree that he meant 'actors' as in 'those that acted out...' But what I found a bit strange was that he started stammering as if he had just realised that he said something he didn't plan and then says it again as if to enforce that this is what he 'always' uses.
Like when you are embarrassed about something but pretend it's what you meant to do by doing it again.

To european ears it sounds weird because we don't use that word in the news for perpetrators.

a reply to: Hecate666

That's easy to explain. You say something that you know could be interpreted by your average viewer in the wrong way just as or after you say it. You then feel the need to try and push past this false interpretation by reinforcing, as you say.

I've said things and tripped up a little because I realize my audience will not take it the correct way, and also doubled down to try and make them understand.

a reply to: EA006

the narrator of the vid - this SHOULD have been obvious

Once again, the word actor is not being used here in the sense you believe it is being used.

It is being used in the sociological sense. Get a grip.

ETA: Here's an example for you.

Rational Choice Theory, founded in Classical Theory, cites three “actors” (rational, predestined, and victimized) as the models for criminal behavior.

The Rational Actor chooses to commit crimes, which can be prevented by stringent punishments
The Predestined Actor cannot control their urges and are encouraged by their environment to commit crimes
The Victimized Actor is the victim of an unequal society; however, the society can be reformed via legislation

[Source]