Teenager seriously injured in acid attack (From Andover Advertiser)

'Chucked', do people get paid to write this stuff ?

red teacosy wrote:
'Chucked', do people get paid to write this stuff ?

To me 'chucked' sounds like a casual, almost off-hand action - 'He chucked the empty can out of the car window.' 'He chucked his clothes into his suitcase.' 'He chucked the ball over the fence.'
But here the phrase is 'chucked at' which makes it sound far more deliberate and threatening. - 'He chucked the brick at the police.' 'Bottles were chucked at Cher Lloyd.'
So, although I would not have thought to use the phrase 'chucked at' in this instance because I associate it more with solid projectiles, there is nothing wrong with its use by the reporter.
What would you have used instead? My choice might have been 'hurled in his face'.

Oops, don't give me your suggestions unless you are being paid to write this stuff red teacosy. :-)

I agree with Sam!! Actually it doesn't matter which word was used, that's not important in light of the injuries sustained by the victim, really, is it?

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:

red teacosy wrote:
'Chucked', do people get paid to write this stuff ?

To me 'chucked' sounds like a casual, almost off-hand action - 'He chucked the empty can out of the car window.' 'He chucked his clothes into his suitcase.' 'He chucked the ball over the fence.'
But here the phrase is 'chucked at' which makes it sound far more deliberate and threatening. - 'He chucked the brick at the police.' 'Bottles were chucked at Cher Lloyd.'
So, although I would not have thought to use the phrase 'chucked at' in this instance because I associate it more with solid projectiles, there is nothing wrong with its use by the reporter.
What would you have used instead? My choice might have been 'hurled in his face'.

"To me 'chucked' sounds like a casual, almost off-hand action"
- exactly, the poor use of language trivialises the event, this is a serious news story,not a text message between two 12 year old's.

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:
Oops, don't give me your suggestions unless you are being paid to write this stuff red teacosy. :-)

Oop's, not my job to provide English lessons to professional journalists, my tax's have already paid for this individuals education, there are lot's of theasaures's out there, "chucked" is the wrong word to use in this instance, lazy journalism.

I can understand why the victim's name has been withheld from the story but when the police are appealing for information I would have thought that the name is an important fact which could jog someone's memory or persuade them to contact the police.
And if you want my opinion 'chucked' isn't lazy but it is a sign or poor writing ability - a pre-requisite for a journalist I would have thought.

red teacosy wrote:

Sam_Walker123456 wrote: Oops, don't give me your suggestions unless you are being paid to write this stuff red teacosy. :-)

Oop's, not my job to provide English lessons to professional journalists, my tax's have already paid for this individuals education, there are lot's of theasaures's out there, "chucked" is the wrong word to use in this instance, lazy journalism.

Just as well it is not your job to provide English lessons to anybody because you seem to be having trouble reading and understanding it. :-)
A summary of my first comment is that 'chucked' sounds casual but the phrase used was 'chucked at' which sounds more deliberate and threatening. What happened seems to have been deliberate and threatening, so there is nothing wrong with the use of 'chucked at' in this article.
But, as I said before, I would probably have used 'hurled in', which to me has more of a feel of liquid to it.

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:

red teacosy wrote:

Sam_Walker123456 wrote: Oops, don't give me your suggestions unless you are being paid to write this stuff red teacosy. :-)

Oop's, not my job to provide English lessons to professional journalists, my tax's have already paid for this individuals education, there are lot's of theasaures's out there, "chucked" is the wrong word to use in this instance, lazy journalism.

Just as well it is not your job to provide English lessons to anybody because you seem to be having trouble reading and understanding it. :-)
A summary of my first comment is that 'chucked' sounds casual but the phrase used was 'chucked at' which sounds more deliberate and threatening. What happened seems to have been deliberate and threatening, so there is nothing wrong with the use of 'chucked at' in this article.
But, as I said before, I would probably have used 'hurled in', which to me has more of a feel of liquid to it.

Don't get the connection between 'hurled' and liquid, odd comment, this story has been reported on dozens of different news sites, and can't find the use of 'chucked' or 'hurled' in any of them, the reason for this is that they are the wrong words.

Funny how a demeaning comment can be dressed up to appear more jovial if you place a smiley face after it :)

red teacosy, neither 'chucked at' or 'hurled in' are wrong but I grant there may be phrases you prefer. 'Baked', 'walked', 'sat on' and many other words or phrases would be wrong, but 'chucked at' is not.
Regarding other reports which have not used either phrase, are you looking for all reports to use the same words? I would have thought that part of a journalists job is to present news in a different way to his competitors and differently to what he has done before. Surely original and imaginative use of language is part of that. Anyway how many times do you want to read 'threw in his face'?