Timothy Snyder: Why do headlines say "norms shattered" when what is meant is "laws broken" or "Constitution violated"?

[thesquanderer]

32. Yes, The norms reference is understatement, but there needs to be something in between.

They can't say laws broken, if a court hasn't (yet) found that to be the case (presumption of innocence until proven guilty). Constitution violated is not a factual statement until/unless the Supreme Court says so, because they are the ultimate arbiter of that. So no reputable news source will headline with these statements which are technically/legally false.

"Alleged" can be a useful qualifier, but it doesn't so well communicate that we do know that we do know that a person did something. IOW, an alleged shooter communicates that there definitely was a shooter, we just don't know for sure that this person did it. But with Trump there is no doubt that he did the thing, the doubt is only about whether it indeed did actually break a law or would be found to be unconstitutional by the court.

It seems like there should be a neat, concise term for this, but I can't think of any.