The BBC understands
« previous post | next post »
Sima Kotecha, "Soham murderer Ian Huntley taken off life support, BBC understands", BBC 3/6/2026:
Soham murderer Ian Huntley is close to death after being taken off life support following an attack in prison, the BBC understands.
The 52-year-old has been in hospital since 26 February after being beaten over the head with a makeshift weapon at HMP Frankland in County Durham. The high security prison houses some of the most violent inmates.
Prison sources said Huntley was found lying in a pool of blood after the attack. He suffered significant head trauma from his injuries.
A sample of other recent BBC understandings:
Iranian Missiles Fired at UK-US Base, BBC understands
The Hillsborough Law – which the government intended to pass a year ago – will be further delayed, the BBC understands.
More than 100 tenants privately renting in homes owned by one of London's biggest landlords have been given as little as two months' notice of termination of their tenancy, the BBC understands.
BBC South East understands that a further 11 people from the Canterbury area are currently in hospital and reported to be seriously ill. It is understood that most are aged between 18 and 21 and a number are students at the university.
Edwards said the most recent closures have included The Rose & Crown in Bradford city centre, Studio 48 & Groove Pad, in Shipley, and The Roebuck, in Keighley, although the BBC understands The Roebuck is set to re open under new management.
These examples aren't meant to mean that the BBC grasps the meaning of the various events and situations. Rather they seem closer to sense (5) of the Wiktionary entry:
5. (transitive) To believe or infer, to think one grasps sufficiently despite potentially incomplete knowledge.
I've been given to understand that you have a package for me?
At least four people are understood to have been injured.
More specifically, this seems to be a way to avoid citing a source — the BBC is presenting these things as facts, but is choosing not to give us any details about the basis of its knowledge. I haven't seen other publications using the same idiom, though no doubt it happens — rather we see things like "Trump is strategizing means to seize Iran's nuclear stockpiles, sources say". I wonder whether the different choices are formal editorial policy, or just local culture.
A similar sense of understand is used in ordinary discourse when the speaker is asserting something about the listener's actions, attitudes, or plans. From Pride and Prejudice:
Mrs. Bennet rang the bell, and Miss Elizabeth was summoned to the library.
“Come here, child,” cried her father as she appeared. “I have sent for you on an affair of importance. I understand that Mr. Collins has made you an offer of marriage. Is it true?”
Elizabeth replied that it was.
“Very well—and this offer of marriage you have refused?”
“I have, sir.”
“Very well. We now come to the point. Your mother insists upon your accepting it. Is it not so, Mrs. Bennet?”
“Yes, or I will never see her again.”
“An unhappy alternative is before you, Elizabeth. From this day you must be a stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins, and I will never see you again if you do.”
Elizabeth could not but smile at such a conclusion of such a beginning; but Mrs. Bennet, who had persuaded herself that her husband regarded the affair as she wished, was excessively disappointed.
Laura Morland said,
March 23, 2026 @ 2:57 am
I think it's a matter of the BBC reporter not being *allowed* to name his source. The article does cite "prison sources," twice.
ChatGPT claims that "understand" is more common in broadcast journalism. It would be interesting to know why.
QUERY: "What verb is used by mainstream media when relaying information that does not have a quotable source?:
CHATGPT'S RESPONSE: "The mainstream media typically uses attribution verbs that signal uncertainty or indirect sourcing—basically, ways of saying “we’re reporting this, but we’re not putting a named source on it.”
The most common ones you’ll see:
“reportedly” / “is reported to”
→ “He reportedly met with officials…”
“according to sources” / “sources say”
→ Vague but very common
“it is believed” / “is thought to”
→ Implies informed speculation
“is said to”
→ Classic, very neutral distancing language
“appears to” / “seems to”
→ Based on observation, not confirmation
“allegedly”
→ Often used in legal or potentially defamatory contexts
“we understand” (more common in broadcast journalism)
“can be confirmed” (without stating by whom)
If you’re looking for the single most stereotypical verb construction, it’s probably:
“is said to”
It’s concise, neutral, and deliberately noncommittal.
If you want the honest takeaway: this language isn’t accidental—it’s a way for journalists to balance speed, access to unnamed sources, and legal protection. The wording lets them publish while signaling, “this isn’t fully nailed down.”
NW said,
March 23, 2026 @ 3:40 am
I suspect it's new*, since I remember being struck by that very wording in both the Soham murderer and Diego Garcia base stories. I guessed that 'understand' meant that they had an official, reliable source who couldn't be named. That would be likely in these two cases, less so in some of the others.
* But of course someone will now unearth much older instances.
Mark Liberman said,
March 23, 2026 @ 3:48 am
@NW: The Diego Garcia headline was the first example that caught my attention — because at first I interpreted it as meaning that the BBC understands (in Merriam-Webster sense e, "to feel sympathy for someone's feelings or situation") why the Iranians sent the rockets.
AM said,
March 23, 2026 @ 4:28 am
This certainly reminds me of the "…ことが分かりました" construction that is a staple of Japanese broadcast news. Though there I suppose the meaning leans a little bit more to the definite side (point 2 of this definition I take: https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%88%86%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8B).
Philip Taylor said,
March 23, 2026 @ 4:39 am
As a Briton, "the BBC understands" seems totally unremarkable, but I have no idea for how long I have accepted it as a normal broadcast idiom. The earliest instance I can find is dated 1978 :
Picky said,
March 23, 2026 @ 7:23 am
The American equivalent seems to be “according to sources familiar with the matter”, which is equally — and equally deliberately — uninformative.
J.W. Brewer said,
March 23, 2026 @ 8:15 am
I am struck by the illeism (to use a word I'm pretty sure I first learned here at LL) in the BBC referring to itself in the third person in order to tell you what its own state of mind is. There's another journalistic construction with the same illeism, exemplified by (to quote an instance from last week) "Gerrit Cole is scheduled to make his first start in a game since Tommy John surgery on Wednesday against the Red Sox, The Post has learned."* That's certainly not limited to sports coverage, e.g. (from 2023) "The Post has learned that investigators have new evidence of possible obstruction in the classified-documents investigation." That second one is from a different newspaper (also called the Post) than the first one.
*In the event, he only pitched for one inning since this was an incremental step in a lengthy rehab process. He gave up two hits but no runs, although maybe he was lucky that Braiden Ward got out while making a perhaps ill-advised attempt to steal third.
Chris Button said,
March 23, 2026 @ 8:20 am
Isn't one of the rules of journalism to lead with the interesting stuff? So "Soham … , BBC understands" rather than "BBC understands that Soham …"
It's similar to how journalists would say "Soham… , according to sources" rather than "According to sources, Soham …"
VVOV said,
March 23, 2026 @ 8:26 am
@Picky, I was just about to bring up "….according to a person/people familiar with the matter" as well.
My perception (no data at hand at the moment) is that this construction has become markedly more common over the past approx 10 years and is particularly associated with reporting about White House / Trump administration drama.
jaap said,
March 23, 2026 @ 8:27 am
@Mark Liberman Was your misreading influenced by the American use of commas in headlines to separate sentences? I don't think that comma use occurs in British headlinese, so understand cannot be transitive in this dialect.
unekdoud said,
March 23, 2026 @ 10:08 am
I saw the garden path misreading right away, and am quite surprised that the "sympathy" sense doesn't appear in Wiktionary.
As far as I can tell, "please understand" is a request for sympathy, not an exasperated teacher's request.
AntC said,
March 23, 2026 @ 4:19 pm
@NW I suspect it's new*, …
Thank you to @PT for finding a 1978 example. I'm also a Brit/have been listening to the BBC since well before 1978. I'd say they've been using "understand" in that sense for forever.
The locution is in the same category as "allegedly" to avoid being sued for defamation. In the examples myl quotes, there's no legal actioned threatened.
HS said,
March 23, 2026 @ 7:20 pm
Like Philip Taylor, this seems totally unremarkable to this New Zealander.
An equivalent wording at the beginning of a sentence would be "The BBC understands that…" meaning "The BBC has been informed that…" "The BBC has learnt that…" "It has come to the attention of the BBC that…" Exactly as in the Jane Austen quotation. This usage has been around forever.
Wally said,
March 24, 2026 @ 12:36 am
This reminds me of the mis suffix in Turkish. There are two past tenses in Turkish. The one using mis simply means I don’t directly know the information I am reporting. I have always thought that this is hard to translate to English because any attempt would use a weasel word like reportedly or I understand which seems to imply some doubt which I don’t think is there in Turkish.
Philip Taylor said,
March 24, 2026 @ 4:43 am
Realising (as I lay in bed last night) that long before the British Broadcasting Corporation would have referred to itself as "the BBC" it would have done so as "The British Broadcasting Corporation" and then "the Corporation", I carried out a further Google Ngrams search for "Corporation understand" and see that this phrase fairly regularly attested from as far back as 1900 if not before. An American letter dated 1918 contains a construction which is virtually identical to Mark's fifth example ("BBC South East understands that a further 11 people from the Canterbury area …") —
[Source: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Records_and_Briefs_of_the_United_States/wo5j1H958NUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22corporation+understands%22&pg=PA506&printsec=frontcover%5D
Bob Ladd said,
March 24, 2026 @ 5:14 am
@Wally: I was going to make the same comparison. Lots of languages, like Turkish, have "evidential" morphology or constructions, which distinguish between things the speaker knows by direct experience and things they know from having been told, etc. I agree with you that the "understands" construction is a lot like signalling indirect knowledge in a language that makes such a distinction, whereas "allegedly" and similar words really highlights the speaker's intention not to be held responsible for the truth of whatever they're saying.
@Philip Taylor et al.: I am not a native speaker of British English, but I've now lived here for more than half my life and the "understands" usage also strikes me as completely normal. I think we are dealing with yet another British/American difference that is subtle enough to pass unnoticed most of the time.
Michael Robertson said,
March 24, 2026 @ 6:00 am
Speaking as a Scot, this looks to me like a perfectly unremarkable usage as defined in the OED s.v. understand, sense 4c: "To take or accept as a fact, without positive knowledge or certainty; to get as an impression or idea; to believe. Chiefly with obj. clause." — with citations starting in 1751.
Michael Watts said,
March 24, 2026 @ 7:16 pm
Speaking as an American largely unfamiliar with British English, I agree with all the British commenters that this looks completely unremarkable. It's a normal use of the word understand in a very common sense of that word.
Michael Watts said,
March 24, 2026 @ 7:22 pm
(Elaborating a bit, the opening quotation:
is what I'm labeling "completely unremarkable". No one is going to blink at that or see why anyone else might find it worthy of comment.
The headline, "Soham murderer Ian Huntley taken off life support, BBC understands" is more odd; I agree with MYL that this could be taken to suggest two clauses placed in parataxis: 'Soham murderer Ian Huntley [has been] taken off life support, [and the] BBC understands [why]'. But since the first sentence of the article echoes the headline precisely, there's not really room for a misunderstanding.)
Philip Taylor said,
March 25, 2026 @ 4:05 am
I think that the interpretation 'Soham murderer Ian Huntley [has been] taken off life support, [and the] BBC understands [why]' would require stronger punctuation than a mere comma — a semi-colon, colon or em-dash might work (the last almost certainly would work), but not a comma (IMHO, of course).
Michael Watts said,
March 25, 2026 @ 7:51 pm
The comma is well attested for this use. You can see e.g. that this KnowYourMeme page is titled "World ends, women most affected", and while the comma is a minority choice among the featured examples, it's not an unusual one.
Actual headlines of this form are hard to find (however punctuated).
ajay said,
March 26, 2026 @ 4:58 am
The comma is well attested for this use. You can see e.g. that this KnowYourMeme page is titled "World ends, women most affected", and while the comma is a minority choice among the featured examples, it's not an unusual one.
My impression is that this use of the comma as a splice is far more common in US headlines than UK ones – "The Onion" is very fond of it. "History Sighs, Repeats Itself". A British headline would be "History sighs and repeats itself".
Michael Watts said,
March 26, 2026 @ 4:34 pm
It bothers me a little bit that the meme and The Onion are both examples of humor rather than actual newspaper usage. They are still good evidence as to how the population of speakers understand the grammar of headlines, but they're not great evidence as to how headlines may be constructed in practice.
I'm willing to believe that there's a US / UK split, but so far it's not a split in US vs UK headlines – it's a split in US vs UK understanding of how headlines work, with native speakers appearing to make different generalizations from more or less the same evidence. This is a really interesting observation, but not quite the topic of the thread.
ajay said,
March 30, 2026 @ 9:07 am
Fair point – here's some from the LA Times front page today
"Dramatic weather shift brings significant Southern California cooldown, possible rain"
"Road rage in Newport Beach bike lane leads to one arrest, seizure of BMW, police say"
"Early spring storms bringing snow to California, drizzle to Los Angeles"
"Marine corporal accused of stealing, reselling weapons and ammo from Camp Pendleton"
I can't see any of the same form on the front page of the Guardian today – by that I mean using a comma as a replacement for "and" in a way that would not be grammatical in a normal sentence. Guardian headlines use commas in lists of three or more items
"‘Wow, people were so angry at Labour!’ Green MP Hannah Spencer on politics, plumbing, smears and snobbery"
or in order to separate clauses, especially in cases of attribution:
"Putin likely to stage another Salisbury-style attack, exiled oligarch says"
ajay said,
March 30, 2026 @ 9:12 am
And the "[claim], I understand" structure is surely common (if maybe a bit formal and old-fashioned) in normal English?
"You've recently resigned from your job, I understand" means "I heard you've recently resigned from your job". If I wanted to convey empathy, it would be "You've recently resigned from your job. I understand."
Philip Taylor said,
March 30, 2026 @ 12:24 pm
I agree. And even, perhaps, "I fully/completely/totally/etc. understand".
Michael Watts said,
March 31, 2026 @ 6:04 am
Yes, it is. Maybe not so much that exact form – I have a noticeable preference for "I understand you've recently resigned from your job" over "You've recently resigned from your job, I understand". But as I said above, it's a normal use of a very common sense of the word.
Huron said,
April 2, 2026 @ 8:06 am
As a journalist, I would definitely prefer "sources tell the BBC", as it makes it very clear that the news outlet got this information from speaking to a source rather than, for example, data analysis or conjecture.
HS said,
April 3, 2026 @ 7:13 pm
Like Michael Watts, I have a preference for "I understand that [news claim]" over "[news claim], I understand", but I'm not sure whether this is related to this particular use of "understand" or whether it just reflects the fact that this word order is more common in English in general and the inverted order "[news claim], I understand" sounds slightly formal or literary.
I am still unclear from the comments above whether there is a difference between British and American English with this use of "understand' to mean something like "I have been told that". Michael Watts is an American and thinks it is completely normal, but on the other hand Bob Ladd thinks we are dealing with a subtle British / American difference, and the fact that Professor Liberman wrote this post in the first place suggests that he found it unusual (or was he just commenting on the inverted order "[news claim], I understand"?).