From the On Line Etymology Dictionary.
From the On Line Etymology Dictionary.
The American Press is continually baffled why so many people believe that they're not trustworthy, and that they're basically the mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic Party. The dismay is truly genuine on the presses' part, as it truly doesn't see itself that way, and in truth, it isn't a captive of the Democrats as some would seemingly likely believe.
Reporters are however, generally much more likely to be "liberals" or "progressives" than the populace at large, however, and this is true from the top to the bottom. There's been examination of it and even the Washington Post ran an editorial on it some years ago, attempting to figure out why this was. I don't know that they determined the reason for it, but my theories would be that generally reporters are college educated, a bias towards the left that's well noted in other areas, they're underpaid compared to those with similar educations (which tends to cause a person to be left wing as well), and there's a left wing history to their profession, something that shows up in younger lawyers as well as law schools likewise have a similar ideological caste. There are some conservatives in news rooms, to be sure, but they're few and far between as a rule, unless you are talking about one of the media organs that's been assembled to be ideological, which exist on both the left and the right. We're not talking about that, and we'll stray from the media as well, but rather "mainstream media".
Mainstream media does not, by and large, seek to be left wing intentionally, but as its membership is generally left of center, that's how it views the world and that's how most reporters view the world. As we view the world through our eyes, when we report it, that's how we all report it, at least to some degree. News media should avoid filtering the news, and reporters generally argue that they don't, but at least some filtering occurs and some of that is simply through the use of language that's agenda driven.
Using propagandistic terms that come out of the left wing of the Democratic Party's playbook is a feature of that. And that use is intentional at some level. If the press really wants people to regard it as a neutral, it ought to eschew such terms.
Right now, however, the news is jam packed with them.
The one you will hear the most right now is "gun safety". The last edition of Meet The Press was all about firearms in the United States and did very little to shed any light on the topic whatsoever. What it did to is to have a lot of discussion on "gun safety". That's propaganda.
The press picked up on a Democratic talking point of several years back to refer to "gun control" as "gun safety". Nobody likes being controlled, but everyone likes safety. That's the gist of it. The use of the switch in terms was deliberate by those originally making it, as talking about gun control routinely proved to be a political failure. If I recall correctly, and my recollection on this is dim, the concept was that by talking about "safety" they'd play to "Soccer Moms" who are all about safety, they believed. And everyone is for safety. Many fewer people are for control.
The gun safety term is awkward and stupid, but that doesn't keep hit from being used to the total exclusion of gun control. The odd thing is that proponents of gun control once were perfectly open about wanting gun control. That's what they called it, as that's what they want. Agree with them or not, it was honest.
Gun safety is something that the NRA, in real terms, has been involved in for years and which they are in favor of. Safe ranges, safe ammunition, safe firearms handling practices. That's gun safety. Guns themselves have safeties, in most examples save for handguns, which often lack them.
Laws that say who can have guns, and when, and under what conditions, are gun control laws.
On the firearms debate, the press has for many years now referred to the National Rifle Association as the "gun lobby" quite frequently, and more recently it's claimed that the NRA does the bidding of firearms manufacturers. Both claims are baloney, and the last one is pure unadulterated baloney.
Like the NRA or not, its a member driven organization. I don't like what the NRA has done in the past decade plus to glamorize the AR15 and to popularize the idea that everyone needs to be expecting urban combat, but its not a manufacturer driven organization. It's a member driven organization. It definitely impacts the firearms culture, but not as a devious means of promoting sales. So when the press makes that claim, it's just distributing a falsehood.
Also false is the claim that the NRA is a "lobby", unless every organization on the planet is likewise a lobby. Lobbying for your position makes you some sort of an advocate, but it doesn't make you a true lobby. Lobbies are organizations that are created to do just that, lobby. Being a lobby doesn't mean you are ipso facto evil, either, it means you are a lobby.
Another favorite term for many years now is "undocumented alien". That makes the news sound like a script for Hogan's Heroes; "can I see your papers please?". Everyone knows that what "undocumented aliens" actually are is "illegal aliens".
Being an illegal alien doesn't make you any less of a human being than anyone else, but its the proper description of that person's status. They didn't' loose their paperwork at the laundry mat of have it stolen at the Piggly Wiggly, the entered the country in violation of the law.
This one is also a left wing term as the left wing of the Democratic Party is basically for an open border with no controls whatsoever. They'll never say that, as they're for "immigration reform" the same way their for "gun safety".
While we're at it, let's also address the absurd term "The Dreamers". It's propaganda too.
Depending upon how you define it, what "the Dreamers" basically are that group of illegal aliens who were brought into the US in their early youth and then grew up in the US. The US is generally portrayed as the only country they've ever known, although in reality most migrant populations in the US retain extremely close ties to the countries they came from. It would probably surprise most Americans, but immigrant populations tend to go back and forth to the countries from which they stem, if they can, much more frequently than a person would suspect. No doubt a lot of "Dreamers" have never been to the country in which they were born, but probably quite a few of them actually have.
That doesn't make their plight any less sympathetic. If you are an illegal alien who was brought to the country when you were five, you are culturally an American, even if you aren't legally one.
We'll address immigration, again, in a later post, but since the "Dreamer" moniker was attached to them, the press has portrayed every person in this category as a hard working college student studying nuclear biochemical molecular engineering and medicine. That's no more true about them than it is about any other group of young people, and frankly it's unfair to them. Probably a lot of them have pretty minor jobs, some are working in Starbucks, and others at the garage. The few I've met tended to have oilfield employment, but that's a regional deal.
Of course calling them all "Dreamers" attaches a hagiographic romance to their plight. Concern for their plight is merited, but let's be frank that their "dream", for the most part, is just to stay in the US. Their nightmare is to be deported. That's the issue, in essence, but in a simplistic essence that understates the nature of the problem, to be sure.
Another one of long propagandization is "pro choice", although seems to be waning. Being pro choice means that you are for abortion being legal. Being "pro life", which has much less of a propagandistic aspect to it, means you are opposed to abortion.
Perhaps because pro choice was met with pro life, the use of pro choice has really diminished. A debate between choice and life isn't one in which the choice side has the better label. Given that, in recent years the propaganda has shifted to "women's reproductive rights".
That term is a mouthful but it offers better obfuscation. "Reproductive rights" in this context means the right to terminate a pregnancy, so its essence, basically, is to be anti reproductive. If "women's reproductive rights" really meant that, it would have something to do with being able to have children in spite of societal or legal opposition. There really isn't any legal opposition and never has been, and in the US there couldn't legally be, unless what you meant was a return to the old legal restrictions about cohabitation, which nobody is proposing to do, irrespective of the comparative societal impacts of the old law vs. the new ones.
This debate has been going on in the US since 1973, and earlier, so by now most people know that the debate is really about abortion and don't go much further than that. That probably also influenced the introduction of a new term, but in a highly familiar debate, the impact of that is probably marginal.
Another set of terms we're now seeing being introduced deal with "voter" and "election" "security". This one isn't being picked up by the Press as the Press is generally left wing and is calling BS on it. Those who want to use those terms are rightly accused of wanting to restrict the vote, although some of them are simply buying off on the propaganda of earlier in the year that suggested, falsely, that the vote was imperiled.
In truth, allowing for widespread use of non polling place voting is thought to be a threat to Republicans and a boon for Democrats. The degree to which that is true is really questionable, as the GOP did really well this past election, but that's what its about. At a certain level Republicans are really afraid that this trend will mean the more numerous Democrats will vote, as it'll be easier. They want to make it more difficult and return to the gold old days, in their view, when they lost elections by larger margins but you had to show up at the polls. Nobody can use the term "voter restriction law" however, and gets away with it.
Anyhow, controlling language has an impact on debate. Everyone is for safety, nobody is for control.
But in addressing any topic, you really need to understand its essence, not the propoganda.
