.jpg)
When looking at the problem of cleansed language, which means words lacking political charge or emotional characteristics or easier they are euphemisms, in her article Tortured Language,
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091006.html
Joanne Mariner gives the perfect examples that the media tend to use when reporting on military actions. More importantly, whenever we choose to use language that provides us political neutrality, the meaning of the action shifts. Consequently, the reporters pose bias on these topics. This is how torture is not longer called torture, but ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. (Mariner, 2009) Can you feel the shift in its meaning? And there are more and more examples Mariner refers to.
What is egregious and concerns me the most is far not the concrete choice of the words, but the decision of media agencies and broadcasting companies. After all they are the ones that swore to provide fair and balanced news or that is what the majority of people believe in and take the media’s words as unquestionable basis of information. The utilization of deceptive words only brings the wrong picture to the society. No wonder that the majority of Americans supported George W. Bush in his second term, if they didn’t have the slightest clue about Iraq and the practices of the soldiers.
One of the best examples Mariner (2009) states is The New York Times referral to ‘harsh interrogation methods’ used under former President Bush in Iraq. Nevertheless, among these harsh interrogation techniques was a clearly states the practice of ‘water boarding’. Even if water boarding was used against terrorists it does not justify calling it other than torture. For instance a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years after practicing this technique on American citizen in 1947 and it was widely recognized by US and the rest of the world as a torture. (Mariner, 2009) If it was clear then, why did The New York Times refuse to call it the same?
One of the best examples Mariner (2009) states is The New York Times referral to ‘harsh interrogation methods’ used under former President Bush in Iraq. Nevertheless, among these harsh interrogation techniques was a clearly states the practice of ‘water boarding’. Even if water boarding was used against terrorists it does not justify calling it other than torture. For instance a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years after practicing this technique on American citizen in 1947 and it was widely recognized by US and the rest of the world as a torture. (Mariner, 2009) If it was clear then, why did The New York Times refuse to call it the same?
Source:
Mariner J., Tortured Language, Find Law, Oct 6, 2009
Recommended readings:
Cohen-Almagor R., The Limits of Objective Reporting, Journal of Language and Politics (2008) p. 147-149
Picture:
http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/bush_waterboarding.jpg
Lucy, funny you should write about this topic - it was just yesterday I had a very similar conversation with a group of students (and a teacher) from the Penn State University in PA, USA. We discussed the expressions people in the (news)media use to refer to death.
ReplyDeleteIt is disconcerting to learn that when for example an Iraqi soldier dies, it is just a "collateral damage" or it is reported on very casually as just a piece of statistics (that is, if it is reported at all...). On the other hand, when an American soldier gets killed, there is much ado about it, it is reported on using words like "hero" and "bravery" - as if the value of the life of an American was any higher than that of an Iraqi person...
So I too feel that it is these more or less subtle nuances in the language used in reporting on war and other news in general, which is capable of dangerously manipulating the perceptions of the auidences. For the more subtle the manipulation, the harder it is to discern and identify as such.
Martina
That is the main reason why I didn't want to study journalism after 9 months of practice at Russian newspaper Arguments&Facts. It's a severe deception...
ReplyDelete