| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 40° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
November 5, 2003
WORD GAMES Media pandering, special interests
He added, "Religious fundamentalists love to hear and use 'same sex.' The word 'sex' alone is a powerful word." A woman at the meeting who heard Parks said to a friend, "I never thought of that." She's not the only one. Although words carry a terrific punch, and although they are the tools in trade of reporters, we rarely engage in any self scrutiny of the language we employ in our stories. As a result, we sometimes unwittingly wield words as weapons in the service of one interest group or another. In Parks' example, the two terms he mentioned, far from being synonyms, are very different. "Sex" is a broad, sweeping term with several meanings. "Gender" is a narrowly defined term with one meaning. Clearly, gender is the more responsible term for journalists to use, but because we don't examine our use of words, we end up doing what one faction wants us to do. We do the same thing for the casino industry. "Gaming" is a vague term that includes everything from playing checkers for no money to bingo for prizes to blackjack for money. "Gambling" is a much more precise term. It has become even more useful in recent years as "gaming" has come (everywhere but Nevada) to mean computer games. Some terms we use are disgracefully subjective. For instance, the abortion issue obviously should be defined by abortion. Instead, we have towed lines dictated by the opponents and supporters. Instead of simply describing the two sides as pro-abortion and anti-abortion, we have made "pro-life" and "pro-choice" standard, not because they serve readers but because they serve the factions. And there is a subtext to our use of language for which we refuse to take responsibility. After all, if we, for instance, define one side as pro-life, by implication we are defining the other side as anti-life. That kind of subliminal editorializing is not the kind of conduct in which reporters should engage. By using proper language instead of language chosen by activists, we don't get into that role at all. It can be difficult negotiating the demands of various special interest groups for language tailored to their needs. Used car dealers do not understand why we don't call their vehicles "pre-owned," mobile home owners don't want their homes called trailers, prison guards want to be called corrections officers, Mormons don't want to be called Mormons, au pairs don't want to be called nannies, the nuclear power industry doesn't want us calling the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump a dump, the Clinton administration softened the legal term "rogue nation" to "state of concern" (on NBC's "The West Wing," Martin Sheen's President Bartlet responded, "No more rogue nations, huh? Well, that was easy"), and for some reason I have never quite fathomed, fireworks show companies don't like fireworks to be called fireworks. In 1990, after the motion picture industry eliminated the "X" rating for movies in favor of "NC-17," a United Church of Christ spokesperson accused the industry: "As Isaiah says, they are calling evil good." Actually, an industry trade group had neglected to trademark the X rating and adult movie houses loved to apply it to inappropriate films in order to attract moviegoers looking for the good stuff. There's not much at stake for the public in some of these disputes. But in others, language can do real harm. Ever since the Jonestown massacre, calling a religious group a "cult" can do real damage. Worse yet, according to University of Nevada cult expert James Richardson, the term is nearly always used improperly, applied to groups that are actually sects. One journalism professor recently told me he dislikes the way the Bush administration applies the term "terrorist" to Iraqi patriots battling U.S. occupation. That reminded me of an interview in which former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin was reminded of his early days as a wanted Irgun terrorist and he responded that he had been a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. I recall that Ronald Reagan used to compare the Nicaraguan contras (who were considered terrorists in many quarters) to the U.S. colonists who revolted against the British. The same professor called to my attention the way abortion partisans have tried to spin a current issue their way by use of the terms "partial birth abortion" and "late term abortion," both describing the same procedure. Assemblymember Parks' concern is actually in the process of being addressed in journalism. "Same-gender" is gaining acceptance and "same-sex" is fading. Here are samples: " ... Gay and lesbian groups...praised a Vermont Supreme Court decision that said same-gender couples are..." (Las Vegas Review-Journal). "The bill, he said, would improve respect for same-gender couples" (Las Vegas Sun). By our language, we define issues, set agendas, and exclude some topics from allowable circles of discourse. It would be nice if we did it with some forethought. Dennis Myers is a veteran state capital reporter. His column Against the Grain appears here on Wednesdays. |
