Tuesday
Jun222004
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 12:01AM
Subtle Department
I thought of another pet peeve of mine. I am referring to the descriptors the media uses when talking about certain criminals, enemies of mankind, and general all around scum. My peeve is, I feel the media often legitimizes what are otherwise illegitimate individuals and gives more credit where no credit is due.
Words are powerful tools. They shape our thoughts and opinions. In the news, we depend on words to describe something we did not experience. The media has a responsibility to make us aware of the facts and either eliminate bias as much as possible or be up front about the bias(s) they have. I am making a distinction between simply relating the facts of an event and commentary. We must first know who?, what?, when?, where?, and how?, before we can intelligently discern a why? If the facts are slanted, the opinions we will draw will be slanted as well.
Here are a few examples of which I speak. Terrorists, thieves, and others who commit crimes are often referred to as having superior intelligence. Read this next sentence in a "talking head" voice. "Bin Sheet'fer Brains, masterminded the car bombing which killed 18 school children." This animal / monster is credited with intelligence instead of being savage, murderous, and brutal. Giving them credit for intelligence is like saying a guy who knocks someone out with a sucker punch is a good boxer. Defenders of the mastermind position usually say something like, "we cannot set ourselves as judge. This man is a revolutionary and a freedom fighter for his people."
Another example of media giving more credit than is due is by crediting criminals and terrorists with superior organization and administration skills. Talking head voice: "A top aid for Abu - yerself, said 'God will destroy the infidels because they are godless snakes who deserve his wrath.'" In this case, "top aid" was probably the guy who answered the phone or came to the door when the reporter knocked on it. I guess I could go out and kill a few people then hide. If my friends commented to the media about me, they would probably be referred as one of my aids. As if.
Who figures out the descriptors anyway? Manuel Noriega of Panama was "Panamanian strong man Manuel Noriega." I wonder how much he could bench? Then we all remember the "Elite Republican Guard." If these guys are elite, I would hate to see their third string. Often, the media pulls one item from a life and uses it to describe that individual from then on. David Duke of Louisiana was always referred to as "Former KKK leader David Duke." This is a true statement, but the same could be said of Robert Byrd of West Virginia, but it is not said. Who made that decision? Who decides that some people will receive a negative handle while others get the positive handle?
The talking heads use superlatives and exaggeration to get our attention. They filter the facts. We end up with form over substance. The package looks nice, but there is nothing inside. We discuss controversial issues in 30 second, fast paced sound bites.
The problem with subtlety is it is not obvious. We can be brain washed and / or tricked unless we pay attention, question, and think. Don't let some reporter tell you who you should or should not respect. Figure it out for yourself.
What subtle bias have you noticed in the media?
Until the next time
John Strain