The Spin Game: The Language of Perspective

[Divinus Arma]

You find it everywhere: AP news articles, Televisions news, political punditry, radio commentary. You will not find a neutral "frame" from which to view the picture of political issues. Everything is distorted or reworded in such a way as to be so abstract, the truth can almost never be found in plain english. Or can it?

In a recent thread, I was shown the error of wording things painly. I post it here not to stir up the pot nor rant against the administration of the Org. If I wanted to discuss that, I would post in the watchtower. I would rather take this opportunity to hold a discussion on the "art of spin", namely the clever rewording of phrases or terms to dissassociate from the reality of the issue to confuse and distract. Consider:


"the homosexual crime loving babykillers on the left"


Democrats are the party of homosexuals. I am not saying this is good nor bad. It is simply a true statement. Homosexuals overwhelming vote for Democratic candidates because of the Democratic actions on the behalf of homosexuals.

Under Democrat rule, New York City was one of the most crime-ridden enclaves in our nation. In his state, as Governor, former presidential candidate Dukakis orchestrated a furlough program which intentionally released 1st degree murderers on weekends into the public without supervision. Furthermore, the philosophy of many on the left is that criminals are merely a victim of society and therefore are blameless and unfit to be punished. It is the fault of circumstance than a product of personal choice.

Partial birth abortion is the process of allowing a full-term fetus to be delivered just at the head (or torso in a breech birth), and then have his or her brains carved and sucked out. That is killing a baby. "Pro-choice" does not at all reflect anything to do with the subject. I am also "pro-choice". I am just against "baby-killing". I am an advocate for the child who is unable to defend himself or herself. I'm sure that if they could, infants would "choose" to live rather than be murdered and treated as biological waste to be disposed of.

I would also call Republicans "homophobic behavior-restricting religious-nuts".

Republicans are the party of Homophobes. I am not saying this is good nor bad. It is simply a true statement. Homophobes overwhelming vote for Republican candidates because of the Republican actions against homosexuals.

Republicans restrict behavior. They do not find it a "constitutional right" to engage in drug use or be provided with amenities when one's only claim is to have been spat out of a vagina (lucky folks- now how come they don't choose to abort themselves?). They also don't see a constitutional right to not see Christians pray in public. Like see someone in class silently praying by themselves before a test.

The religious right consists of frenzied folks who belief that it is their duty and obligation to save me from myself. Somehow, my soul is their responsibility and not my own.


So why don't we speak the truth? Why is it I must refers to blacks as "African Americans" while I myself am "white"? Why can we not call illegal aliens exactly that? They have illegally immigrated into the United States and hold a non-citizen alien status. I recently saw a Texas headline that referred to them as "undocumented entrants".

[Strike For The South]

becuase everything these days has to be sugar coated. It is an invention of yankees to be honest. No one can just tell them truth anymore or say how they really feel. IMO it dulls the human experince by allot.

[Papewaio]

Sterotypes can oversimplify things for starters.

I assume that not all republicans are scared of homosexuals nor are they all religious... let alone all extreme bible bashers.

Nor do I think all democrats would be comfortable around homosexuals, nor do I think they are pro-crime (just a different idea on what prison is for reform vs protection) and I assume there is a difference between pro-choice at an early stage and pro-choice at a later one.

There are also connotations with certain words which have cultural hang ons.

Add to that in a very (possibly the most) litgous society I can understand why a newspaper would say undocumented entrants rather then illegal alien. I also notice that when a criminal is on the run after a crime, media outlets will refer to them as criminals. But once captured they are referred to along the lines of 'suspected' criminal... again presumption of innocence and avoiding being sued etc.

[GoreBag]

Why is a thread about connotation in the Backroom?

edit: missed a needed word...

[Major Robert Dump]

Marginalizing ticks people off when the overall subject has nothing to do with said marginalization. Marginalizing to label someone in a negative way is a way to rile them up, to distract and to try to associate them with the lowest denominator of their associates. Marginalizing in defense is a way of trying to soften the blow, gain sympathy, add dignity and, like the other version, distract.

The post you made was based on an article I saw on Drudge, and it seemed the kind of crap written by a Freshman journalism student. People have an edge when they are pleasing to the eye, its simply fact. Democrats having more good looking candidates than Republicans is no worse than Republicans who use conservative voters as tools by espousing ideas they have no intentions of reinforcing once elected. In other words, its a non-issue. It happens, so quit bitching and field some handsome candidates yourself so I can quit hearing how clinton won because middle-aged women thought he was hot.

What really worries me is when incredibly attractive women start to run for national office

[yesdachi]

So why don't we speak the truth?
We do. But the thing is, the truth can be spoken in many different ways.
I have written hundreds of press releases and if I worded them differently I could have gotten completely different results using the same truthful information.

When reading the days news I often read stories of interest to me from several sources, hoping that if I look thru several pieces of fractured glass I might be able to see a little more clearly. Every reporter puts their own slant on their story, sometimes it is motivated by an agenda, anyone that doesn’t believe that should immediately go get a lawyer and start trying to get their money back for their purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge.

I personally dislike the politically correctness of the western world and think we would be more productive and honest if we didn’t have to waste so much time planning what we are going to say. I think we often loose the message or intent by “pussyfooting” around the sensitive words. This is one reason I do like the internet, it allows us to speak more freely.
:2cents:

[ajaxfetish]

I'm certainly not a fan of political correctness limitations. It severely hampers our ability to communicate. I think the foundation is in our litigious society where it is swiftly becoming an almost constitutional right 'not to be offended.' The problem is that offence is so subjective. One black person may prefer the term African American. Another may say, "My family's been in America longer than yours. I'm not African. I'm black." There are so many potential ways to offend that we get stuck trying to say anything at all.

Ajax

edit: I'm all for equality, acceptance, and the incorporation of minorities, and the value of diversity, but there has to be a better way than the language of political correctness. It is not only debilitating; it is also profoundly superficial.

[Reverend Joe]

becuase everything these days has to be sugar coated. It is an invention of yankees to be honest. No one can just tell them truth anymore or say how they really feel. IMO it dulls the human experince by allot.
:inquisitive: Southerners were hiding some of the most insulting, poisonous stuff imaginable with "southern charm" long before any Yankee newspapers sugarcoated anything. In fact, Yankee newspapers used to be brutally blunt. One New York paper referred to the London police force as being "probably one of the stupidest police forces" because they were unable to catch Jack the freakin' ripper.

[AntiochusIII]

Among the various shouts and cries and wails for more "honesty", I wonder: What is the purpose of inflammatory language beyond the inflaming of public opinion and the proliferation of sensationalism?

The noted quote in which DA kindly posted displays this. The connotation is clear and undeniable: Liberals = murderers; go to hell. Precisely what would such a wording serve except to further the demagoguery and partisanship?

Notice, however, that this post does not refer to my own stance.