|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jul 12, 2013 11:01:01 GMT
>"Animal rights activists are complicit in the corruption of language when they take words with specific human emotional connotations and apply them to animals"<
I think this topic triggered by VV in the July thread (about what I call weasel words) is very interesting and worth a thread on its own. It is relevant to something about which I have often pondered. It goes much wider than its use by animal rights activists and is used by all campaigning groups and by others one might not so easily notice.
Have you noticed that people like Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi always operate from a "compound" whereas David Cameron, Barack Obama and the leaders of other democracies never do, notwithstanding that the areas around their offices are just as much off limits to the general public.
And totalitarian governments are usually referred to as "régimes" whereas democratic governments are more likely to be termed "administrations".
A publicly accessible criminal trial in Iran or Syria is a "show trial" even though almost all criminal trials in western democracies are also open to the public.
What is the difference between a whistle-bower and a traitor? And between grave robbers and many archaeologists? Is there a difference between a "junta" and a "coalition"?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Jul 12, 2013 12:30:22 GMT
... and as for the terrorist - I'm sorry, I mean peace activist and nobel prize winner - Nelson Mandela.
Yes it's very irritating to hear these value-laden words being used so glibly. If I could be bothered, I might listen to Al Jazeera rather than Western news broadcasters to see if the same tricks are played there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 12, 2013 12:36:12 GMT
... and as for the terrorist - I'm sorry, I mean peace activist and nobel prize winner - Nelson Mandela. Yes it's very irritating to hear these value-laden words being used so glibly. If I could be bothered, I might listen to Al Jazeera rather than Western news broadcasters to see if the same tricks are played there. I watch Al Jazeera occasionally and I find it to be far less biased - both in language and content - than any of the other news broadcasters available on my TV, but it's also pretty damned boring. Perhaps there's a connection there. |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 12, 2013 21:33:19 GMT
I have for the past few years used Al Jazeera as my main international-news source. It is far better produced and far less biased (as far as I can tell) than BBC and ABC. I shall keep a closer watch now on its language in regard to those value-laden terms (and similar).
The difference is in the values / agenda of the reporter / news organisation / government that's doing the reporting. It seems we live (or are expected to live) in a simple, polarised, binary world, but that's only for people who are simple or intellectually lazy. There are many shades of grey (and red, blue, green ... ) but "news" often fails to comment on the nuances.
|
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Jul 12, 2013 21:47:44 GMT
I don't know who to support in the conflict in Syria.
Clearly Assad is a baddie. So then the opposition must be the goodies, right? But then these include Al Kaida so they must be baddies too, right.
Oh but Mr Blair is in the region trying to resolve the conflict. So he must be a goodie, right? But isn't he the one who has blood on his hands ...
etc.
Yes, I think that is the purpose of news channels: to help us to reduce the complexity of the conflict to the question of who is the hero and who the anti-hero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 12, 2013 22:09:22 GMT
If you suspect that your favourite news channel's a little biased, try Fox News to help you put things in perspective. The few times I've tried to watch it I've developed an aching jaw from my mouth hanging open in disbelief at the ultra-right-wing quasi-fascist trash it vomits at me. It hates Obama so much I'm surprised it doesn't blame him for the crucifixion of Jesus ... or perhaps it does. I must assume it's owned by a complete and utter arsehole. Now who could that be, I wonder?
|
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Jul 13, 2013 6:23:00 GMT
If you suspect that your favourite news channel's a little biased, try Fox News to help you put things in perspective. The few times I've tried to watch it I've developed an aching jaw from my mouth hanging open in disbelief at the ultra-right-wing quasi-fascist trash it vomits at me. It hates Obama so much I'm surprised it doesn't blame him for the crucifixion of Jesus ... or perhaps it does. I must assume it's owned by a complete and utter arsehole. Now who could that be, I wonder? Yes, who is it for Fox's sake? |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 13, 2013 8:43:32 GMT
Faux News?  I've seen enough of it (perhaps in total a couple of hours' worth, on someone else's TV) to know I never want to see it again. It is chunderously awful! I can't tolerate any commercial broadcasting in any medium, but Faux takes the cake! The US is very welcome to keep Murdoch as a citizen! |
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Jul 29, 2013 10:03:31 GMT
And another thing - 'Hard working families.'
I picture 8-year-olds climbing chimneys for 14 hours per day to support the family and to avoid the ignominious label of scrounger.
Rider point: why did I want to spell it chimnies ? What's the rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 29, 2013 10:19:56 GMT
And another thing - 'Hard working families.' I picture 8-year-olds climbing chimneys for 14 hours per day to support the family and to avoid the ignominious label of scrounger. Rider point: why did I want to spell it chimnies ? What's the rule? If it ends in a vowel + y, add an s to make the (standard) plural. If it ends in a y with no preceding vowel, replace the y with ies to make the plural. Chimney/chimneys. Boy/boys. Try/tries. Fly/flies. Proper nouns are excluded from the ies rule, their plurals being "standard": Landrover Discovery/Landrover Discoverys. I've no doubt there are other exclusions: "Whys and wherefores" leaps unbidden to my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Jul 29, 2013 10:24:25 GMT
Rider point: why did I want to spell it chimnies ? What's the rule?[/quote]If it ends in a vowel + y, add an s to make the (standard) plural. If it ends in a y with no preceding vowel, replace the y with ies to make the plural. Chimney/chimneys. Boy/boys. Try/tries. Fly/flies. Proper nouns are excluded from the ies rule, their plurals being "standard": Landrover Discovery/Landrover Discoverys. I've no doubt there are other exclusions: "Whys and wherefores" leaps unbidden to my mind. [/quote] Thanks, Twoddle. My life is now complete!  |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 29, 2013 10:33:51 GMT
And another thing - 'Hard working families.' I picture 8-year-olds climbing chimneys for 14 hours per day to support the family and to avoid the ignominious label of scrounger. Rider point: why did I want to spell it chimnies ? What's the rule? The convention is that usually a word that ends in ~ey (e.g. money*, donkey, chimney) in its singular form simply takes a terminal s for plural rather than exchanging the y for ie (s). * Money can, however, take either plural form: moneys or monies. As for the over-use of family / families in promotions of all kinds: * I find the term family to be more exclusive than inclusive; this is particularly so when family is used on the election hustings -- it's always families the baits are cast to; and in the taxation system that advantages families while penalising "non-families". * I find some of the (mis)uses of family hilarious: there wasm for a long time, a big-brand toothpaste that came in Fresh Family Flavour! (And people question my dislike of all toothpaste flavourings!). |
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Jul 29, 2013 10:43:59 GMT
I've always been wary of family butchers.
In the old days you used to hear a lot about 'the housewife' as in, more choice [in such and such store] for the housewife.
Does that entity still exist?
Family and housewife are the ideal wholesome images for advertisers and politicians seeking to play on our sympathies.
Personally, I think more should be done for idle, feckless wastrels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 29, 2013 12:15:01 GMT
[...] Family and housewife are the ideal wholesome images for advertisers and politicians seeking to play on our sympathies. [...] Well, the moment they utter family (and especially family values – W(ever)TF they be!) they've lost my vote. Excuse me while I ... . Oh, never mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 29, 2013 21:05:16 GMT
>* Money can, however, take either plural form: moneys or monies.<
Well yes, but do they not also take different meanings?
Tone
|
|
