I think the term "immigrant" over "alien" is fine, since most people think of "alien" as from another world. "Illegal" is the part that I stick with, because there's no doubt about that word, and it's accurate.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
That is not only a good point, it's an illustration of how in the post-Star Trek world, an alien is a Klingon or something else extraterrestrial. And it shows how language changes over time and we have to adapt to new meanings and nuances.
A half-century ago, someone who was "gay" was simply happy. The new meaning has so overpowered the old definition that it has made the prior usage impossible.
It sounds like you're making judgments of bias based on the source, and not the actual reporting.
One of the bias tests I've seen done at journalism schools is to hear or see a story without knowing the source. Because you actually insert your own bias once you know the source.
J
Jul
Guest
http://1210amblog.wordpress.com/ feel free to post replies to my posts on my blog.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You're the one who raised the issue of it being from the GOPUSA webpage. Bias does include a measure of authorship. For example (and I include an example with great reluctance, considering the likelihood the example will be nitpicked to death), were an article to include a particular epithet referring to a group of people as part of the authored content of the article, that would be one thing. On the other hand, if the same epithet were included as a direct quote from someone who was part of the story being covered, that would be a different thing.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and actually give a concrete example.
If an article about the Roman Catholic Church referred to the Catholics as "the Papists", that's anti-Catholic bias. On the other hand, if the article said, "So-and-so referred to the Bishop as a 'Papist'", that use of the term would not be an example of the author of the article demonstrating anti-Catholic bias. Can you grasps that difference?
This example may be a lame choice when trying to demonstrate that use of certain words are something of a "dog-whistle" proving a given broadcaster has bias.
According to the dictionary (which may be a bit behind the times?) you are correct in your assumption about the use of the word "Papist".
For the last 15 years I have been a participant, down in the trenches, "mano a mano" in a gut-wrenching struggle over the position and direction of one of the nation's well known religious groups. (Not Catholic.) I not only hang out in forums about broadcasting... I also participate in forums and attend public events where well known participants in today's world of theology 'trot out their dog and pony show'.
When I was a teenager in Texas and Arkansas, when the Fundamentalists (***) used the word Papist, it was intended in that era as a harsh, derogatory term.
Today there is a whole new language and set of standards in the discussion of religious issues. Words that were once not used in public are freely used today which means you can't determine who are the biased theologians, and who are the bridge-building, peace-making theologians based on the use of one word or two. Trying to document that NPR or some other media is obviously biased in their coverage because they understand what is acceptable modern-day use of words, which may have been pejorative a couple of decades ago. I don't see 'Papist' as a harsh word in today's conversations to the extent that it was 30 to 50 years ago.
Fundamentalists (***) 20 and 30 years ago, churches throughout the Midwest in particular put signs out front where 'fundamentalist' was the prominent leading word in describing themselves... as in "Fundamental, Premillennial, Independent". Today, in light of the world-wide usage of the word FUNDAMENTALIST, those same folks have changed their vocabulary and run from the "F" word.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
It's the first one I thought was non-controversial enough to not be a distraction that came to mind as an example of the difference between including it in the text of an article and including it as a quote from someone. I frankly don't give a damn about the illustration itself, only the principle that it was intended to illustrate. I have no intention of saying anything more about the illustration, though I stand behind the principle that it was intended to illustrate.
Language has always been a "fluid" subject. It seldom appears to be changing to the people using language. In our nation there are many of us alive who remember attending schools that led us to believe that our culture and our language was "cast in concrete". They taught us about history and how we had developed a new (fixed?) civilization that is somewhat perfected.... and no longer in need of fixes and repairs.
The American political scene today remains in something of a constant uproar because various interest groups want to take the words of our historic founding documents and interpret them in some special way. Then we want to write new current laws, and once they are in place, we spend a couple of generations running to the Supreme Court in a "Mama, make him stop it!" mentality.
I jumped into this conversation because I thought it was a thread where people were had an interest in exploring how we deal with what media says, and what words media chooses to use, and do those words give us clarity.... or do those words just "muddy up the water".
Years from now when people are strolling through a cemetery down in the Ozarks and they come across my tombstone, they may find that my children chose to have the following engraved: "Here lies a Word Mechanic" and then the conversation will turn to NPR and the resulting conversation will boil down to: "No other institution or university has ever helped us clarify and shape our language on the scale that NPR has."
The American political scene today remains in something of a constant uproar because various interest groups want to take the words of our historic founding documents and interpret them in some special way. Then we want to write new current laws, and once they are in place, we spend a couple of generations running to the Supreme Court in a "Mama, make him stop it!" mentality.
I jumped into this conversation because I thought it was a thread where people were had an interest in exploring how we deal with what media says, and what words media chooses to use, and do those words give us clarity.... or do those words just "muddy up the water".
Years from now when people are strolling through a cemetery down in the Ozarks and they come across my tombstone, they may find that my children chose to have the following engraved: "Here lies a Word Mechanic" and then the conversation will turn to NPR and the resulting conversation will boil down to: "No other institution or university has ever helped us clarify and shape our language on the scale that NPR has."
Not only that, but the official term "homosexual" is now being portrayed as offensive by the same sorts of people who want to use the word "undocumented" instead of "illegal". These guys understand that shifting the language DOES change opinions and they're not afraid of being bullies about it.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. At one time, there were thoughts about changing the name of the NAACP, because the last two letters were offensive. The change was never made.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
There it is. That's the whole truth of the matter. What you said bears repeating, "shifting the language DOES change opinions". Engaging in a deliberate shift of the usage of words is an act of persuasion. Deliberate acts of persuasion, even when done in a subtle fashion, are acts of bias.
All of the arguments being put forth about certain words having acquired new connotations support the contention that those who use the newer words in the context of their new connotations are biased in favor of furthering the changes those new connotations support. The only real issue is whether a particular segment of broadcast radio is lagging behind the curve and reflecting the changes or is leading the curve and helping to foment the change. I submit that as long as the change is not yet universal, and that the words with the new connotations are more often used by those who seek even more changes in the situations that those words describe, that is evidence of bias in favor of the faction that is seeking to change the social paradigm in a particular fashion.
The fact that the faction that public radio displays bias towards includes the majority of supporters of public radio doesn't make their bias any less so, though it does indicate that as operators of a business, the people showing the bias know what they're doing.
But once again, the fact is that they don't. Not in terms of corporate support. Not in terms of government support. Not really in terms of listener support. As the poll posted earlier in this thread shows, the political interests of its listeners are very broad. If it WAS obviously biased, I doubt as many conservatives or moderates would listen. Why would they?
You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, and it won't be any more true.
I don't have to...the facts speak for themselves. You just refuse to accept them.
Can you show me that conservatives and moderates don't listen?
So explain to me how listening to NPR has changed your opinions.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/
Conservatives don't listen. The "moderates" listen/watch/read to pretty much everything equally. NPR's demo is pretty much the flip of Fox News.
So what's your next straw man?
Except they really don't. 39% of moderates listen to NPR. That number is bigger than the 36% of the liberals who listen. And it's among the largest groups for all media. Certainly larger than the percentage of moderates who choose conservative media.
So using your numbers, the majority of NPR listeners are neither liberal nor conservative, but moderate. Using your numbers, even MSNBC looks fairly balanced. Certainly more balanced than Rush, O'Reilly, or Fox. If we go back to the previous Forbes poll you posted, it was fairly similar. So to say NPR is biased in order to appeal to a liberal audience ignores the 60% of their audience that ISN'T liberal.
To be honest, I didn't listen to NPR for a very long time, mainly because I assumed (I know, I know), that is was some wimpy liberal version of talkradio.
However, in recent years, talkradio has become so absolutely toxic, stupid and transparently one-sided, that I started listening to NPR.
I have to say, I have been very impressed with how good a job they do of delivering information in a very non-inflamatory and well-sourced way. It's newstalk radio for grownups. Anybody who thinks it's some liberal media utopia has never heard it.
There was a broadcast on NPR this month that fits in with this conversation quite well. "If we already have an opinion about something, presenting proof we are wrong may make us cling to our opinion ever more strongly."
Take a listen: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/04/285580969/when-it-comes-to-vaccines-science-can-run-into-a-brick-wall
It's worth a listen just to try to learn to pronounce the name: Shankar Vedantam
Take a listen: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/04/285580969/when-it-comes-to-vaccines-science-can-run-into-a-brick-wall
It's worth a listen just to try to learn to pronounce the name: Shankar Vedantam
- Status