Biased terminology on KTRH

[Mark Roberts]

I've been in Houston and have, from time to time, listened to KTRH.

The talk programming is bad enough. But the newscasts can be as bad. The lead story on the 9 am newscast two days ago started out , "A horde of illegals...." Talk about loaded language; not the kind of thing you'd expect in the Associated Press stylebook, that's for sure. Today, the term "illegals" was used multiple times in another newscast. Not "illegal immigrants", which has a somewhat negative connotation, but "illegals", which is dehumanizing. Since the term is used repeatedly, I'm assuming that reporters and anchors are ordered to use that term, despite its deserved negative reputation.

I think even the News Director From Hell that I worked under in 1986 wouldn't have accepted that. He was conservation but also had some sense of journalistic standards. In the 38 years since, that seems to have gone out the window at KTRH.

It makes KOA - about which I've often complained - seem reasonable. At least KOA newscasts generally have avoided such loaded and biased terms. Not so with KTRH.

This is not a political post. This is a post about the consistent and deliberate choice to use a loaded term to describe a controversial situation.

Fortunately, Houston Public Media's KUHF offers a reasonable alternative, and seems to be firmly grounded in the coverage of local issues.

 

[TheBigA]

The talk programming is bad enough. But the newscasts can be as bad. The lead story on the 9 am newscast two days ago started out , "A horde of illegals...." Talk about loaded language; not the kind of thing you'd expect in the Associated Press stylebook,

What we've heard is the talk show audience wants its newscasts to fit with the rest of the programming. Like keeping the music consistent through the day. Same with the news. Some of these talk stations tried to run CBS News, and the listeners complained about the liberal news. For that reason, some don't run national news at all.

 

[Mark Roberts]

What we've heard is the talk show audience wants its newscasts to fit with the rest of the programming.

Then it's not news. Then it's propaganda.

 

[TheBigA]

Then it's not news. Then it's propaganda.

Depends on your point of view. It's only propaganda if you don't like it.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Depends on your point of view. It's only propaganda if you don't like it.

Nonsense.

There are far less loaded terms available and any respectable journalist - including newscasters - would be using them.

 

[TheBigA]

There are far less loaded terms available and any respectable journalist - including newscasters - would be using them.

There's someone on this board who used to work at CKLW. They liked to use very ''overt'' language.

Not every journalist is respectable. There is no bar association or AMA that sets standards on them.

 

[davideduardo]

The talk programming is bad enough. But the newscasts can be as bad. The lead story on the 9 am newscast two days ago started out , "A horde of illegals...." Talk about loaded language; not the kind of thing you'd expect in the Associated Press stylebook, that's for sure. Today, the term "illegals" was used multiple times in another newscast. Not "illegal immigrants", which has a somewhat negative connotation, but "illegals", which is dehumanizing. Since the term is used repeatedly, I'm assuming that reporters and anchors are ordered to use that term, despite its deserved negative reputation.

Would you like to know how Hispanics who are here legally, due either to their immigration and naturalization status or birth, refer to such people: "ilegales". "Illegals". Not "illegal aliens", not "illegal immigrants". Just "illegals" in a term that literally translates with 100% of the meaning between Spanish and English.

I think even the News Director From Hell that I worked under in 1986 wouldn't have accepted that. He was conservation but also had some sense of journalistic standards. In the 38 years since, that seems to have gone out the window at KTRH.

I just asked, via texting, my family members and a bunch of friends and all agreed. For example, those in Puerto Rico, overwhelmed with illegal Dominican immigrants despite near 20% unemployment rates, they are "Dominicanos ilegales"; "illegal Dominicans".

This is not a political post. This is a post about the consistent and deliberate choice to use a loaded term to describe a controversial situation.

Words change meaning. Take the term "gay" today vs. 1960. Because there are so many millions of illegal immigrants, the entire nation is suffering. Venezuela has emptied its prisons and told the criminals to flee to the U.S. Crime syndicates from Chile are sending home invasion teams to the U.S. And so on...

Almost all are brought to the U.S. by the organized human smuggling operations of the Mexican drug cartels, who conveniently masque their smuggling of drugs and weapons with the throngs of migrants.

 

[TheBigA]

Would you like to know how Hispanics who are here legally, due either to their immigration and naturalization status or birth, refer to such people: "ilegales".

Of course they do. They got theirs, and they resent the newbies. We see it in a lot of societies.

Almost all are brought to the U.S. by the organized human smuggling operations of the Mexican drug cartels, who conveniently masque their smuggling of drugs and weapons with the throngs of migrants.

That's not true at all. The smugglers can fly their drugs right over the boarder. They don't need humans. At the same time, they buy their guns in the US because of the lax gun sales laws.

With that sentence, you're taking this thread into politics and not the media coverage.

 

[davideduardo]

Of course they do. They got theirs, and they resent the newbies. We see it in a lot of societies.

And they rightfully are resentful. It took them years to get entry permits or visas, and then they had to be residents for more years before being able to take an exam and become citizens.

That's not true at all. The smugglers can fly their drugs right over the boarder. They don't need humans.

But most of the drugs come by foot or ATVs across the border on land. Much of the drug shipping is done using the immigrants as mules.

Two decades ago, my news director at KTNQ became an "illegal" to cross the border near Mexicali. On his first attempt, he was told he had to bring a "package" with him. He refused and was left behind. The second time, they only used women to carry those packages so he came across and reported on the process afterwards.

With that sentence, you're taking this thread into politics and not the media coverage.

Actually, the media has propagated that idea of "most drugs come by air" and "most illegal immigrants come with tourist visas" to make the border situation seem less acute. Neither of those concepts is true, but it makes the border situation less focused.

Again, having polled informally family and friends, we believe that this is definitely a media issue where the enormity of the border problem is being minimized by obfuscation.

 

[TheBigA]

And they rightfully are resentful. It took them years to get entry permits or visas, and then they had to be residents for more years before being able to take an exam and become citizens.

Everyone starts somewhere. My grandfather joined the Army to become a citizen. That's how he jumped to the front of the line. He took care of his family, and screw everyone else.

But most of the drugs come by foot or ATVs across the border on land. Much of the drug shipping is done using the immigrants as mules.

The smugglers are rich. They don't need mules. They've got lots of American dollars.

Actually, the media has propagated that idea of "most drugs come by air" and "most illegal immigrants come with tourist visas" to make the border situation seem less acute.

Depends on the media. That's what Mark & I are talking about. The media propagates the idea that the Jan 6 rioters were tourists walking through the Capitol. That's a lie. The Capitol was closed that day. At the least, they were trespassing. But some media says they're hostages. The media propagates the idea that immigrants are criminals and rapists. They're squatting in suburban neighborhoods. That's what some media reports. So it depends who you want to beleve.

 

[davideduardo]

Everyone starts somewhere.

Remember, immigration laws have changed a lot from when it is likely your Grandfather came to the U.S. Except for the prohibition of "Chinese" (meaning "Asians") passed in the late 1800's, very little regulation was put on immigration until well into the Twentieth Century. While some laws and regulations were placed in effect in the 1920's, the Great Depression and WW II postponed any real push of immigration until the boom post-war years of the 50's. And since then, there were several added restrictions put in place.

Just like the anti-Asian legislation of nearly 150 years ago, laws and regulations tend to be put into effect when broad swaths of the electorate think that their own incomes, prosperity and tax money are being jeopardized by excessive immigration.

If you are a subscriber to Academia.edu - Share research you can see how many thousands of dissertations and papers have been written on this subject. There is a prevalent view that immigration becomes a political topic when it threatens the general population. As far as radio is concerned, whether centrist, left or right, immigration becomes a very hot topic and will be treated by those of each of the different perspectives with different terms and conclusions.

My grandfather joined the Army to become a citizen. That's how he jumped to the front of the line. He took care of his family, and screw everyone else.

Much of my family is first generation. That is, they were born in Mexico. They went for the consular interview, even if they were children, in the consulate nearest to their home town. They were evaluated, and if they "passed" they were told, "allow me to be the first to welcome you to the United States of America". Then they had to pay thousands to lawyers in the U.S. to get permanent residency and work for years to reach eligibility for citizenship.

The smugglers are rich. They don't need mules. They've got lots of American dollars.

But the most effective transport methods are mules as well as ATVs in unpatrolled areas. We interviewed one smuggler some years back and they said "all that talk about planes and submarines is nonsense. Humans are low cost and expendable and we can send thousands of low risk packages that way and never lose a large shipment."

The media propagates the idea that immigrants are criminals and rapists. They're squatting in suburban neighborhoods. That's what some media reports. So it depends who you want to beleve.

Several of the nations, including Nicaragua and Venezuela, are sending convicted criminals on their way northward on land. As mentioned, the Chilean "mafia" sends gangs to the U.S. Since we don't verify even identity on those border crossers we apprehend, we can't find out (even if it were possible) the backgrounds of most of them.

In the case of several family members I just texted with, they had to present everything from birth certificates to school records, certifications by the police of no arrest history, etc.

So what we have among white Caucasians in certain parts of the nation is a high percentage who call those without papers "undocumented aliens" or "undocumented immigrants" and the rest continue to consider people who crossed the border with no paperwork to be "illegal". The lines often mirror political party lines, and so stations that are centrist or liberal will use one set of terms and those to the right will use "illegals".

 

[TheBigA]

The lines often mirror political party lines, and so stations that are centrist or liberal will use one set of terms and those to the right will use "illegals".

That's what I said in post #2. KTRH isn't trying to be WBZ or WINS. It's trying to stay afloat. So they know who their audience is.

 

[davideduardo]

That's what I said in post #2. KTRH isn't trying to be WBZ or WINS. It's trying to stay afloat. So they know who their audience is.

Hahaha. On that wee can agree.

 

[Rusty Muck]

What we've heard is the talk show audience wants its newscasts to fit with the rest of the programming. Like keeping the music consistent through the day. Same with the news. Some of these talk stations tried to run CBS News, and the listeners complained about the liberal news. For that reason, some don't run national news at all.

So why even run newscasts to begin with? Feels like it’d be more economical to have the talk show host (or a show producer lackey) just do it. Or dispense with news entirely.

 

[Mediafrog+]

That's what I said in post #2. KTRH isn't trying to be WBZ or WINS. It's trying to stay afloat. So they know who their audience is.

KTRH hasn’t been relevant as a ”news” station at any point during the 21st century. It’s heyday was many decades ago under different ownership.

 

[TheBigA]

So why even run newscasts to begin with? Feels like it’d be more economical to have the talk show host (or a show producer lackey) just do it. Or dispense with news entirely.

It gives the impression of credibility. Plus they're sponsored. Advertisers don't want their spots in controversial talk programming. So you schedule them during the newscast, that's supposedly not controversial. Except it basically promotes the same agenda.

 

[Mark Roberts]

KTRH hasn’t been relevant as a ”news” station at any point during the 21st century. It’s heyday was many decades ago under different ownership.

Very true.

 

[Mark Roberts]

I'm not going to discuss my own views on immigration here because that's not what my post was about. The post was about the use of loaded, biased language in what ostensibly were newscasts. Anything otherwise is a form of deflection and evasion of a discussion of such usage.

I find it ironic, to put it mildly, that those who are quick to growl about threads turning political have engaged in exactly that behavior here. Not that credibility seems to matter to those of you who did that, either in that or the original topic that I started on the use of biased terms.

##

 

[BamaTX]

The post was about the use of loaded, biased language in what ostensibly were newscasts. Anything otherwise is a form of deflection and evasion of a discussion of such usage.

On the other end of the spectrum, some people view the policing of language as a biased and charged practice used to control social views and/or silence political opposition. "Illegal" is an informal way of referring to people who are residing in the US illegally. As others have pointed out, even illegal immigrants will call themselves "ilegal". It seems the movement to change the wording comes from a certain segment of the population that isn't even Hispanic (kind of like when white academics tried to colonialize the Spanish language with "LatinX")

From my point of view, it seems that the attempt to phase out "illegal immigrant" in favor of softer terminology (such as "undocumented person") is an attempt by certain political factions with grandiose goals. Softening the stigma will certainly be helpful down the road for anyone trying to pass some form of amnesty program. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm simply pointing out what the goal of policing this grammar looks like from my window.

I find it ironic, to put it mildly, that those who are quick to growl about threads turning political have engaged in exactly that behavior here. Not that credibility seems to matter to those of you who did that, either in that or the original topic that I started on the use of biased terms.

##

No one has openly stated if they're for or against illegal immigration. But I do think that "language" is an important topic to discuss in broadcasting since it affects those who have to speak over the air. It can certainly have an effect on your listeners and advertisers.

I think for the most part, the majority of people find the outrage over "illegal" as insignificant and silly as the outrage over "master bedroom", "grandfathered", "blacklist/whitelist" or even "Latino". Hell, even the far-left manufactured word "trigger warning" is now considered problematic in some academic circles. It is true that some words needed to be retired because of their undeniable links to racism and hate. But modern day political correctness has gone beyond that and is now seen as a biased practice.

Is there a middle ground? Not sure. But broadcasters certainly have to thread lightly in the language they use over the air.

 

[TheBigA]

From my point of view, it seems that the attempt to phase out "illegal immigrant" in favor of softer terminology (such as "undocumented person") is an attempt by certain political factions with grandiose goals.

It's a matter of what language you're comfortable with. We know that for some people, certain negative stereotypes are just fine. Using the 'n' word is common among some groups. There was a time when it was impolite to tell Polish jokes or comment on the drinking habits of the Irish. I guess that's not the case anymore. What we're talking about here is journalism, where the intent should be to simply tell the story without getting into prejudging an entire group of people.

I do think that "language" is an important topic to discuss in broadcasting since it affects those who have to speak over the air. It can certainly have an effect on your listeners and advertisers.

I've already said that listeners to talk radio stations have objected to having TOTH news from NBC or CBS. iHeart made a corporate deal with NBC News Radio, only to find that the brand was banned at their AM talk stations. They sometimes use actuality, but I'm not aware that any of their stations use NBC TOTH news. People have their beliefs, and no use of language by a radio newscaster will change their opinion or belief, no matter what it is. I think we all know that by now. The results of the Dominion lawsuit demonstrated who has the power over what is said on the air: The audience.