Hey, it's Erin. A few nights ago I was flicking channels and saw a few minutes of Nancy Grace. I don't know if anybody else saw this but the story at that particular time was of a child (I think a two year old boy) who had died from being left in a car in the heat for 8 hours. The caption at the bottom read something like mom leaves child to die in hot car. Now, certain words just jump out at you "leaves... to die" and from them you can draw only one conclusion: it was a purposeful action and the mother had essentially murdered her child.
I didn't get the whole story, so I can't know if it was purposeful or accidental, but the phrasing causes you to think one way. Like I said, maybe that's true, but what struck me at that particular point in time was that within five seconds, I had not only factual information, but a verdict, a conclusion as well. It reminded me of what Hayakawa said of words with built-in judgments, that they "communicate simultaneously a fact and a judgment on that fact" (p.48). Or in chapter 3, about slanting, he says that "even if explicit judgments are kept out of one's writingm implied judgments wil get in". So I'm wondering, is there true impartiality (everytime I think of impartiality I think of the movie "12 Angry Men" - about a jury because probably not many of you have seen it, but anyway impartiality is necessary when one is a member of the jury.)? I'm just interested to get everyone's thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hey Erin, it's Amy. I definitely thought that the media was portraying that it was purposeful action as well when I saw the headline in your paragraph. It kind of reminded me about the whole business with Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan and the DUI's. When everyone first heard that Richie was let off after just over an hour the media jumped on it and accused them of special treatment. Most of the US citizens aware of this news probably suspected the same thing and formed their judgments based on reputations and prior experiences linked to Lohan and Richie. Later a new story came out about how it wasn't special treatment and about how it was b/c of over-crowded jails. Everyone, media included, forms opinions within seconds and even after the proceeding article, once an opinion or judgment is formed it does stop all thought (like the author stated in the book) and many people are probably still convinced that it is preferencial treatment towards the famous.
We must recognize slanting and bias in journalism. Unfortunatly, journalists today often use words with the most affective connotations in their reporting because such words catch our attention. Headlines like "mother leaves child to die in car" stretch the truth a bit, but they sell papers. I watch Nancy Grace as well and while I value her commentary, I feel like she forces confrontations with her guests. She is an extremly intelligent woman, but she is also very opinionated.
This post makes a very interesting point about the media world. If you turn on any TV show, you can see how loaded words and affective connotations makes us think differently on a topic. Nancy Grace is no exception. I have seen her show before and she seems to make a mountain out of a molehill on every issue. We might never know if the mother's intentions were to "let her child die," but introducing the idea as one-sided surely isn't helping.
Often other shows, like "The Soup," make fun of Ms. Grace and her outlandish statements/arguments, but these are also biased. They present an idea that Grace is ALWAYS like that (which I'm sure isn't completely true...). I was flipping through the channels and came across a show called "Top Chef," where it was an elimination round of some sort and one of the judges kept on going on about eating "The worst dish ever." I have seen commercials for this show on other channels and it seems like every week there is a new "worst dish." Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, and all other types of media are known for stretching the truth, but it is important to recognize these biases and not fall for the media traps. Of course, this means disregarding words like "Always," "Never," "Intentionally," "Worst," "Worst," and the like.
Hey everyone, it's Erin again. I have to admitt that I never even considered the fact that those kind of titles grab attention (it grabbed mine, after all) and sell papers. Frankly that's a pretty sad point to miss and it's very true, not just for negative connotations and papers. Advertisements for myriad things use words and images with extremely positive connotations to make their product desirable and get it sold. Or the other way around. I remember a campaign commercial once (I don't know who the people were, but it made me laugh), when the person's opponent was shown with his cohorts playing cards in a jail and smoking and things like that. The campaign brought up negative points (like "so-and-so is under investigation, etc) in order to hurt the opponent and help the candidate.
I think that the whole concept of viewing something a certain way (awkward phrasing, I know - don't you hate when you can't find the right word so you have try a round-about way?) is what Sarah brought up a while ago. Everyone has his or her own personal views or opinions, influenced by past experiences, a "unique ear". That probably affects a great deal the way we hear or experience something.
Post a Comment