;^)
I think a lot of that traditional wisdom is changing and in some cases taken
out of context. I was told, as well, to keep things simple with short
sentences and simple words - however not because people were generally
stupid but rather because newspapers were generally read in a multitasking
environment. People ate breakfast, rode the train, talked to their spouses
and so forth. Short, simple sentences (along with narrow column sizes)
allowed people to pick things up easier when they were doing two things at
once.
And it helped stupid people. ;^)
But my problem is not about using clear language: it's about the desire to
forcibly use only term to describe a large array of people and activities.
I also commiserate with the international news outlets who feel they must
tell a story without "taking sides".
But I think that a lot of other things enter into this:
+) Actions speak louder than words. People (especially less educated
people) tend to skip over the nouns and modifiers and hit the verbs. You
could say "Armed frazerbads attacked a school and killed 50 elementary
children" - the noun just doesn't matter. "frazerbads" are now bad: they
murdered children. There's a reason that so many American's are convinced
that the government told them Saddam was involved in 9/11 - and this, in
large part, is it.
+) In general I think there are enough choices today where people gravitate
to the media outlet that suits their intellect. There's a reason that
newspaper sales are at an all-time low. Simply put fewer stupid are reading
newspapers than ever before.
+) Many of the outlets listed in the Sun article cater expressly to
"thinkers" as well, should they also "dumb down" their coverage? The Times
is a major newspaper, yes, but it is generally considered a "more
intelligent" paper than, say, the Daily News (here in Boston the same
feelings exist about the Globe and the Herald). But not all of the sources
listed in the Sun article need (or want) to cater to the lowest common
denominator.
+) If the "write at a fourth grade level" were the target then "terrorist"
is hardly the word to use (I think). "Terror" is an advanced idea, really -
a conceptualization. "Terrorist" indicates a philosophical stance and a
desired effect - it's removed from the "action". A terrorist uses a bomb
to kill which installs fear. "Fear" in that case is two steps removed from
the label (after the bombing and the killing). Clear, direct nouns
("attacker", "killer", "bomber", etc.) would seem to be better if you simply
wanted to get the idea across at the level of a child.
+) If we're worried about comprehension it would seem that the tack taken by
most authors is the correct one: use several terms and hope that one "sinks
in". The times article I looked at used six terms to identify the group.
If one didn't work, then another should.
I really do agree with everything you've said (and even with most everything
Michael said). My problem is not with using the word "terrorist" - it's a
perfectly applicable word that works well in these contexts. My problem is
with the idea that it's the ONLY word possible. Or, even most specifically,
that ANY single label is that important.
I already see the word "terrorist" getting castrated from over-use in the
US. It's thrown around way too often and is well on its way to losing its
meaning and power. Even clear the root word "terror" is fast losing its
meaning. There are meaningless "terror alerts" that create more comic
fodder than security and terrorist activities" that include everything from
bombing to encrypting your personal email.
Jim Davis
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:17 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: They're Terrorists - Not Activists
You are absolutely right, Jim, the content of the story IS very
important......to thinkers. Here's the problem, your very educated break
down of a news story is the exception, not the rule.
I remember learning in my journalism classes that a reporter working for a
generic city newspaper (Kansas City Star for example), is told to write at a
4th grade level. Keep your sentences short, words simple, etc.
Today's journalists take much greater liberties with their sentence
structures and the words they use. The intelligent reader can still pick out
the "news content" from the ever increasing amount of fluff surrounding it,
but your average reader simply cannot. Journalists know this, and have
become rather adept at using subtle synonyms and illicit slights of hand to
gently nudge their readers in a particular direction.
A simple but apt example: the word "terrorist" has the word "terror" in it.
Even simpletons know what terror is. "Militant" requires they find out what
they are being militant ABOUT, if the reader even knows or cares.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
