I am a moth to a flame when it comes to a post decrying poor use of language. So I was irresistibly drawn to John Zande’s post about an evangelical who was proclaiming the ‘correct’ use of language for abortion.
Not only did we have language, we have feminism too!
Ironically, the OP quoted by John, moans about ‘political correctness’ but then proceeds to assert his own definition of the correct language regarding abortion. In simple words, abortion is murder.
Regardless of anyone’s personal views about abortion, as John said, this language is inaccurate based on law, science, medicine.
Or to dumb it right down, a foetus is not a person, a child, a baby, a human being. Unless your religion tells you it is. And you don’t agree with a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.
There are times I wish men got pregnant. I really do. Not to mention having periods.
I looked at David’s ‘About’ page, and followed his linky about how he became a
fundy Christian and was intrigued with some journalism claims.
Dad was a journalist in the Air Force, who served in Public Affairs with the FAA after his military service.
I graduated high school, worked at the Sheriff’s office, and did courses at community college. My journalism instructor introduced me to broadcasting and got really interested in it, so I joined the Air Force and served in Armed Forces Radio & Television Service.
I asked about this on his post about correct and accurate language.
Did either of you gain any experience outside the armed forces or gain any national qualifications? I ask, because you are clearly aware of the power of words. But, had I ever used such grossly inaccurate and incorrect terminology in any of my jobs in government public relations or private sector journalism, then I would at least have got a carpeting and at worst, got the sack.
One of the paramount rules for journalism is NOT to let personal opinion influence one’s reporting, whether political, religious or whatever. Objectivity is our aim.
Your proposal for use of language here totally negates that and seeks to impose your religious perspective over and above the law and science. That is neither accurate or correct.
I wanted to address the journalism angle, first. My father served in Public Affairs in the US Air Force, as well as being a deputy public affairs officer for the FAA. He wrote under the rules of the “journalism code”. I took journalism in my sophomore year of undergrad. From the inside, it looks like a fair-minded way of discourse. I remember thinking that way.
OK. So neither of them were qualified journalists or worked outside the armed forces or related, (FAA), according to that.
Then we have:
From the outside, it operates like a bunch of people who have only 1-side of a story they are allowed to tell. The only competition is how much higher one liberal reporter can stack talking points when compared to the other. I am grateful that I don’t have to attempt journalism, because my faith and convictions would never allow me a moment’s success.
Whoa! Whoa! What part of objectivity did you miss? Admittedly current day journalism leaves a lot to be desired, but I’m talking about reporting factually about something and presenting those facts honestly without bias.
Nice piece of patronisation here:
It seems like you come from a liberal/secular worldview, so you may not know how the other half of the country thinks and speaks. I vividly remember thinking the right-wing Christians entire worldview was nuts. I know the liberal mindset, because I had it. You know my background well enough to know that I realize how to detect spin – I made my living in it.
Truth is, I am totally confused about how America thinks. All of it. Let alone one half. But I did know about how my country thought. From rich to poor. The good thing about growing up in the UK was that no one put labels like that on you. Because no one gives a shit about your religion.
But spin. No, you are now making your living in it David. Religion is nothing but spin. An amateur PR person in the armed forces is not a professional spin officer. I, on the other hand, worked as a government public relations officer. I did make a living in what came to be called spin.
Apparently I am easily influenced.
I believe you genuinely believe what you are saying, but I also believe your thinking has been infused by liberal spin.
I believe you genuinely believe what you are saying, but I also believe your thinking has been infused by religious spin.
Sadly spin has become a misused word, just like the words political correctness. When I started out in government PR, it was only just starting to bubble above the surface. Think, Bernard Ingham, all you old Brits.
But clever PR is about telling the truth without lying or misrepresentation. I cringed when I had to answer questions about Rechem and dioxins to the Sunday People. Every time there was a nuclear incident, and the odd radioactive flask went missing, I was the calm reassuring voice. When I was on call at night, it was down to me. Try dealing with the Herald of Free Enterprise capsizing (1987) and killing 193 people when all you have is a telephone landline to call people out of hours who might not answer. That’s not spin, or fluffy stories, that’s dealing with death and saying what the government is going to do about it.
And this, is why, I take exception to people deliberately misusing language. Did I try to paint my employer in the best light? Uh, yes. That was my job. Did I lie? No.
It seems some people can’t tell the difference between lies and damned lies.