July 09, 2004
Politics as Entertainment
We all know that presidential campaigns are highly scripted and tightly staged, but why don't journalists cover this aspect? Surely they understand how each scene is set up to manipulate public opinion; almost everyone does. Still, they cover these events in their typical straight-forward and shallow way. Is it because journalists lack the training necessary to examine the "complex rhetorical construction" of a campaign? Or are they simply uninterested in piercing this or any other veil? Maybe they just enjoy a good story too much.
There is a great column by linguist George Lakoff about the investment the Republican Party has made over the past decade to advance its partisan language. A great read, if you can find it.
Acline's assertion that "language training for journalists begins, and usually ends, with basic grammar and grounding in the AP Stylebook" is quite untrue, however. Most journalists don't get their first AP Stylebook until college. And that's assuming they major in journalism. Most journalists are well-schooled in the finer points of language and grammar before they ever crack open the APS.
The problem is that journalism is such a high-pressure industry that language considerations are overshadowed those of grammar and accuracy. No one is ever going to get fired for using silly words like "liberal" or "terror".
The problem is that journalism is such a high-pressure industry that language considerations are overshadowed those of grammar and accuracy. No one is ever going to get fired for using silly words like "liberal" or "terror".
Yeah, that's one of the biggest problems I have with the media. They're so busy trying to make money and hit their deadlines that any substantial analysis, much less an critical view of the language they use, gets largely ignored. As a result, ignorance continues to flourish.