The Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) has operated Freepress.org since 2000 and ColumbusFreepress.com was started initially as a separate project to highlight the print newspaper and local content.
ColumbusFreepress.com has been operating as a project of the CICJ for many years and so the sites are now being merged so all content on ColumbusFreepress.com now lives on Freepress.org
The Columbus Freepress is a non-profit funded by donations we need your support to help keep local journalism that isn't afraid to speak truth to power alive.
How words are used can be crucial to understanding and
misunderstanding the world around us. The media lexicon is saturated with
certain buzz phrases. They're popular -- but what do they mean?
"The use of words is to express ideas," James Madison wrote.
"Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be
distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly
and exclusively appropriate to them." More than two centuries later,
surveying the wreckage of public language in political spheres, you might
be tempted to murmur: "Dream on, Jim."
With 2002 nearing its end in the midst of great international
tension,
here's a sampling of some top U.S. media jargon:
* "Pre-emptive"
This adjective represents a kind of inversion of the Golden Rule: "Do
violence onto others just in case they might otherwise do violence onto
you." Brandished by Uncle Sam, we're led to believe that's a noble
concept.
* "Weapons of mass destruction"
They're bad unless they're good. Globally, the U.S. government leads
the way with thousands of unfathomably apocalyptic nuclear weapons. (Cue
the media cheers.) Regionally, in the Middle East, only Israel has a
nuclear arsenal -- estimated at 200 atomic warheads -- currently under the
control of Ariel Sharon, who has proven to be lethally out of control on a
number of occasions. (Cue the media shrugs.) Meanwhile, the possibility
that Saddam Hussein might someday develop any such weapons is deemed to be
sufficient reason to launch a war. (Cue the Pentagon missiles.)
* "International community"
Honorary members include any and all nations that are allied with
Washington or accede to its policies. Other governments are evil rogue
states.
* "International law"
This is the political equivalent of Play Dough, to be shaped, twisted
and kneaded as needed. No concept is too outlandish, no rationalization
too
Orwellian when a powerful government combines with pliant news media. Few
members of the national press corps are willing to question the basics
when
the man in the Oval Office issues the latest pronouncement about
international behavior. It's a cinch that fierce condemnation would
descend
on any contrary power that chooses to do as we do and not as we say.
* "Terrorism"
The hands-down winner of the rhetorical sweepstakes for 2002, this
word aptly condemns as reprehensible the killing of civilians, but the
word
is applied quite selectively rather than evenhandedly. When the day comes
that news outlets accord the life of a Palestinian child the same
reverence
as the life of an Israeli child, we'll know that media coverage has moved
beyond craven mediaspeak to a single standard of human rights.
Although you wouldn't know it from U.S. media coverage, 80 percent of
the Palestinians killed in recent months by the Israeli Defense Force
during curfew enforcement were children, according to an October report
from the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. Twelve people under the age
of 16 had been killed, with dozens more wounded by Israeli gunfire in
occupied areas, during a period of four months. "None of those killed
endangered the lives of soldiers," B'Tselem said.
Closer to home, in less dramatic ways, the concept of "human rights"
melts away when convenient. Even an assiduous reader of the U.S. press
would be surprised to run across some key provisions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations more than 50
years ago and theoretically in force today. For instance, the document
declares without equivocation that "everyone has the right to work, to
free
choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to
protection against unemployment."
Perhaps the Universal Declaration passage least likely to succeed
with
U.S. news media appears in Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and
of
his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and the
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
Words expressing those kinds of ideas are scarce in our media
lexicon.
