Heh. So almost every news story covering the March for Life labeled them 'anti-abortion activists.' I didn't hear any broadcast name it 'the March for Life'. All made sure to say either 'anti-abortion' or 'anti-abortion rights.' You know, not pro-life.
And yet how often does the media repeat the pro-abortion labels of 'pro-choice' or 'reproductive rights' when dealing with that side of the issue?
I'm sorry, but you have a far greater chance of convincing me that the world is flat, than convincing me the press is unbiased. My ability to deny reality only goes so far.
The place the name game really clicked for me was when President Trump banned travel from several unstable nations with high levels of terrorist activity. This was usually called "A Travel Ban on Several Muslim Majority Countries" or simply a "Muslim Travel Ban." Even "conservative" news outlets used this terminology.
ReplyDeletePeople often defend this behavior by saying it is technically accurate, just like it is technically accurate to call Pro-Life activists "Anti-Abortion" or even "Anti-Abortion Rights" (since they definitely don't support the idea of "abortion rights.") But note that, concerning the travel ban:
-The title did not refer to Muslims, nor did any part of text.
-The title of the act ("Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States") and the talk of the President about it consistently talked about the problem of terrorists, not Muslims.
-All the countries where travel was banned did have problems with terrorists.
-There were many prominent Muslim nations not affected by the travel ban.
So all in all calling it something like a "Ban on travel from several unstable nations with high levels of terrorist activity" or simply a "Anti-terrorist Defense Act" would be as least as accurate as "Ban on Travel from Several Muslim-Majority Countries." But no one did this, everyone used the anti-Muslim frame, even news outlets that theoretically supported the executive order.
After that point I started paying more attention to the specific phrases used by news reports, especially when they were not using an official title or name. They are almost always the same across all outlets and always are the terms which are most convenient for a certain agenda.
That's absolutely true. It isn't hard to see the bias in the press's reporting. As I said, it takes any leftwing talking point and repeats them, and takes any leftwing talking point about non-leftists, and repeats those, too. It's just like when the press applies the word 'controversial' to something. You can bet your bottom dollar there is a 99% chance that the 'controversial something is a non-leftwing something.
DeleteRush used to play what he called "montages" of MSM references to this or that, uniformly critical of Trump or something he did or said, with every outlet's talking heads using the same terminology, just as Rudolph described. Since I never see or listen to any of those sources, it was very educational. And I don't believe in coincidences.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Alinsky who said, if you control the language, you control the debate? It surely would behoove the political Right to learn that lesson.
I remember those montages. It was well before Trump. And it showed how often almost all major media outlets would not only repeat the same talking points, but they were talking points that were practically lifted out of the DNC press releases. Today the press doesn't even try to hide it. Hence the constant reporting about 'Voting Rights Legislation'. That is the DNC version of what they are doing. Voting Rules Modifications would be more neutral. But the press, once again, simply repeats the DNC version of the news.
Delete