How to speak Republican or Democratic
In recent weeks, major U.S. news organizations have started using the phrase “civil war” to describe the unpleasantness in Iraq, prompting a brawl between liberal and conservative commentators.
Speaking on the left, Eric Boehlert derides the press for only now calling the mayhem a civil war. Boehlert accuses various organizations, which include NBC News, the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Los Angeles Times, of accommodating President Bush by keeping the phrase out of their coverage for three-plus years. The administration abhors the phrase, preferring “sectarian violence.”
On the right, James S. Robbins insists that the Iraq war is bigger than civil—it’s an “international conflict with significant regional impact”—and accuses liberals and others of playing semantic games by pushing the civil-war label.
That some innocent-sounding phrases carry a political charge is hardly news, and yet who would have thought that scores and even hundreds of the little buggers exist? “What Drives Media Slant?,” a working paper on media bias by University of Chicago scholars Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, locates a slew of two- and three-word phrases that they say can be uniquely identified with either Republican or Democratic members of Congress.
It’s common knowledge that political consultants prescribe to their clients specific phrases to use when discussing hot topics. Republican consultant Frank Luntz, Gentzkow and Shapiro write, urged Republicans to refer to “personal accounts,” not “private accounts,” when talking about changes in Social Security. Similarly, Luntz suggested the phrase “tax relief” to repel the Democrats’ complaint about “tax breaks.”
A rose by any other name
Not surprised about who more uses the word “cut,” as it is the primary way that Democrats scare people to the polls. And while the Republicans may have been successful in using “war on terror” for the same purposes in recent years, “war on ***” has historically been a favorite of any politician who doesn’t mind a little hyperbole to drum up support for whatever initiative he’s trying to push.
Rush Limbaugh has been harping about liberal “code phrases” for years. I’m sure Al Franken or someone has an equivalent conservative list.
Pretty much all politicians talk is now marketing and spin. They all yak endlessly without committing to or even really saying anything.
One of the main reasons Jesse Ventura got elected Gov. of MN was because he threw caution to the wind and spoke his mind. (Unfortunately he turned out to be a poor Governor.) It’s always entertaining when a politician slips up and actually says something concrete.
34….you mean like…**Macaca**…. 🙂
Rush Limbaugh has been harping about liberal “code phrases” for years. I’m sure Al Franken or someone has an equivalent conservative list.
Actually, Newt Gingrich had a list back about 1994, along with the Contract With/On America.
J/P=?
I don’t care what you call it as long as it isn’t ‘sectarian violence.’ I do not recognise sectarian as a word and whenever I hear it I either punch the person in the face or (if I here it on TV or read it like I did just now) throw up a little.
#6 – Don’t doubt you at all. Nothing new here. Is is interesting to see what actually showed up in their lists.
7: Why don’t you recognize “sectarian”? Samuel Butler was using it three centuries ago and Susan B. Anthony one century back and it’s in all the major dictionaries that I’m aware of.
See http://www.bartleby.com/105/146.html
and http://www.bartleby.com/66/81/3781.html
A punch in the face for quoting Butler or ole Suzy B seems a bit harsh.
JimB.
Pat: Why are you opposed to that word? It’s been in the dictionary for a very long time. Even the Oxford English Dictionary has no problem with it. From just one source:
Main Entry: 1 sec·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: sek-‘ter-E-&n
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian
2 : limited in character or scope : PAROCHIAL
– sec·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-“ni-z&m/ noun
Having only briefly perused the actual paper, what I find most interesting is their conclusions, which basically suggest that market forces and not media ideology generate bias in newspapers. To quote (though somewhat elided):
“Combining our measure with zipcode-level circulation data,
we show that consumer demand responds strongly to the fit
between a newspaper’s slant and the ideology of potential
readers, implying an economic incentive for newspapers to
tailor their slant to the ideological predispositions of
consumers…. By contrast, we find much less evidence for a
role of newspaper owners in determining slant…. After
controlling for the geographic location of newspapers, we
find no evidence that the variation in slant has an
owner-specific component.”
This is interesting because it shows how the use of these code phrases is polarizing. If media consumers prefer their news source to match their own biases, and get what they prefer, the biases will be be bolstered and you’re off into a positive feedback loop.
The paper makes an intersting if somewhat heady read.
JimB.