Posted on 04/21/2005 3:11:59 PM PDT by swilhelm73
AlterNet.org has a hilarious excerpt of an interview that the delightfully named Jennifer Nix conducted with George Lakoff, the left-wing linguistics guru who has fooled Democrats into think he invented euphemism and dysphemism (ellipsis in original):
Nix: Can you give an example of the media not understanding what's going on?
Lakoff: A producer from a National Public Radio show "On the Media" called me up recently to tell me that [a style manual] . . . many journalists around the country call on when writing their stories is dictating that journalists stop using the word fetus and replace it with the term unborn child. This producer asked me if I thought this was political, and when I said, "Of course it's political," she debated me. We've heard this phrase unborn child so much that it's physically changing our brains. Also, the word fetus has been demonized, even though it is a technical, scientific term. The right is so successfully framing this issue that a term representing a political agenda is becoming the "neutral" or "objective" word that journalists are supposed to use in their stories.
Of course, Lakoff gets it exactly backwards. As we've chronicled extensively, news organizations bend over backward to use the term fetus, often with ridiculous results. Isn't the more "political" term the one that differs from common usage? Has a pregnant woman ever said, "The fetus is kicking"? For that matter, has a woman choosing an abortion ever said, "I don't want the fetus"? Any reporter who uses the term fetus where an ordinary person would say child or baby might as well stick a pro-choice bumper sticker right underneath his byline.
(Hat tip: blogress Emily Peterson.)
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This is hilarious, albiet pathetic, how easy it is to dupe them and short-circuit what passes from liberal brains.
So was Scott Petersen found guilty of destroying a fetus (sort of like vandalizing a car) or murdering a baby?
Totally ironic. If this is the AP style book, it forbids using "pro-life" and requires "anti-abortion." But it won't balance "anti-abortion" with "pro-abortion." No. It must be "abortion rights," effectively muting the impact of the word "abortion" by turning it into a mere adjective -- modifying the undeniably positive noun "rights." That turns something as heinous as dismembering the smallest humans into a positive. Utterly politically-weighted terminology.
Interesting, poignant, and best of all ... the truth!
The other line I snicker at when I hear the MSM say it is a combination of the two.. "unborn fetus"....
So what does that make it when it's born? A BORN fetus? LOL
Of course, fetus is the Latin word for "unborn baby." But since most people don't know Latin, the word has been used to dehumanize babies.
It is simply astonishing to me how seriously ostensibly intelligent Democrats are taking this snake-oil salesman. "Framing" is a neologism for rhetorical techniques dating at least back to Pericles and probably much further. For the price of a library card they could find out that their problems aren't which weasel-words they choose, but the fact that they're depending on weasel-words at all.
"For the price of a library card they could find out that their problems aren't which weasel-words they choose, but the fact that they're depending on weasel-words at all."
Well said BUMP!
You have to lie about your politics to get elected, you're simply fooling yourself if you claim any voter mandate.
They mangle everything to fit their sick agenda.
I did not find an entry about fetus though.
For critics, bill is yet another abortion issue
5th graf
Looking at the results of a google search for "framing", there are whole lot more liberals talking about how to "frame issues" than conservatives. I wish Republicans would spend a little more time thinking about how to present issues to the public. FR has an interesting thread about how the ill-chosen phrase "Nuclear Option" is making life more difficult for Republicans:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389075/posts
I largely agree.
Take a poll and ask people if they support the "right to choose" and a majority do.
Take a poll and ask people if the "right to life" of an unborn child should be protected in law, and again you get a majority.
And I don't think abortion is an unusual issue in this regard.
The Left's sudden enthusiasm for using euphemism is strange since they've built the Democrat party on that particular rock and never stopped using it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.