Use of words
Two interesting case of how journalists/pundits use words:
1) Thomas Walkom, in his Saturday piece comparing our decision to sit out the Iraq war (and of our subsequent smugness about how 'smart' it was, when in reality, public opinion was split on the issue) and the current decision to accept another tour on the UN and NATO backed Afghan mission.
What's interesting is this line: "It would be involved in development and nation building. Yes, the "mission" (note the religious imagery) would be more dangerous. But it would serve a good cause."
Now, I'm no english major, but I'm pretty sure that the definition of "mission" doesn't necessarily require religious connotations. According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
Defition 1: "An act or instance of sending someone or (formerly, rare) something, or an instance of being sent, esp. to perform some function or service; spec. of (a) Jesuits to seminaries abroad; (e) a body of people to a foreign country to conduct engotiations, establish plitical or commercial relations, etc.
Clearly, the origin of the word is derived from religious pursuits, in terms of performing missionary work abroad, etc. However, its use has clearly been broadened to include secular pursuits, i.e. military, foreign, Apollo missions, to name a few. So, it seems like he's the one placing the religious connotation himself, rather than the objective of the Canadian military being in itself with religious goals.
2) The Sunday Mirror in the UK publishes a pretty grisly account of the opening of the seal hunt on the ice floes near Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't really have a stance because I know little of the methods, the economics, the environmental science of it. However, this line caught my attention:
"A moment ago one baby seal was a living creature, looking up towards its executioner, fear etched on its face. Its last gesture is to open its mouth wide. A silent cry for mercy."
I don't know, but fear and cries of mercy are clearly human emotions. The writer is clearly anthropomorphizing the baby seal pup in order to garner sympathy from the reader. The article doesn't describe the professions of the author, so I assume they're journalists.
In both instances, I didn't like the fact that they were being dishonest in their framing of the words. Since the first piece is clearly an opinion piece and the second very likely, I can see why they did it. It still doesn't mean I find it right for them to do it.
1 comment:
Re. The Walkom article:
I had the exact same "what the hell?" moment when I read that "mission" line as well.
No where in his article does Walkom make any kind of religious themed argument or observations in relation to Canada's Afghan mission. Walkom's call to "note the religious imagery" is a total non sequitur. Further, the comment isn't followed up by any other explanation, as if we're just all supposed to accept and recognize that there is an inherrently missionary zeal to the Afghan mission. Maybe there is, but its not an argument Walkom comes anywhere near.
Re, the seal hunt article:
I agree with you again, but of course, as you know, I would go WAY further.
I despise people, whom, looking at the state of the world, with all its myriad problems and injustices, choose to take up the cause of ANIMALS.
Instead of vallliantly trying to put themselves between a baby seal and legally operating Canadian hunter, who likely has a family to support, one day I'd like to see some of these animal "rights" activits attempt to put themselves between a Belarussian army officer and a pro-democracy supporter. Or how about between a Sudanese militia man and a starving refugee?
There are about six million harp seals in Canada's territorial waters. Humans have been killing animals for sustenance and commerce for thousands of years. Its to our own benefit to make the hunt sustainable, which it is.
The callous disregard that Paul McCartney and the rest of these animal protesters show by choosing seals over people is disgusting.
Post a Comment