Each of the quotations below sends a "hidden" message which will be instantly recognized by those who sympathize with that message. Yet the statements are designed to be unobjectionable to the casual reader, or even to elicit their agreement, even if that reader would otherwise disagree with the unspoken message. In each example, the language that contributes to the unspoken message is italicized. Just for fun, imagine other language that, if it took the place of the italicized language, would completely change the implications or connotations of these pieces. - I read with interest the whining of the Utah Education Association in its quest for ever more money. I also read of the unaccounted for $120 million from a year ago. "It's simply accounting" is how the missing funds are rationalized away by those begging for more and more.
— Dan Smith, Brigham City; Letter to the Editor, Salt Lake Tribune, 6 Mar. 2001 This passage speaks out against the UEA's attempts to increase its budget when it hasn't kept careful track of the money it does have. But by characterizing the UEA's actions as "whining" and "begging," readers might wonder if the writer dislikes the organization in general. - Doesn't Glen Canyon Dam keep America's water in America, and keep the Mexicans from getting our share?
Sample question from FAQs list, Glen Canyon Institute. Anyone who would use the terms "the Mexicans" and "our share" might well have an ethnic prejudice against Mexican people. On another level, the Glen Canyon Institute apparently expects that its opponents have such prejudices, since they list this as a Frequently Asked Question. - "The Homosexual Agenda"
— article title in The National Review The word "homosexual" is rarely used anymore by gay rights advocates; it is almost exclusively used by opponents of gay rights and lifestyles, particularly by people and organizations in the "religious right." Given the usage of "homosexual," and the fact that the headline appears in a journal of conservative political commentary, the word "agenda" connotes "underhanded scheme" rather than "harmless plan." Further, the use of "The" rather than "A" reinforces the notion of a master plan or a united group, them against us. - And because it's cheaper to break than to fix, the state Game Commission . . . intends to breach the lower dam and develop the area as wetlands.
Those against destruction of the dam use the sarcastic and somewhat catchy "cheaper to break than to fix" line to suggest that the Game Commission has gone for an oversimplified, knee-jerk solution. That the commission intends to create "wetlands" directly aligns it with environmental interests, since wetlands are an environmental cause. Thus, the group in favor of the dam can align themselves against environmentalists without saying they're doing so. - Friends of Rexmont Dam is a grass roots organization dedicated to conserving these historic natural resources for the community.
— Friends of Rexmont Dam. Friends of Rexmont Dam is summoning all the positive-sounding spin it can in defining themselves. Grass roots organizations are widely admired, as they connote "of the people, by the people, for the people." Who could be against "conserving," particularly the conservation of "historic natural resources?" Yet it seems unlikely the dam is "natural," and the extent to which it is or is not a "resource" is precisely what's under debate. "Community" has to be one of the most popular words in politics today; no reasonable person would be against anything that was done for the sake of "community." - "Anti-flag-burning sentiments are another manifestation of an old specter of scientific history: the prioritization of sensibilities over the expression of opinion or fact."
— Carlos Ponce, editorialist, The Daily Utah Chronicle, 20 Mar. 2001 This writer is trying to hide behind syllables, so if this sentence hardly makes sense to you, you're not alone. This is writing that tries to sound more educated than the reader, so that it puts the reader in her place—a more subtle form of bias. - "The United States is a great achievement in human rights, economics, science and health. The protocol for this success depends heavily on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and there is a faction of people that equates these principles with the flag."
— Carlos Ponce, editorialist, The Daily Utah Chronicle, 20 Mar. 2001 "Faction" is an overtly political term which denotes minority status and connotes splinter or even extreme politics. In this context, the term can come off as patronizing, even though the passage surrounding it seems to be making every effort to fairly explain the position of people who are against flag burning. While many disagree with that position on first-amendment grounds (including the editorialist here), those taking that position are hardly extreme or in the minority. - "Making the decision to terminate a pregnancy or to bring a fetus to term is by far the most wrenching experience I've ever had. The right to choose is not a luxury; it is a responsibility that demands intense introspection and awareness." S. Boyd
The abortion debate, with its extreme polarization, really highlights the nature of biased language as completely natural to one side and insidiously biased to the opposing side. The terms here are such an example: those in favor of abortion rights see "terminate a pregnancy" and "fetus" as medically precise and wholly accurate terms. Abortion foes see the language as a smokescreen, dodging the equally accurate terms "abort" and "baby." Abortion foes contend that the abortion rights advocates avoid the latter terms because clinical, scientific sounding terms make better public relations. - "It is equally as heinous intentionally to kill a human being in existence at fertilization, as to kill a larger pre born child." Nellie Gray
— "Abortion: All Sides to the Issue." The other side of the debate is equally careful in its choice of language. "Terminate a pregnancy" becomes "intentionally to kill" and the "fetus" becomes "a human being." Abortion foes insist their language is truthful; abortion rights advocates insist it is biased, an attempt to incite outrage over a procedure that isn't outrageous. - The effort to limit debate on campus is being led by well funded, political groups from off campus. They are dedicated to forwarding their own political agenda by silencing others. In recent years, they have filed lawsuits and supported legislation that would restrict campus speech. These groups have put their own agendas in front of the marketplace of ideas.
— Center for Campus Free Speech The issue, as you can read below, is the use of student fees to fund organizations a student is morally or politically opposed to. The Center for Campus Free Speech takes the position that letting students choose what their fees will support, instead of equally supporting all views, is a violation of freedom of speech. While the effects could be characterized in a number of ways, the Center here chooses to characterize them as "limit debate on campus" and "restrict campus speech," some of the worst sins possible. Who could be in favor of limits and restrictions on speech? As it happens, the Center can tell you: "well-funded," "off-campus" political groups. Unlike you and I, who are not rich, from out-of-town, or at all "political." They're selfish, too, as their "agendas" are more important to them than the "marketplace of ideas," an inspiring metaphor that, again, no reasonable person could oppose.
- The elites supporting mandatory student fees generally agree with the Regents of the University of Wisconsin who said that "without funding less speech will result, and less controversial speech…[and] hateful speech has a place in our society too." Aside from the fact that the Regents inadvertently summed up the tenor of the speech that forced support generally underwrites, they studiously ignored the fact that freeing individuals from the compulsion to pay in no way abridges the free speech.
— Linda Gorman,
Independence Institute "Student Fees Prevent Free Speech"
|
