Yes, words have meaning. Using the word “kidnapped” injects opinion and emotion into a story.
It’s the job of media to report the facts, not to influence people’s feelings on a story.
News organizations have people’s whose job is to maintain journalistic standards to ensure it’s facts that are reported, not emotional manipulation.
Emotional manipulation is the domain of social media, not something journalists are supposed to do. Don’t worry, social media has algorithms that ensure you’ll get constant emotional manipulation. News media doesn’t need to be doing this if that’s what you’re looking for.
How do you feel about ‘abducted’? I know that journalists use that term frequently when discussing domestic kidnappings, but it has a negative associations. When a pedophilac predator forces a victim to go with them, that appears to be acceptable language - would you say the term can apply to the President’s actions?
Your intent to use word to deliberately invoke emotion is exactly what news media should avoid. Note they are also not using the word “arrest” which would give legitimacy to the action.
Why do you think it’s important to push an emotion? Are you trying to use emotion to influence people into thinking how you think?
It’s fine for people on social media to express their feelings. But news media is supposed to be as factual as possible and should avoid using words to put an emotional spin on a story. Demanding news media to do so is demanding news media to be more propagandist than factual, and that makes it indistinguishable from other propaganda. I don’t think the problems we’re having is due to there not being enough propaganda. We need there to be some people reporting the facts.
Don’t tell me what my intent is. My intent was to point out that using charged language for some people and selecting more neutral language when the influential do parallel acton is itself a bias toward the rich and powerful. I was using the socratic method to highlight the hitch in your reasoning. I was being fairly neutral in that my focus was to inform you that your reasoning had a gaping hole in it.
Now I shall use somewhat more emotional language because I’m now more actively attempting to persuade
“Reserve judgement and let the system work” is only a valid stance if there’s reason to believe the system will work. After multiple impeachments and numerous more lawsuits (and we’re barely touching on this sleasebag’s career before they got into office; a lifetime of profiting on misery and broken promises, getting away with it solely by being rich as fuck and cultivating a persona of playing dumb in court while hiring the most ruthless lawyers in the industry to whitewash his crimes in a legal…) That got away from me - my point is I don’t know why we’re giving a convicted rapist and suspected pedophile the benefit of the doubt.
Much more to the heart of the matter is Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. Within it’s pages, it spells out a plan to functionally blitz the landscape with so many regressive policies enacted at once that they effectively cover for each other. With that frame in mind it’s entirely unsurprising that the Epstein files issue, the planned military extraction of Maduro, and the ICE shooting in Minneapolis all share airspace within the same week. The media position of ‘wait to see what plays out before using judgemental language’ is being deliberately exploited as a stalling tactic.
So let me offer an olive branch: If it were anybody but Trump and his cadre of enablers, I normally am all for the media acting with reserve before throwing their influence around before the facts are in, but that norm is being weaponized against us. So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified? Please note - I did not call it a kidnapping or abduction and all parties agree that the President’s stated intent is to directly influence Venezuelan policy. Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked? And when does it become appropriate for journalism to push back against government overreach?
“US Strike team legally ventured to sovereign country to invite its leader on an all expenses luxury vacation while laying at least 80 known victims down for naps”
Because we have to speak softly, and avoid mentioning anything factually accurate, so the perpetually offended don’t get their precious feefees hurt
Yes, words have meaning. Using the word “kidnapped” injects opinion and emotion into a story.
It’s the job of media to report the facts, not to influence people’s feelings on a story.
News organizations have people’s whose job is to maintain journalistic standards to ensure it’s facts that are reported, not emotional manipulation.
Emotional manipulation is the domain of social media, not something journalists are supposed to do. Don’t worry, social media has algorithms that ensure you’ll get constant emotional manipulation. News media doesn’t need to be doing this if that’s what you’re looking for.
The fact is, he was kidnapped.
How do you feel about ‘abducted’? I know that journalists use that term frequently when discussing domestic kidnappings, but it has a negative associations. When a pedophilac predator forces a victim to go with them, that appears to be acceptable language - would you say the term can apply to the President’s actions?
Your intent to use word to deliberately invoke emotion is exactly what news media should avoid. Note they are also not using the word “arrest” which would give legitimacy to the action.
Why do you think it’s important to push an emotion? Are you trying to use emotion to influence people into thinking how you think?
It’s fine for people on social media to express their feelings. But news media is supposed to be as factual as possible and should avoid using words to put an emotional spin on a story. Demanding news media to do so is demanding news media to be more propagandist than factual, and that makes it indistinguishable from other propaganda. I don’t think the problems we’re having is due to there not being enough propaganda. We need there to be some people reporting the facts.
Don’t tell me what my intent is. My intent was to point out that using charged language for some people and selecting more neutral language when the influential do parallel acton is itself a bias toward the rich and powerful. I was using the socratic method to highlight the hitch in your reasoning. I was being fairly neutral in that my focus was to inform you that your reasoning had a gaping hole in it.
Now I shall use somewhat more emotional language because I’m now more actively attempting to persuade
“Reserve judgement and let the system work” is only a valid stance if there’s reason to believe the system will work. After multiple impeachments and numerous more lawsuits (and we’re barely touching on this sleasebag’s career before they got into office; a lifetime of profiting on misery and broken promises, getting away with it solely by being rich as fuck and cultivating a persona of playing dumb in court while hiring the most ruthless lawyers in the industry to whitewash his crimes in a legal…) That got away from me - my point is I don’t know why we’re giving a convicted rapist and suspected pedophile the benefit of the doubt.
Much more to the heart of the matter is Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. Within it’s pages, it spells out a plan to functionally blitz the landscape with so many regressive policies enacted at once that they effectively cover for each other. With that frame in mind it’s entirely unsurprising that the Epstein files issue, the planned military extraction of Maduro, and the ICE shooting in Minneapolis all share airspace within the same week. The media position of ‘wait to see what plays out before using judgemental language’ is being deliberately exploited as a stalling tactic.
So let me offer an olive branch: If it were anybody but Trump and his cadre of enablers, I normally am all for the media acting with reserve before throwing their influence around before the facts are in, but that norm is being weaponized against us. So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified? Please note - I did not call it a kidnapping or abduction and all parties agree that the President’s stated intent is to directly influence Venezuelan policy. Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked? And when does it become appropriate for journalism to push back against government overreach?
I mean, it seems like a reasonable word to use ?
I know right? The headlines should read something more like “Maduro vacationing in USA for extended holiday”
“US Strike team legally ventured to sovereign country to invite its leader on an all expenses luxury vacation while laying at least 80 known victims down for naps”
Because we have to speak softly, and avoid mentioning anything factually accurate, so the perpetually offended don’t get their precious feefees hurt
Or maybe they could say Maduro was ‘captured’ or ‘seized’ as it was suggested they should do, which is factual.
Someone not conforming to your emotions doesn’t mean they aren’t being factual.
So kidnapping it is.