Decius wrote:
Dan Gillmor offers a manifesto for better journalism. There are a lot of good ideas in here. This is an example:

7. We would replace PR-speak and certain Orwellian words and expressions with more neutral, precise language. If someone we interview misused language, we would paraphrase instead of using direct quotations. (Examples, among many others: The activity that takes place in casinos is gambling, not gaming. There is no death tax, there can be inheritance or estate tax. Piracy does not describe what people do when they post digital music on file-sharing networks.)

Well, yes, but that doesn't strike me as the key. Language is variable. All of it really hinges on his previous point :

"6. We would refuse to do stenography and call it journalism. If one faction or party to a dispute is lying, we would say so, with the accompanying evidence. If we learned that a significant number of people in our community believed a lie about an important person or issue, we would make it part of an ongoing mission to help them understand the truth."

Misleading language is part and parcel of issue framing (and it's also dishonest). So yes, quit buying into every politician's fabricated fucking linguistic sleight of hand and explain the actual situation.

Now, ask me if I think there's any hope of any of this happening...

RE: The new rules of news | Dan Gillmor |