Timely reminder

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Dec 06, 2002 11:27 pm

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONAvoid this term that is meant to single out the bad guys and â€œrogueâ€ nations and ignores the most imposing arsenal of weapons, which belongs to the United States. Usually the writer is referring to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. In every instance, identify the specific type of weapon in question, or just list all three, if necessary. It takes up about the same amount of space.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:31 am

What's wrong about singling out the bad guys and rogue nations, apart from the political incorrectness of it all?And why is it so necessary to spell out "nuclear, biological and chemical weapons"? That's quite a mouthful compared with "weapons of mass destruction." I will concede that the former example should be included
somewhere in the story, but every reference??[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Dec 07, 2002 3:52 pm

One man's "rogue nation" is another's Shangri-La. We seem to need constant reminders of that. "Weapons of mass destruction" is jargon whose meaning has been carefully crafted as code for "the arsenals of countries we don't like." It is flat wrong to use it in reference to such things as biological weapons. Smallpox, for instance, would be bad news but it would be wrong to characterize an outbreak as "mass destruction." The gas used in Russia recently to end the Chechen hostage-taking killed a number of people, but there was no "mass destruction." A nuclear weapon: Now there's "mass destruction."Let's call things what they are as best we can. Adopting a government's terror terminology doesn't do anyone any good.[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]

Emily Salmon · **Joined:** Sat Nov 16, 2002 1:01 am **Posts:** 86

Frankly, I wouldn't mind a weapon of mass destruction, if it could be targeted to excess adipose mass. Like around my hips. Where's that flesh-eating bacterium when you need it, anyway?

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Dec 07, 2002 11:41 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
One man's "rogue nation" is another's Shangri-La. We seem to need constant reminders of that.<hr></blockquote>At some point, though, newspapers with any credibility have to call a spade a spade. I have no doubt that Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China all had citizens to whom their respective countries were Shangri-La. Guess we can't call these regimes evil, brutal dictatorships, then, huh?Moral relativism sounds great when being spouted by sociology profs. But we have jobs in the real world.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Dec 08, 2002 12:24 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
At some point, though, newspapers with any credibility have to call a spade a spade. I have no doubt that Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China all had citizens to whom their respective countries were Shangri-La. Guess we can't call these regimes evil, brutal dictatorships, then, huh?Moral relativism sounds great when being spouted by sociology profs. But we have jobs in the real world.<hr></blockquote>
This has nothing to do with "moral relativism." I just prefer that we stick to the facts without using loaded--and modestly accurate--language.[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 08, 2002 9:16 pm

I was listening to NPR the other day, for some reason, and in a 90-second report, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was used 4 times. That's what I get for stumbling onto NPR.It wouldn't be such a bad phrase if it were used universally. We could lump JFK and LBJ in with Hussein, Stalin, Mao, etal, because they used "weapons of mass destruction" on their own people, too.Leaving the phrase in is lazy editing. And we don't have jobs in the real world. We have jobs in the corporate media. That's about as unreal as it gets.

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Dec 09, 2002 3:23 pm

I agree with blanp ... but let's take it a step further: Do the words "terror" and "terrorist" and "terrorism" in such stories constitute equally loaded and inherently prejudicial language? How should we replace those? I'd like to see some examples.

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

In many instances you can cut out terrorist altogether, as in Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Or, you can change terrorists who committed an attack to call them members of whatever group they belong. "Al Qaeda terrorists bombed ..." becomes "Members of Al Qaeda bombed ..." (Yes, we spell Al Qaeda goofy here.) I'm not big on terrorist because it doesn't really tell you anything. U.S. soldiers are terrorists to the people whom they fire missles at. It's just a matter of fact that someone is a member of something and did something, let the readership decide that they're terrorists.It's cumbersome to replace every reference, but I try to replace them when I can.

Testy Copy Editors

Timely reminder

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links