Do you ever sit up and take notice when the folks in the news start using a word without taking the time to make sure everyone knows what it means? Then, later, that word becomes shorthand for something. Here's the latest example:
define:insurgent
What's an insurgent? There are any number of definitions to choose from, and Google gives us three there.
Dictionary.com does it this way. But when it's used in the media, I'm getting the growing sense that the word is shorthand for "the bad guys." In other words, "It's too much work to find out exactly who it was, specifically, who bombed U.S. forces in Falluja, so we'll just call them insurgents."
I do not like what happens to a word like this one. It looks specific, especially if we don't know what it means. But it's really quite vague.
My guess is that there are any number of factions fighting against the soldiers in Iraq, but the press has lumped them together as if they are one, great, embattled enemy. This does nothing but blur the line of truth, and I would ask that if you are a member of the press, and you are reading this, that you discontinue the use of this word. Find out who and what it is you're talking about before telling us you know what you're talking about.
This goes for all pundits and bloggers as well. Be specific or be quiet.
Thanks.
November 08, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

2 comments:
Amen brother!
This word is used because it quite impressively accomplishes the goal of making Iraqis, who are defending their own country against we the invaders, seem like bad guys. Spin doctors at the White House are skilled at choosing the right words. These people shrewdly changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense back in the day.
Post a Comment