There has been talk lately about “semantics” and “picking [news stories] apart word by word.” These things are said in a fairly derisive way, as if “arguing semantics” is bad or pointless.*
But you know what?
WORDS MATTER.
Because words carry implications.
Anyone who makes their living as a writer should know that words are important, and should be mindful of the words they choose, with everything they write. They should know better than anyone that words can be loaded, and the implications can go way beyond the dictionary definition, and that in the end it’s not just the dictionary definition that matters.
For example, “running a high-class call girl ring” is not factually inaccurate. But it’s sloppy reporting, and sex workers were rightly pissed. Because each of those words is pretty loaded. They carry with them assumptions that are embedded in the societal consciousness, which most people don’t even think about.
Another example: Violet Blue’s column entitled Kink.com and Porn Hysteria: The Lie of Unbiased Reporting, wherein she writes,
Steve Rubenstein and Jesse McKinley are reporters, and so we require that they report and not serve us with opinion, instead. In both articles, slanted phrases such as “dirty movies” were slipped in like a hostess silently sliding a coaster under your drink — blink and you don’t even notice it’s part of the judgmental scenery — when a more accurate term like “adult” could serve better. Rubenstein’s piece went the distance, making Kink’s employees into “manacled performers.”
But the most interesting example was the presentation of unchallenged material in the form of quotes from people on the street as anti-porn pundits — with no weigh-in from pro-porn pundits. Protesters were quoted as saying, “This neighborhood is already plagued with enough violence and prostitution as it is” and “Kink degrades the neighborhood, degrades women and offers ‘dead end’ jobs that no decent person would want.” Such statements bracket the piece — with no counter-opinions about pornography — and are presented in such a way that readers could interpret opinions as fact. Kink.com was indeed quoted — but only about their use of the space.
If the only yardstick we had for media were “Is is factually inaccurate?”, then no one would have grounds to complain about anything. Errors of omission and the connotations of specific words would be unimportant. The public would be effectively silenced.
We should hold our media accountable; we should hold them to a high standard. (One would think they would want to be held to a high standard by their readers.) Criticism of media is healthy and important, and should be constant. Or are we supposed to operate from a lowest common denominator perspective?
Speaking dismissively about “semantics” undermines the media/editorial process criticism so many of us in this conversation profess to stand for. So which is it? Is criticizing media and exposing biases a good thing, or a bad thing? Should we hold them accountable to tell our stories fairly and accurately, or just accept whatever we’re handed?
Part of the solution is to use new media to tell our own stories, without the filters of mainstream media; but that does not mean we should accept anything less than the highest quality reporting from mainstream media. After all, not everyone has access to new media tools yet (though access is improving on a daily basis).
So yes, I will gladly pick news stories apart word by word. Because those words are everything.
* I can’t link to the one conversation that is really sticking out in my mind, because Rusty removed the post where it took place. Similar conversations have gone down in other places, though. In fact, it’s becoming a bit of a blur at this point.
READ ME: Disclaimer
7 Responses to "Semantics"
Well since I was the other party to that conversation now lost to the ages, we can continue here if you like.
First of all, it was Rusty who accused me of using semantics. Not the other way around. What I used was the term parsing. If words matter then that should be clarified.
And I absolutely agree that criticism of media is not only fair but mandatory. If I didn’t that link you used would expose me as about the biggest hypocrite in the world. However, that road goes both ways. I believe just like the media we criticize, the criticism should also be fair and accurate.
In this particular case I don’t believe it was. And if you go back and read my comments, both the disappeared and the ones at BfD, you will see I was not defending Gower, Andisheh or even the article itself. What I was doing was pointing out that others were either interpreting things larger than they were presented or were out and out wrong. For example.
Things claimed about the article that were completely untrue. These were by many people across multiple blogs and comments:
There were no facts or facts were innaccurate - No one has pointed out any single thing that was factually inaccurate. The best example given was his description of a woman as “twitchy…wearing a short dress”. Objectionable description maybe but innacurate, probably not. Was she not twitchy? Was she not wearing a short dress? There’s a big difference between being bothered by the way something is described and claiming it is false.
The author did not present an opposing view - Absolutely untrue. Andisheh provided a former sex worker the space to describe Gower’s stalker-like behavior.
The author didn’t talk to anyone directly affected by Gowers actions - Absolutely untrue. The above sex worker related a story where she was harassed by Gower to the point of pepper spraying him.
Things that are arguable:
Tacit support - Some claim from the way the article was written CL and Andisheh were promoting Gower’s methods. I challenge any of them to show me how without using something along the lines of “the way it was written”. Just because they don’t come right out and say he’s an asshole doesn’t mean they believe what he is doing is right. From my point of view as someone who was not familiar with Gower and only casually familiar with the sex industry my reaction was quite the opposite. To me he came off like an asshole and it appeared that CL played the role of giving him enough rope to hang himself.
Questionable terms unchallenged - Specifically “transvestitute” and “she-male”. First of all, something that some miss which is wholly inaccurate is the impression that Andisheh used these terms. He did not. As in any straight newstory all of these are directly attributed to Gower and Denby. Once again my view is by letting them use their own offensive language the article exposes them for the assholes they are. This would be similar to the racially offensive language used in the Alyssa Abkowitz piece from a year ago on a race rally. As far as unchallenged, you could certainly argue a portion of the article should have been given to someone to explain why those terms are wrong and hurtful. I’ll concede that.
The “twitchy woman in a short dress” - Amber this is where I think we might never agree and we both will have the hardest time putting our beliefs into words. I understand your objection to terms such as “dirty movies”, “call girls” and even “hookers” but what your objection implies scares me even more. We all have different standards for how we speak and especially for a writer how things are written. Should their be a set of standards for all? A very tentative maybe. But I can’t get past two words that jump into my mind every time I think about this. Word police.
And this is the most complicated topic. I think it’s self-evident that I am a big believer in first person journalism. That means the writer places himself in the story and that means it’s going to include the writer’s internal impressions. And most writers do not go for the most bland impression. They usually go for quite the opposite. My fear is that if writers are required to worry about offending someone this is a tool which they will lose. Even now I’m struggling to put these thoughts into words because they are so esoteric. But I guess the best way to put it is writers are going to say things provocative and sometimes they are going to piss us off. Nothing wrong with being pissed off but when that crosses into they are consciously trying to promote some greater agenda or conspiracy then we’ve go a problem.
As a writer would I have used the phrase “twitchy woman in a short skirt”? Probably. As I pointed out previously I’ve used the term “skeevy looking dude”. Just as I don’t believe my description of a guy in a leather trench coat with slicked back hair means that I subscribe to the a larger belief that all Italian-Americans are mobbed up Soprano wannabes nor do I think Andisheh’s description means he has an ingrained hatred of sex workers. I think the problem lies when people start assuming larger agendas which may not be there.
I think the final thing about how writers write is the most interesting point. I’d really like to leave all the other crap behind and just focus on that one because I believe it would be a great way to further the conversation. Because no matter what either of us think, writers are going to describe things in strong terms and criticism will continue and I’m sure we’ll keep talking about it.
Thanks for the comment. I will respond later, after work. I have a lot to say in response. Actually this post is a shortened portion of a monster rambling post that I broke into three parts, one of which has not yet been published (the first part was the “Explanations on Demand” post). I actually talked about some of the stuff you bring up, but then I truncated it.
More later.
Grift,
I will concede (as I did in the thread that disappeared into the ether) that I was off-base on one particular point. I should know better than to fire off replies without taking a breath first. That’s, well, shoddy work on my part.
And I do owe you an apology for the off-hand remark questioning whether you read the article. Next time I see you, first round is on me for that.
And, not a concession, but kind of like one: Andisheh’s writing often grates on me for reasons I can’t entirely explain, and that will without doubt color my perception of his work.
I think part of the problem is that some people’s writing styles just don’t mesh with the way some other people think.
For example, I have tried several times to read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, and for reasons I am at a complete loss to explain, my brain just doesn’t parse the information efficiently. I usually give up 50 or 60 agonizing pages in, unable to retain the sentences without going over them a few times each.
But then I’ll pick up books by countless other authors and blow right through them. I went through Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in about three hours.
I don’t consider myself either a slow or a fast reader. About average speed, I guess, if there is such a thing. So it’s a little baffling to me that one writing style can actually seem to increase the speed with which I read while others retard it, with most other things seeming equal.
I don’t think it has to do with interest in the subject matter, because I am very interested in the basic premise of The Jungle. Nor do I think it’s entirely explained by the relative thickness of the language. I don’t consider either of those books to be particularly thick compared to, say, Finnegan’s Wake.
So what causes the synapses to fire one way for some writing and another way for other writing?
This isn’t to discount many serious problems I still believe Andisheh’s article has that cannot be explained away just as being a product of how my brain processes information. I started writing a response to your comment earlier today where I practically fisked it. I saved it as a draft, and may come back to it and post some things from it later if that becomes a productive or interesting line of inquiry.
But for a moment before going back there, I want to entertain the idea of people’s brains processing even simple things in vastly different ways, just because I love a good metaphysical circle jerk. If we want to make this an exercise, I’m thinking it might be a better idea to pick an article, or several articles, that aren’t quite as close to home (loaded with baggage) for some of us and give some impressions.
1) Sex Workers’/Opposing Veiwpoints included - the one tiny area of that article assigned to that one person does not adequate inclusion of sex workers’ voices make. As he was at Charis, I assume he had the opportunity to do better than that.
2)Factually inaccurate - due to 1, many of Mr Gower’s statements go essentially unchallenged. We therefore have little to no ability to really parse (ha) whether or not anything he said is or is not true. (Without further research that is, but I feel not making the effort is lazy on CL’s part.)
3) Twitchy Woman in a Short Dress - that’s code for a hooker hopped up on something, that is, a crack whore, so far as I can tell. I’m not gonna say he can’t say it that way, but he certainly could have said it better, IMHO. Amber’s fair in pointing out that it’s loaded terminology.
IMHO Gower came off not only like an asshole, but a crazy one at that. And CL certainly did give him enough rope to hang himself, but I came away from the article feeling that hysterics about supposed prostitution got way too many inches and analysis of his totally crazy behavior re: YouTube got, as I recall, exactly zero. I’m not even an activist in this area and I can think of three to five reasons that’s a super crazy, shitty thing to do.
Sometimes I shouldn’t write when I’m tired, just like sometimes I shouldn’t write when I’m angry. I think I came off as a little more charitable toward Andisheh’s article in the last comment than I meant to be.
Not that being charitable is a bad thing to be, but I do want to clarify and say that I don’t want to give the impression that I’m writing any of my prior complaints off as me having a reaction to his writing style, even though it might sound like I was.
I am only acknowledging that I enter any discussion of his articles with some bias against his work which was formed for a variety of reasons, including the entirely subjective one of “his writing just grates on me.”
Bill O’Reilly’s style grates on me too, and I’m also biased against him. That doesn’t make him not full of shit.
[...] know I said I’d respond to Griftdrift’s comment here - and I have yet to do it. I said, “I have a lot to say in response.” And I still do. [...]
[...] for now, I want to talk about language. Because, as I’ve mentioned before, words [...]
Leave a comment