Monday, March 14, 2011

                This weekend had two tragic incidents: One that led to the death of thousands, and one that led to the death of five; one was caused by an uncontrollable natural disaster, and one that was a deliberate act of terrorism; one whose headlines flooded various news sources, and one which almost seemed not to exist in the secular world.
                I heard about the terror attack in Itamar, seven minutes from where my aunt and uncle live, via text right after Shabbas. As soon as I got home, I opened CNN.com and scanned the headlines. Not to underestimate the impact of what occurred in Japan, the amount of deaths and casualties were astonishing, but one not one headlined mentioned those attacked in Itamar. My roommate came in, and I quickly asked her if she read anything. She told me that you had to dig to find two articles hidden somewhere on the website. Both incidents this weekend carried their own weight for different reasons, one in the breadth of the amount of people it affect, and the other in the depth of the atrocity it represented.  Both deserved to mention. I am not making an argument in proportion, 50-50, 40-60, 33-66, I’m not sure myself. But for the sake of the five that were brutally murdered, their names deserve a place on the front page.
                I’m posting a picture a friend posted on Facebook upon search for articles about the West Bank. The bias in these headlines are obvious and lack the need for explanation.
 
           In class today, we talked about the distinction between words that are biased and words used just to be more accurate or precise, an example being the use of the words “settlers.” I will argue that words have certain connotations, and all it takes is a little common sense to understand what a word means beyond its specificity. In a black and white world, words would mean only what they are supposed to, but the complexity of our world associates words with specific contexts and situations, and layers of meaning pile up by default.  Accuracy should not be an excuse for their deliberate use.
Finally, I am posting an article with several biases which again, only take common sense to point out:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/13/west.bank.settlements/index.html?iref=allsearch

*”disputed terrirtory”
*what Israel is calling a terror attack
*The focus on approving construction of more settlements more than the family’s brutal murder
*”He would not elaborate on what evidence was leading investigators to that conclusion [that it was a terror attack].”
*the use of the word “intruder”

***and much more***

2 comments:

  1. I agree with you that words most often are not taken at face value. However, I would argue that most words in the English language have certain connotations, and even more of them do when placed in specific contexts. So what is a journalist, whose job it is to relay information through words, to do when even the most accurate words carry certain weight? There has to be some lee-way here. Should the writer of the article have simply said "Israelis?" Perhaps, but I'm sure there would be those who would complain about that too. That leaves pretty much the word "humans," which would just be ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that you have a point Noelle, its interesting though how we all have a blind spot for Israel and we would hope that the articles written about it would have headlines that would acknowledge the pain and horror many (including the family this was done to) experienced and are experiencing.

    ReplyDelete