Words have power, no doubt about it.
And although a media outlet’s goal may be to objectively report the news, it can face accusations of bias with every word choice.
When NBC decided Monday to begin using “civil war” instead of “sectarian violence,” it created a firestorm of controversy. Some saw it as caving in to liberals – others as finally recognizing reality.
On a local level, we sometimes struggle with the same kind of difficult choices over words.
Is the jail crowded, or overcrowded. They mean the same thing; purists would claim that overcrowded is an unnecessary redundancy. At The Evening News, we generally use crowded, for that reason. But some might suggest that downplays the seriousness of the problem; that ”overcrowded” would have more impact.
Then there is the debate over anti-abortion or pro-life; pro-abortion or pro-choice. We use “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” because they have become accepted by most people. But the Associated Press stylebook still suggests avoiding them, in favor of the more neutral “anti-abortion” and “abortion-rights.”
A hot debate in recent years has focused on ”Christmas” and “holiday.” We use both, allowing a little common sense to guide our choices. If the reference is to the Christian holiday, we don’t hesitate to use Christmas. If the reference is to the season in December when gifts are exchanged, we use holiday, because there are a number of religions celebrating special days this time of year. But whatever choice we make, someone is going to disagree.
Which brings us back to the civil war/sectarian violence in Iraq. What do you think? Is it a civil war? Does the media significantly change the nature of the national debate by changing the terminology? Is it much ado over nothing?