Have you ever noticed that writers love to play with words to try to tug you around to their way of thinking? I'm not just talking about arguing a point, or choosing evocative words or phrases to better express and idea. I'm talking about labeling things in certain ways to give you warm fuzzy or cold prickly feelings about them regardless of the writer's argument.
I find this sort of thing particularly prevalent within news agencies that pride themselves on being "impartial" or delivering "the news" as opposed to opinion. The writers in these agencies can't come right out and say that they agree or disagree with some event or person, but the pick and choose their words to cast a favourable or unfavourable light on their subjects, without coming right out and either applauding or condemning. I consider this dishonest.
Here are some examples of "weasel words" that I've seen or heard in the media.
"pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" (or "anti-choice"). The Vancouver Sun, in a "news" article of 23 February 2000 entitled "Anti-abortionists lose court fight," uses these words. Notice that this is supposed to be news. It's supposed to be impartial. However, the writer subtly applauds the court decision by calling the defendants "pro-choice" and the complainants "anti-abortion."
"abortionists" (or "anti-life") and "pro-life". Of course, the pro-abortion people don't have a corner on the weasel-word market. Pro-lifers like to play this game too, by using words like "abortionists"—which tries to paint a bloody, messy picture of every person supporting the cause—and "pro-life"—which sounds almost sickeningly warm and fuzzy—to frame the argument. Again, many times the writers are claiming to be "impartial" but their use of language gives away their bias.
"baby" versus "fœtus". A religious, pro-life friend of mind pointed out this inconsistency, but regardless of your point of view on this issue you must agree that this is sneaky. Have you ever noticed that when pro-life people speak about abortion, they talk about "killing babies," words that are designed to be provocative, while pro-abortion people talk about "aborting fœtuses," which sounds much more clinical and easier to accept? Both groups are manipulating words to shore up their point of view.
"right-wing" and "left-wing". As heard on Canada's CBC public radio. You can tell a news source's politics by listening to how they label various public groups. A CBC Radio news broadcast once remarked on a court case involving the National Citizens' Coalition, an organization that they described as a "right-wing lobby group" [emphasis added]. I have never, ever heard the CBC refer to any organization as "left-wing." Even the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is so left-wing that they all wear pink shorts to work, doesn't get the "left-wing" label from Mother Corp., so why call an organization "right-wing" if not to belittle them? Conservatives are equally guilty, frequently referring to groups or persons as "left-wing" while leaving the "right-wing" adjective off when talking about nearly-rabid conservative advocates. Again, this may be fine in opinion pieces, but not in ostensibly "neutral" news reports.
"according to experts". This is a convenient way of not having to name your sources. I once heard it cynically translated as, "According to the five guys in the newsroom that I talked to this morning...." I think that this interpretation, as caustic as it is, is close to the truth.
Women are "mothers"; men are never "fathers". News articles featuring men always describe them as "Joe Smith, an architect..." or "Al Frank, a lawyer...." News articles featuring women often include the fact that the female in question is a mother, as in, "Jane Brown, marketing executive and mother of two," particularly if the woman in question has been accused of something awful. A similarly accused man is just, "Jack Brown, bricklayer," regardless of how many kids he may or may not have. There are several subtle messages here, but I think that more pernicious than the bias is the fact that writers are using "mother of two" to tug at your heartstrings and elicit sympathy or admiration for the woman in question. Men, on the other hand, don't get much sympathy, or are to be admired only for their work.
"Weasel Music". The next time you're listening to a report that seems to be turning out as a "good guy / bad guy" story, or watching a supposedly "impartial" documentary, try mentally screening out the words and concentrate on the background music. Often you'll be surprised. As an example, a few years ago there was a CBC documentary on disabled students in university, and how one university wanted to cut funding to their disabled assistance program. Interviews with proud mothers of graduating students (never fathers... fancy that) were always backed by soothing, warm music. Interviews with university officials had no background music, lending them a severe, austere tone. This sort of post-production is pure sleaze: rather than let you make up your own mind on the issue, the producer is trying to manipulate your mood so that you will agree with his or her cause. Weasel music always makes me wonder whether the producer hasn't also done some "creative editing" of the conversations and interviews in order to cast one party in a better light. After all, someone willing to lie with music is probably willing to lie in other ways, too.
