Timing is important, terminology is everything

The topic today is all about words. Often overlooked or taken for granted, words can (and do) play a significant role in the media as well as the political arena. When we peruse our local newspaper at breakfast or read the AP's "10 Things To Know For ________" before bed, we might benefit from pausing  a moment to consider not only what has been written, but also how it was written. Every word has a specific definition, and the selection of one word over another has the potential to influence the audience before a sentence has even been completed. Journalists today must traverse an increasingly thin line between reporting a story, remaining true to their own world views, and remaining politically correct. This often results in selective wording choices which have an effect on the overall story presented, whether intentional or not.

I remember just a few short years ago learning that most of the major news outlets had a "stylebook" that governed the way their writers reported. While this may come as no surprise to the politically involved individual, I recall being quite intrigued after learning this interesting bit of information. I suppose that I had always assumed that contributing writers wrote whatever they felt appropriate and submitted the article to the parent company for editorial corrections. These corrections, at least in my mind, were merely grammatical in nature, and did not alter the content or underlying tone of the work being presented. This of course proved false, as many stories are edited for content and terminology. All the stories that run in news corporation "X" must conform to the rules and regulations laid out in that particular companies stylebook. It is these rules that I find fascinating as they can lead be used to influence the agenda setting functions of the media as well as imparting or preventing bias.

Examples are always helpful for me, so let's illustrate how various terminology can change the way a story reads, and therefore the political thoughts and/or actions that may stem from it. The Associated Press has a strict policy on the term "terrorist", they simply don't use it. They have essentially taken the stance that terrorism is a unique term that is applied by one entity onto another, and only the writers of history make that distinction. Take for example the American Revolutionary War. Do you often think of our country as being founded based on terrorism? I don't. But if definitions are universally upheld, that is precisely what happened. British colonists rebelled from the crown and by the use of force broke away to form what is now the United States of America. If the past 200 years had unravelled differently, it is very possible that British textbooks could have called all Americans terrorists. For this reason, the AP refuses to label groups such as Hezbollah or al-Qaeda "terrorist" groups, relying on other terms such as "militant organizations". It is very easy to see how one's opinion could be biased (whether intentional or not) by a sentence reading "the terrorist group _______ began an offensive in Northeast Africa" as opposed to "the militant group _______ began...".

Additional examples of how terminology may be more important than we initially understand are plentiful. The BBC generally elected to use the term "crime" to report atrocities in Libya and Syria, while simultaneously describing similar events in Egypt as a "tragedy". In both instances the military was used to oppress civilians with resulting loss of life, but the different terminologies elicited different reactions from readers.

All of this is to illustrate a simple point: the terms we use to describe actions, groups, or events can be as important as the actual sentence itself. By various media outlets focusing on stylebook compliance, journalists may be subjected to producing biased articles in way or another. The same can be said about media outlets that do not have stylebooks. Perhaps when we read or listen to stories we should consider what terms are being used, and what alternatives could have been employed in their place.