Winning the battle for the English Language is always a challenge when you’re a conservative. The left understands, and wages without mercy, the war for the language.
And for the most part, the media reflects the left’s view of how language portrays things.
So it’s been interesting watching the media coverage of the raft of Gun Rights bills. In a Twin Cities media that will refers to using ones’ carry permit as “packing heat” so frequently it’s beyond satirizable, there’ve been some improvements.
This past few weeks, a bill that would allow Minnesotans to join 39 other states in owning mufflers for their guns has been advancing though committee.
And it’s been interesting reading the headlines that local news organizations having been using for the story (in this case taken from online coverage); do they refer to gun mufflers with techical accuracy as “suppressors”, or with conspiratorial, theatrical scaremongering as “silencers”.
Here are some examples, with emphasis added by me:
- The Strib: “Bill would allow suppressors, or silencers on guns in Minnesota” – the Strib chooses both!
- The Strib: “Minnesota House panel backs legalizing firearm ‘silencers‘ … – The used the theatrical “silencer” – but put it in irony quotes. They also used the term “suppressor” in the body of the story, indicating that on an editorial level they know how misleading the term “silencer” is.
- Rick Kupchella’s “Bring Me The News”: “House committee OKs legalizing gun suppressors – but Dayton, DFLers a tough sell” – Kupchella’s organization is generally good.
- KARE11: “Gun sound suppressor bill moves ahead at Capitol – Kare 11 – The Kare Bears go ultra-technical! Gun Sound Suppressor is literally the most accurate, dispassionate term of the bunch.
- Fox29: Legislature advances bill to legalize silencers – Bad headline? Reporter Tim Blotz offhandedly notes the difference, and uses “Suppressor” for the most part throughout his coverage – although anchor Jeff Passolt’s teleprompter copy used “silencer”. Points for accuracy to Blotz. One taken away for carrying Heather Martens’ testimony.
So minor kudos to the Twin Cities media; at least as re the very basics of language, you’re coming around ever so slightly.
Now, if we could do something about using the term “packing heat”, like, ever…
Yes, you’re right, when you stopped calling members of the Democratic Party, members of the DemocraTIC Party, even though you personally love calling them “Tics”, clearly it was the left waging war.
So as to make it clear to the reader, the far right of the GOP decided a number of years ago, including as documented in internal memos at FOX News, that the term “Democratic” was no longer to be used, but instead the Democrats were to be only called that exactly, despite the name of the party being the “Democratic” Party. Members are referred to as Democrats to be sure, but the party name is not the “Democrat Party.” This was done because the Republicans hoped to try to strip away the idea that Democrats represented a “democratic” way. Quite a lark considering a number of Republicans have, not entirely jokingly, advocated certain voters should have to prove they’re “smart” enough to vote and look to keep many impoverished voters from voting, ostensibly because it’s necessary to stop voter fraud, but per the Brennan Center for Justice is in fact just a thinly veiled effort to disenfranchise voters they (the Republicans) don’t like. So much for ideals of democracy, eh? But hey, at least you’re not members of the Democrat Party.
The move to change the word/name in use by Republicans was peevish to be sure, it was childish, it was PC’ism (as in if you wanted to be politically correct inside the GOP, you’d better start using Democrat, not Democratic), and it was adopted nationwide (no, no, Virginia, there’s no right-wing media apparatus, nope), and it certainly was a willful war on words (or in this case, a word). So glad you stand up for the proper use of English, though.
All that said, I have to tell you, calling noise suppressors instead silencers, given the common parlance is the latter and the press is trying to appeal to readers, be concise, and keep it at an easily understood level, appears to this charming head as nothing like a conspiracy and more like simple journalistic short-hand, or as someone a bit less charming might call it, your complaining sounds like a whine-fest tempest in a teapot. Either way, it certainly looks far less damning than deciding upon, and enforcing subscription to, a name change for the party of your political opposition.
Honestly, your posts should come with a shovel.
Pedantically yours,
Charming
Hey, Pen! Long time no see!
Yes, you’re right, when you stopped calling members of the Democratic Party, members of the DemocraTIC Party, even though you personally love calling them “Tics”, clearly it was the left waging war.
Red herring. The fact that I fight for the language doesn’t mean the Dems don’t. I’m just note quiiiite as big as the Democrat/media complex.
So as to make it clear to the reader, the far right of the GOP decided a number of years ago, including as documented in internal memos at FOX News
(according to risible “sources”)
that the term “Democratic” was no longer to be used, but instead the Democrats were to be only called that exactly, despite the name of the party being the “Democratic” Party.
And the change is, in fact, correct. The Party is not democratic. It is Democrat.
Members are referred to as Democrats to be sure, but the party name is not the “Democrat Party.”
So what?
This was done because the Republicans hoped to try to strip away the idea that Democrats represented a “democratic” way.
Democrats stripped that away pretty handily themselves. IRS scandal? Massive voting irregularities? More rule-by-executive order than any president in history? Least transparent administration of all time?
The Democrat Party is no more “Democratic” than the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea.
Quite a lark considering a number of Republicans have, not entirely jokingly, advocated certain voters should have to prove they’re “smart” enough to vote
…as have certain Democrats.
and look to keep many impoverished voters from voting
Democrat chanting point. Rejected.
per the Brennan Center for Justice
Which is a “center for justice” in the same way that the Alliance for a Better Minnesota is about a better Minnesota.
The move to change the word/name in use by Republicans was peevish to be sure, it was childish, it was PC’ism (as in if you wanted to be politically correct inside the GOP, you’d better start using Democrat, not Democratic), and it was adopted nationwide
Because it makes intrinsic sense. The people – on both sides of the aisle, and no side – adopted it.
So glad you stand up for the proper use of English, though.
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Honestly, your posts should come with a shovel.
And yours, a pointed stick.
Welcome back! Stick around a while!
The Brennan Center for Justice is a far, far Left open-borders outfit disguised as a “think tank”.
“despite the name of the party being the “Democratic” Party”
I’ve been at the very least, mildly politically aware since 1980 (and got very into politics in my early 20s, call it 1992)
The ONLY time I ever heard anyone mention the term “DemocraTIC party” was that very short lived (and ultimately unsuccessful) movement a couple years ago when a few leftists tried to rebrand their tarnished nameplate.
I call partisan “playing with language” DemocraT bullshit on this one.
Pen,
I guess I was so excited to see your comment, I skipped past the response I should have stuck with.
Which was:
What does any of your comment have to do with the media’s coverage of the suppressor bill?
I might be ok if the media largely ignored the bill….as most of those with far more firearms knowledge that can pressure lawmakers and show up for hearings seem to be keenly aware of this through the likes of social media and organizations like GOCRA…