I'm not at all surprised by Walter's incorrect assumption about the Florida bill, because I have had friends make that same assumption. Why? Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject. No attribution or explanation, just presenting it as if that's the actual name of t…
I'm not at all surprised by Walter's incorrect assumption about the Florida bill, because I have had friends make that same assumption. Why? Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject. No attribution or explanation, just presenting it as if that's the actual name of the bill.
At best, an article will say something like "critics call it the 'Don't Say Gay Bill'" but never mention who those critics are or what they are criticizing.
Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist.
"Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject"
Yep, this is exactly the problem. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true in the minds of some people. Especially if you demonise anybody who points out the lie. "Don't say gay" and "anti-CRT" are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Somebody comes up with a catchy name for a bill that doesn't fairly represent it at all, but lots of people don't look beyond the slogan.
"Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist."
Ironically, CNN is undergoing some much-needed soul-searching now as they got rid of a popular show called Reliable Sources. I'm not sure what the show was like or whether it was reliable or not but it's part of what appears for now to be a new mandate to get back to *real* journalism, the way I was taught forty years ago in college. Find the facts, avoid emotionalism & your opinion, and clickbait (or 'grocery store tabloid headlines' as it was known back in the day) are for gossip rags. "CHER CAUGHT IN BRUSSELS LOVE NEST WITH HENRY KISSINGER!"
And....Twitter lost its mind over it this week, accusing them of 'Foxifying' and going right wing. No, I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING 'Foxifying' about trying to *report the news more accurately*, which CNN, like Fox, has had a problem doing in the last fifteen years. Maybe people don't understand what the new guard at CNN is stating they want to accomplish yet, or maybe the left's brains have gotten so addled by muddying male and female biological differences that they can no longer tell the difference between an alleged new commitment to *honest journalism*, and a notoriously dishonest network who claims to let 'you decide' after only telling you their side with its own firmly political spin, whose former sexually-disgraced TV commentator once claimed his now-defunct show was a 'no spin zone'.
Thomas St Thomas just wrote an article, "Sex is Not Assigned at Birth, and I Never Beat My Wife" on Medium that is about agenda driven word choices. He objects to "the sex you were assigned at birth". Not only is the sex of a child revealed at about 20 weeks by observation of genitalia with ultrasound, but it is also revealed at six weeks with analysis of a blood draw. Revealed, not assigned. There is even a paid service for it (https://sneakpeektest.com). In an effort to legitimize the idea that gender is a decision of a person about themself, a subtle "assigned at birth" seeks to make biological sex a decision made by someone else at the time of birth. Weasel wording is often a powerful tool.
I'm not at all surprised by Walter's incorrect assumption about the Florida bill, because I have had friends make that same assumption. Why? Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject. No attribution or explanation, just presenting it as if that's the actual name of the bill.
At best, an article will say something like "critics call it the 'Don't Say Gay Bill'" but never mention who those critics are or what they are criticizing.
Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist.
"Because of constantly seeing the phrase "'Don't Say Gay' Bill" in the *headlines* of news articles on the subject"
Yep, this is exactly the problem. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true in the minds of some people. Especially if you demonise anybody who points out the lie. "Don't say gay" and "anti-CRT" are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Somebody comes up with a catchy name for a bill that doesn't fairly represent it at all, but lots of people don't look beyond the slogan.
Bububut "say gay" rhymes, therefore it's profound.
Guess what else you can't say? 'Don't say straight!" Or if you want it to rhyme, "Don't state straight!"
"Of course, most people don't even get that crumb of information, because reading anything beyond the headline exceeds the average attention span. As a result, the formerly objective journalist becomes the sloganeering activist."
Ironically, CNN is undergoing some much-needed soul-searching now as they got rid of a popular show called Reliable Sources. I'm not sure what the show was like or whether it was reliable or not but it's part of what appears for now to be a new mandate to get back to *real* journalism, the way I was taught forty years ago in college. Find the facts, avoid emotionalism & your opinion, and clickbait (or 'grocery store tabloid headlines' as it was known back in the day) are for gossip rags. "CHER CAUGHT IN BRUSSELS LOVE NEST WITH HENRY KISSINGER!"
And....Twitter lost its mind over it this week, accusing them of 'Foxifying' and going right wing. No, I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING 'Foxifying' about trying to *report the news more accurately*, which CNN, like Fox, has had a problem doing in the last fifteen years. Maybe people don't understand what the new guard at CNN is stating they want to accomplish yet, or maybe the left's brains have gotten so addled by muddying male and female biological differences that they can no longer tell the difference between an alleged new commitment to *honest journalism*, and a notoriously dishonest network who claims to let 'you decide' after only telling you their side with its own firmly political spin, whose former sexually-disgraced TV commentator once claimed his now-defunct show was a 'no spin zone'.
Thomas St Thomas just wrote an article, "Sex is Not Assigned at Birth, and I Never Beat My Wife" on Medium that is about agenda driven word choices. He objects to "the sex you were assigned at birth". Not only is the sex of a child revealed at about 20 weeks by observation of genitalia with ultrasound, but it is also revealed at six weeks with analysis of a blood draw. Revealed, not assigned. There is even a paid service for it (https://sneakpeektest.com). In an effort to legitimize the idea that gender is a decision of a person about themself, a subtle "assigned at birth" seeks to make biological sex a decision made by someone else at the time of birth. Weasel wording is often a powerful tool.
Yes, I dislike that phrasing, except for intersex people who have been historically "assigned" their sex at birth.