Journal superyooser's Journal: Media Plays Taboo Game 7
How do you get your team to say APPLE?
You can't say RED, FRUIT, PIE, CIDER, or CORE. They're TABOO® -- utterly unmentionable words!
Think fast, talk fast and don't say a TABOO word or you'll get buzzed and lose a point!
It sounds so simple: get your team to name common words without voicing a few choice descriptors. But could you describe a wristwatch without mentioning time, wrist, or clock? Taboo rewards those who think--and speak--fast. The team that correctly identifies as many words as possible in a minute (measured with an hourglass timer) wins. If a member of the opposing team, armed with the blaring buzzer, catches the clue giver using any of the taboo words, a point is deducted from the group's score.
POLITICALLY CORRECT MEDIA VERSION
You're a journalist. How do you get your readers to know the truth about WHO exactly committed the terrorist massacre in Beslan, Russia? You can't say ISLAMISTS, TERRORISTS, MASS MURDERERS, TORTURERS, RAPISTS, MUSLIMS, ARABS, AL-QAEDA, MUJIHADEEN, JIHAD, FATWA, or INFIDELS.
The press
... generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists:
- Assailants - National Public Radio.
- Attackers - the Economist
. - Bombers - the Guardian
. - Captors - the Associated Press.
- Commandos - Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
- Criminals - the Times (London).
- Extremists - United Press International.
- Fighters - the Washington Post
. - Group - the Australian
. - Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
- Gunmen - Reuters.
- Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times
. - Insurgents - in a New York Times headline.
- Kidnappers - the Observer (London).
- Militants - the Chicago Tribune
. - Perpetrators - the New York Times
. - Radicals - the BBC.
- Rebels - in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
- Separatists - the Christian Science Monitor
. And my favorite:
- Activists - the Pakistan Times
.
Media journalists, isn't "terrorists" the most obvious word to use here? Using any other word depreciates your accuracy as a reporter of facts. The Chechen terrorists are a subnational entity using lethal violence against civilians to inflict terror and effect massive political changes of a sovereign nation.
But the media has a different favorite T word: Taboo. (The left would call this "self censorship.") Actually, some of the forbidden words have been in mainstream press articles, but there's a lot of reluctance to use them.
If these Chechen murderers aren't terrorists, there are no terrorists. We might as well black out that word in our dictionaries. Terrorists don't exist. They're a myth. Let's expunge the word from our vocabulary since we don't want to offend the activist freedom fighters.
Folks, (Score:2)
This has the On Lawn nomination for most important Journal Entry of the Month.
Re:Folks, (Score:1)
Lets put this baby to a vote. All in favor?
Re:Folks, (Score:2)
er... by that I mean yes. This definantly is evident. WTF is NPR thinking???? Assailants? This isn't some mugging in the street. Yeash.
jason
Re:Folks, (Score:2)
Moo (Score:2)
Aye...media-speak is starting to look dangerously similar to Newspeak [amazon.com]. Hell, with just one more "s," we could even call it "Newsspeak" to really drive the point home.
Re:Folks, (Score:2)
superyooser is officially the man.
That means he's buying, btw.
Terrorist is too nice a word (Score:2)
Actually, the more amazing thing is how quickly the story has dropped off the news radar screen.