One of my maxims in covering politics and the press is that whenever you see changes in the language, that is where you can spot a problem in the messaging. The need to alter terminology and definition is done to control the narrative, so when you see these alterations, you know some trouble in the delivery took place. A couple of new options are emerging in the media, a sign that they are losing the handle on national narratives.
The most glaring example of this practice was years back when “global warming” fell out of favor, mostly due to the repeatedly promised calamities not arriving by the supposed deadline dates. There were only so many times that the assured heatwave would fail to materialize before that label would fall out of favor. So now the all-encompassing “climate change” is the approved descriptor. This is beyond convenient because now, any time they are proven wrong, the change in the climate is the reason for them not knowing, while somehow retaining their expert position on the matter.
This has also been the case with America’s most vocal minority group, which has seen a need to relabel itself about once every generation. “Negro” was deemed wrong, so “colored people” became the preferred choice, which was altered to “black” as the accepted use, then “African American” supplanted that term. Now we have moved on again to “people of color” (POC), a choice that somewhat baffles, as we have been told that “colored people” is now offensive, but not how POC is somehow significantly different.
These changes deliver tripwires on either side of the racial discourse. With these POC examples of each change, you can be deemed offensive for resorting to the prior approved term, even while that term had been promoted by the very group that is now offended. Yet that delivers a challenge for organizations supporting said group. Is the United Negro College Fund now racist?! If it is offensive to use “colored people,” then does that not make the leading lobbying group, the NAACP, an offensive outfit by default?
It can be a tiresome practice to play by these glossarial rules laid out and then shifted by the very same voices, and the national media is consistent in delivering this frustrating enterprise. They have no compunction in contorting our language any time a new offense is forwarded by a supposedly aggrieved group, and they absolutely love lording over us with their linguistic mandates. The tortured use of the plural pronouns to describe a solitary figure is still a battle waged on the tongue. The fact that they can soberly use pregnant “persons” and even insist that a male is giving birth shows the level of anti-intellectualism they will stoop to so they can pretend they are above the rest of us in terms of wisdom.
These latest examples defy common sense and serve as a lesson in the desperation in the press. The first concerns the transient crowd that occupies living spaces in public areas. For reasons rooted purely in deflection, there is a drive to move from the term “homeless” and opt instead for “unhoused.” But…why?! Look, I grasp the difference between the words; I know the lyrics to the Kiss ballad "Beth" (“...That our house just ain’t a home"). But in terms of those living on the streets, this distinction makes little sense.
A primary explanation is that the new term shifts the focus from the plight of the individual and puts the focus on the housing crisis in this country. In other words, you are uncomfortable looking into the factors that placed an individual in a tent on the sidewalk, instead preferring to shift the blame onto a larger, nebulous national villain. What is amusing to watch is when the very outlets pushing this effort struggle to remain on script within their own coverage.
Another topic that has the press squirming is the illegal immigrant issue, one that has caused obvious problems, but since it is President Trump addressing those very problems, the news outlets need to oppose him at every turn. For years, they have operated in denial by going with the laughably inept label of “undocumented resident,” a term so oblivious that you can picture any journalist covering their ears while using the phrase. Now they are seeking a new form of avoidance for describing those who are most obviously in the country illegally.
At the formerly federally funded Public Broadcasting Service, they uncorked a new designation on the “PBS News Hour” for this group: “People Without Legal Status.” I mean, seriously now. Who exactly are you fooling with this logic so twisted it needs to be slathered in mustard?! If you lack “legal status,” then that means, by definition, you are an illegal. This is the attempted manipulation in the media to mold the public's thinking on issues. What the press outlets in this country continue to deny is that they no longer hold the reins on driving the public’s perception.
The press has been on a downward trajectory with the public trust for years now, achieving record lows in trust in the past few years. These efforts serve as more examples of how the media are not interested in repairing that trust, driven instead to continue employing their practiced efforts and opposition to Trump and Republicans by rote.
They continue to be exposed as peddling these lies, all because they cannot look in the mirror and start being honest with themselves.
