Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Orwell Knows About the NYT
The recently kidnapped Israeli has been continually described in the New York Times as having been captured. You could say “captured” is taking something by force. That's accurate, a dictionary definition, but it is also the word of choice of the criminals. It has that POW ring to it. That's the NYT, using the language of, the thinking of terrorists — callous to the idea that from words deeds are enabled. Words, for those who care about them, have connotative force. Seeming to be deadened to connotative drift allows journalists easy deniability if they are charged with tendentiousness.
Before this depraved use of “captured” there has been long use of the words “militant” or “fighter” for terrorist. This Orwellian mangling of language usually starts with large organizations, finally infecting the thinking of those considering the issues. I first saw AP use the word capture, then a CBS TV correspondent, then the NYT. Journalists are often lazy, looking up what has come before, finding ways not to think — hiding like guilty teenagers who make believe they didn't know, that they aren't to blame for their depraved enabling.