Initial Discussions of Language Reminding Me of Stuff

Blog – What about this essay reminds you of our initial discussions of language? What new perspective does it bring up?

There were three basic points of this essay that dealt with how language may differ in television programs. The first point brought up by Neil Postman and Steve Powers is that language is not static - different announcers may choose a different set of words to present the tone of an incident. The second point the article points out is that some announcers may be more ambiguous than others. An announcer can make a statement that is so broad it could refer to millions of people, or an announcer can make a statement so narrow that the viewer knows precisely every detail of a person. The third point that the authors bring up is that words have connotative meanings. The example provided, "high-level policymaker", shows that even though we have no idea what that is, it sounds impressive. Announcers have the ability to say such things about people without the general viewer realizing the bias they are being presented. The essay was designed to help people see these biases.

The essay definitely reminded me of our initial discussions of language. Language is a powerful tool. There is almost always a bias when people talk, but it can be extremely difficult to notice without the proper understanding of language. Even the announcers may not be aware. The essay points out that reports are "thrown together" rather than "designed". Announcers don't have the time to go through each word and make sure it is unbiased in context. That was the biggest new perspective the essay pointed out. People may not intend to be biased, but they are because language can be an unpredictable, unscripted thing.

News

I watched the local news. What is most surprising about the local news is how watered down it is. They talked about the Colts about 4 separate times, and the weather 3 separate times. Between sports, weather, commercials, and other miscellaneous subjects there is actually very little time spent on news that really affects us. Even stories about robberies and murders, however interesting they may be, do not really affect us. What affects us the most is politics, and very little of that was talked about. That in itself is alarming, but consider the way the news is presented and it's even more alarming. The interviews with people related to situations are extremely mind-numbing. The announcers speak extremely fast and seem generally uninterested, except for when they get to talk about the Colts. In addition, they probably wasted a good five minutes laughing at their own inside jokes. In addition, it often seemed that the announcers would run out of things to say and jump to the weather. I can't imagine that I need to hear the weather 3 times in a half-hour span. That's not even taking into account that if I really cared about the weather, or the Colts, I would go online for that information. I am generally unimpressed with the local news and I think that it needs a major renovation. They have a service that other news mediums cannot offer - video - but they do not seem to be taking advantage of it by showing the weather, sports, and other frivolous subjects.