This isn't biased or anything, is it?

[GabiandVi 34]

This was the first headline I saw when I opened my yahoo account to the "What's New" page.

Ariz. Gov. Brewer wants separating fence completed

Separating fence? Those editors must not think much of their readers' intelligence to use such obviously loaded language and expect them to not see through it. But they aren't biased or anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100604/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_arizona_governor

[alienlovechild 75]

Separating fence? Those editors must not think much of their readers' intelligence to use such obviously loaded language and expect them to not see through it. But they aren't biased or anything.

As opposed to fences that bring people together?

[GabiandVi 34]

As opposed to fences that bring people together?

Exactly. That would be an equally biased way of putting it. Which news source used this term? They ALSO be called out for irresponsible and just bad journalism.

[Heracles 417]

But but it keeps people out and separated.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As opposed to fences that bring people together?

Good fences make good neighbors

- from Robert Frost's Mending Wall

[TBoneTX 47,576]

"Pssst! Wanna buy a watch?" -- a Fence

[GabiandVi 34]

I'm not evaluating the effacacy of a border fence. What I'm pointing out is the hypocracy in the headline. The fact that several people have gotten defensive about the term as an accurate term only underscores the fact that it is a biased term.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm not sure what a fence is meant to achieve apart from separation - it keeps whatever is on one side separate from whatever is on the other. If separation wasn't required, then no fence would be necessary.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Heracles 417]

It's not rocket science. Fences are there to keep people out. Evidently one is needed because America's neighbor does not grasp the concept of a sovereign nation.

Many seem to carry the belief that if a store leaves a door unlocked, that means you can enter and take whatever you feel you need. This includes the Mexican government, who hands out comic books illustrating the ideal methods to enter the US illegally.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Booyah!

[GabiandVi 34]

I'm not sure what a fence is meant to achieve apart from separation - it keeps whatever is on one side separate from whatever is on the other. If separation wasn't required, then no fence would be necessary.

By that logic the only thing higher taxation on the rich is supposed to achieve is to redistribute the wealth. Therefore, every headline should refer to such a tax as a "redistribution tax."

You are certainly entitled to your emotional response to an attempt to control borders. Apparantly, the media outlet responsible for that headline agrees with you. But if you condone this sort of manipulative language being used by the media, then turnabout is fairplay.

[twowls 217]

I'm not evaluating the effacacy of a border fence. What I'm pointing out is the hypocracy in the headline. The fact that several people have gotten defensive about the term as an accurate term only underscores the fact that it is a biased term.

People are getting defensive about the accurate use of the term "separating" to denote what a fence is, by definition, used for. It underscores nothing about bias in any poster or general attitude. Fences separate things.

You can make the point you want to, but a better example will help.

[mawilson 2,133]

By that logic the only thing higher taxation on the rich is supposed to achieve is to redistribute the wealth. Therefore, every headline should refer to such a tax as a "redistribution tax."

Not true - depends on how the money is used. If "the rich" are taxed and the money is given

to "the poor" in the form of a tax credit, then it is redistribution of wealth (or "theft" as

it's better known.)

If, on the other hand, the tax money is used to provide a public service which everyone -

rich or poor - is able to enjoy, then it's not.

[GabiandVi 34]

People are getting defensive about the accurate use of the term "separating" to denote what a fence is, by definition, used for. It underscores nothing about bias in any poster or general attitude. Fences separate things.

You can make the point you want to, but a better example will help.

Seriously? Do you really think this is about the meaning of the word separating and the word fence? Okay. Let's talk about the purpose of a fence. A fence has a gate. The purpose of a fence is to limit and control traffic to the points where the gates are placed. So let's call it a "traffic controllling border."

Now, if you actually think the editors did not choose that term purposely rather than call it what it is called, a border fence, I guess then you are pretty gullible and the editors were right to think they could manipulate your thinking.

[GabiandVi 34]

Not true - depends on how the money is used. If "the rich" are taxed and the money is given

to "the poor" in the form of a tax credit, then it is redistribution of wealth (or "theft" as

it's better known.)

If, on the other hand, the tax money is used to provide a public service which everyone -

rich or poor - is able to enjoy, then it's not.

Aha. But you did not note my caveat about following the logic that "the only purpose of a fence is to separate, therefore the editors were not being biased when they called it a 'separating fence' rather than a border fence, which is not a soft sell anyway.

[peejay 327]

As opposed to fences that bring people together?

Just a few weeks ago there was a poster that compared the border fencing to the Berlin wall.

So which is it? Is the fence keeping us in or is it keeping them out.? Or is it bringing us together?

My vote goes to detering unauthorized and illegal intrusion. It certainly isn't fencing me in.