This isn't biased or anything, is it?

[DEDixon 39]

had i used "separating fence" in any college term paper, i would have received a big fat ding with that gigantic red pen.

[DEDixon 39]

you see a fence and then you follow it until you see a gate and then you knock and identify yourself before entering.

separating fence LOL!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Racist comment has been removed.

[twowls 217]

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.

I understand the point you're trying to make. Obviously it's not about fences or Robert Frost. You'd like to assert that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and that linguistics is one of the weapons it uses. That's fine. I'm just suggesting, in the interest of assembling a coherent argument, that you select a more effective example. If your point seems like it might hold up in a given instance, you're going to have more fun. The example you chose isn't doing the work you need it to do to support your thesis.

I support your right to put these arguments together. I just want you to form an effective presentation. If you do that, and I refuse to acknowledge a well-made point, you can justifiably call me out on my ignorance or gullibility. We're not there yet.

[DEDixon 39]

I understand the point you're trying to make. Obviously it's not about fences or Robert Frost. You'd like to assert that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and that linguistics is one of the weapons it uses. That's fine. I'm just suggesting, in the interest of assembling a coherent argument, that you select a more effective example. If your point seems like it might hold up in a given instance, you're going to have more fun. The example you chose isn't doing the work you need it to do to support your thesis.

I support your right to put these arguments together. I just want you to form an effective presentation. If you do that, and I refuse to acknowledge a well-made point, you can justifiably call me out on my ignorance or gullibility. We're not there yet.

the presentation was good enough for VJ. gee, now you are expecting a thesis? trying to divert from subject matter to thesis, hmmmmm.

[SuperDuper! 230]

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.

Thank you, Capt. Obvious.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gabi, you should read some of Frank Luntz's work on the use of language. For example, calling what was traditionally referred to as an inheritance tax, a death tax. It is strange that the author of the article chose to call it separating fence as opposed the conventional term, border fence, but that's the first I've ever heard anyone referring to it as a 'separating fence.' The battle of terms is nothing new, nor was it invented by the press.

Frank Luntz is the premier conservative linguist who helps the Republicans frame their issues in a powerful way. You can directly thank Luntz for: "The Contract with America," "Partial Birth Abortion," "The Marriage Tax," and "The Death Tax."

http://www.zephoria.org/lakoff/2004/09/frank-luntz.html

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

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.

are you studying to be a politician?

[GabiandVi 34]

Gabi, you should read some of Frank Luntz's work on the use of language. For example, calling what was traditionally referred to as an inheritance tax, a death tax. It is strange that the author of the article chose to call it separating fence as opposed the conventional term, border fence, but that's the first I've ever heard anyone referring to it as a 'separating fence.' The battle of terms is nothing new, nor was it invented by the press.

http://www.zephoria.org/lakoff/2004/09/frank-luntz.html

I've read bits and pieces of Luntz's work. Language has power. No doubt. And no question that this is not the first instance, nor will it be the last of using language to manage reactions. Everyone does it.

However, this is one of the least subtle, least clever, most blantant I've seen in a headline in a long time and I couldn't believe that anyone would fall for it. But, there you go.

Another interesting part of the article was the accompanying photo of the gov. It, too, was obviously chosen to induce a negative emotional response in the reader.

[twowls 217]

the presentation was good enough for VJ. gee, now you are expecting a thesis? trying to divert from subject matter to thesis, hmmmmm.

No, I actually clarified the true subject matter after the original post made an inadequate attempt to point in its general direction.

And while I first disagree that "good enough for VJ" is the standard we should strive for in our critical thinking, I also disagree that it was even sufficient for this dark and damp corner of the internet. It's a weak piece of evidence. I'm not hating on it because I disagree with the thesis, I'm hating on it because it's a ####### foundation for the point that's being attempted.

If you now want to make the point that strong, well reasoned arguments are the territory of snobs or fancy-pantses, just ignore me.

[GabiandVi 34]

I understand the point you're trying to make. Obviously it's not about fences or Robert Frost. You'd like to assert that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and that linguistics is one of the weapons it uses. That's fine. I'm just suggesting, in the interest of assembling a coherent argument, that you select a more effective example. If your point seems like it might hold up in a given instance, you're going to have more fun. The example you chose isn't doing the work you need it to do to support your thesis.

I support your right to put these arguments together. I just want you to form an effective presentation. If you do that, and I refuse to acknowledge a well-made point, you can justifiably call me out on my ignorance or gullibility. We're not there yet.

Actually, I was NOT presenting this as evidence of a pattern of bias. (Where does my op intimate that at all?) I COULD use it as one example to establish a prevailing practice, but I don't have the time nor the desire to collect evidence of the obvious.

I thought it was sooooo blatant that it was humorous. I'm actually amazed that people are defending "separating fence" as a valid term "because fences are only used to separate people and things." Nevermind that that is one of the most simplistic responses I could imagine, it totally misses the point. Use that as an argument for your position that the border fence is a bad idea, etc., etc., but at least acknowledge that it is positioned as an argument.

Now, if you don't see this as an isolated example of manipulation of the language, then it is pointless to carry on a discussion with you. If you want to argue that this one example is just that, an isolated one, and there is no pattern, then as I've said before, I don't have the time to waste nor the desire. That was not my point at all. If you took it as my point, that's your torch your carrying.

[GabiandVi 34]

No, I actually clarified the true subject matter after the original post made an inadequate attempt to point in its general direction.

And while I first disagree that "good enough for VJ" is the standard we should strive for in our critical thinking, I also disagree that it was even sufficient for this dark and damp corner of the internet. It's a weak piece of evidence. I'm not hating on it because I disagree with the thesis, I'm hating on it because it's a ####### foundation for the point that's being attempted.

If you now want to make the point that strong, well reasoned arguments are the territory of snobs or fancy-pantses, just ignore me.

You have read way more into this thread than was ever intended. But go ahead and argue your case. I'm not arguing it with you. It's a waste of time.

Avoid the original point about this particular headline if it helps you feel superior. I can afford your disdain. It costs me nothing.

[twowls 217]

Actually, I was NOT presenting this as evidence of a pattern of bias. (Where does my op intimate that at all?) I COULD use it as one example to establish a prevailing practice, but I don't have the time nor the desire to collect evidence of the obvious.

I thought it was sooooo blatant that it was humorous. I'm actually amazed that people are defending "separating fence" as a valid term "because fences are only used to separate people and things." Nevermind that that is one of the most simplistic responses I could imagine, it totally misses the point. Use that as an argument for your position that the border fence is a bad idea, etc., etc., but at least acknowledge that it is positioned as an argument.

Now, if you don't see this as an isolated example of manipulation of the language, then it is pointless to carry on a discussion with you. If you want to argue that this one example is just that, an isolated one, and there is no pattern, then as I've said before, I don't have the time to waste nor the desire. That was not my point at all. If you took it as my point, that's your torch your carrying.

If your intention was not to make a point about a pattern of bias, then I stand corrected. From what I'm hearing, your only point is that language can be used to distort information and control how it's received and perceived? Well we all agree then; that's pretty basic.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion with regard to the example given, then. I am surprised you find this one of the most profound and blatant instances you've ever seen. I, and others across the political spectrum in this thread, don't see what you see. Perhaps because the term "border fence" is not an entrenched part of my personal lexicon, I perceive that term and the phrase "separating fence" as roughly equivalent. I don't see the outrageous manipulation you do. I originally chimed in because you asserted that people's rejection of your assertion proved it, which I found to be faulty.

As far as my wanting "to argue that...there is no pattern," I don't know how you could possibly extract that notion from what I've written, because my point all along has been that no productive argument is possible within such a flimsy (imo) framework.

If you never wanted a discussion, and never intended to waste your time with an actual debate on an interesting issue--how both sides may manipulate language to create influence--then I'm not sure what the point of any of it was.

[Heracles 417]

And while I first disagree that "good enough for VJ" is the standard we should strive for in our critical thinking, I also disagree that it was even sufficient for this dark and damp corner of the internet.

Off topic, while I do enjoy the high caliber of your posts, I am interested in what field you specialize in.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

I guess it's just a matter of opinion with regard to the example given, then. I am surprised you find this one of the most profound and blatant instances you've ever seen. I, and others across the political spectrum in this thread, don't see what you see. Perhaps because the term "border fence" is not an entrenched part of my personal lexicon, I perceive that term and the phrase "separating fence" as roughly equivalent.

I have never hard of such term prior to this article, yet I can say I proactively follow the news regarding such stories. This is no different from those labeling illegal aliens undocumented migrants. It's manipulation that at the very least is disingenuous and the worst is a cunning attempt to sway people from reality.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Booyah!