WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Gilbert Cranberg: ANTICS WITH SEMANTICS

The latest numbers show a slowdown in economic activity. As the New York Times phrased the news, “The federal government helped bring the economic recovery to a virtual halt late last year as cuts in military spending and other factors overwhelmed the Federal Reserve’s expanded campaign to stimulate growth.”

Note the phrase “military spending,” which the Times used throughout its story, except when it quoted a source who talked about “defense spending.” The Times is on the right track in disfavoring “defense.” The term subtly, but unmistakably, injects bias into an account. Who can object to defense of the country? Every synonym for the word gives it a favorable connotation.

But the U.S. invasions of Grenada and Iraq assuredly were not acts of defense. Both were acts of aggression, and to cover the spending for both with the mantle of defense is to debase the language.

The press needs to rid itself of the words “defense spending” if only for accuracy’s sake. “Military spending” is a perfectly adequate substitute. Aside from being accurate, it is neutral, without favorable or unfavorable connotations.

Bad habits are hard to break, and liberals as well as conservatives have gotten into the “defense spending“  habit. The other night liberal-leaning Rachel Maddow repeatedly referred to “defense spending” in commenting on the same economic news where the Times shunned the term.

Words matter. Precision in the use of them matters especially. The sooner the press junks “defense spending” when it means to say “military spending” the better off it and the public will be.

The late newspaper columnist Sydney Harris had a feature he called Antics With Semantics. I don’t recall if he ever cited the military-defense bit, but he would have hugely enjoyed recounting how the advocates of a big military sold the country on it by repackaging it as defense.

No comments: