Language matters.
Even if you want to say that statement is subjective, arguing against it would be nearly impossible. We use language to form and express our thoughts, to receive and reproduce information and to understand and interact with each other.
Because language enables us to perform all of these fundamental tasks, it follows that the specific kinds of language we use are important.
If, in your frustration with the state of your GPA, you choose to say that all of IU’s professors are unfair, rather than that certain professors are unfair in the grading of a class you took, you are wrong.
If, in your frustration with the state of the current election cycle, you choose to say that the media is biased against a certain presidential candidate, rather than that certain journalists or newscasters take issue with that candidate, you are also wrong.
“The media” is not a single entity; it is a general term for a social institution in which thousands of autonomous individuals participate. In fact, you have to use plural pronouns when describing it. Using oversimplifying language to describe the activity of that institution misrepresents the way they actually function.
My suggestion? When discussing current events, and especially when discussing the ways in which particular news sources presented those events to you, be specific about those news sources.
Instead of saying “the media” lean too far in one political direction or another, mention by name the news sources you find to be inappropriately biased. If you feel a particular candidate is being represented unfairly, be as precise as you can in describing the source of the unfair representation.
It is perfectly legitimate to say that a person’s aggregate exposure to media will shape his or her opinions because, in that context, we understand media to include all manners of communication — television, radio, magazines, newspapers, internet — that might reach the individual in question. We understand the full scope of “the media.”
But suggesting all of those disparate information sources are capable of conspiring to produce a unified message is simply inaccurate.
Even if you read another column that advises you to make similar changes in the way you talk about the news, it doesn’t mean I have anything to do with the commentator who wrote that column. No one gave us specific instructions to write what we wrote, and we didn’t collaborate to try to manipulate our readers.
While it may be unrealistic and even unfair to suggest that we should be able to police our casual speech in such a way that we always say exactly what we mean and choose the best possible language to express that meaning, intentional reform is not out of reach.
It isn’t unreasonable to attempt to change the words we use or the ways we use them. Our national lexicon is not permanent. It evolves to reflect the identity and values of our culture. We should value the independence of journalists to make the decisions they feel are best for their readers, and our language should reflect that value.
We say that with freedom comes responsibility. If, as Americans, we have a legally protected freedom to speak as we please, we need to speak responsibly.
mareklei@umail.iu.edu
