Footnote to a Tweet; or How the Oslo Bomber Serves to Exemplify Socio-Linguistics

I tweeted this on 7/29/11:

(Follow me here➚ and you'll get updates to this blog as they're posted.)

I'd like to elaborate: I think NPR is artificially balancing their reporting by using what appears to be parallel construction in similar stories. I don't believe this is because the comparison is valid, I think it's meant to influence the listener apart from the facts.

Being a writer, I know well that any writer or editor can argue a nearly unlimited number of conclusions from a limited number of words, independent of being right or wrong.

Writer: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
Reader: Are you saying dogs are lazy?
W: No, it's only an example; I was trying to use all the letters of the alphabet.
R: So why "lazy"?
W: Because it has the letters l-a-z-y in it.
R: So does "Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs." You could have
used that.
W: I wasn't aware of that sentence.
R: I think you just want to portray dogs as lazy.
W: I think you're an alcoholic or you wouldn't have used "liquor" in your sentence.
R: That's beside the point.

Ludicrous? Depends on what "your definition of is "is"is.➚


The choice of words always provides plausible deniability; every thoughtful writer knows it, but most won't admit it. It's not a matter of whether it's there or not; it's a matter of degree and intent. If there is no intent to manipulate perception, then different meanings are due more to the differences in perceivers. As the scale is moved more toward intent to manipulate, the difference in perceptions is due increasingly more to the intent.

(Some will argue that all words are intended to manipulate the reader, that's why we write in the first place. That plays loosely with the meaning of "manipulate," but the point is taken.)

I believe NPR is purposely inserting a peripheral fact about Oslo killer Anders Behring Breivik (being Christian) to artificially encourage perceived balance.[1]

Why?

My guess is they don't trust the listeners to make up their own minds about the role religion plays in motivating terrorists, so they will do that for us, and the uninformed and uncritical thinker will gradually be influenced over time.

(And of course religion is an unavoidable aspect of our existence; we can no more divorce ourself from it than we can the language we speak or foods we eat; it's part of the filter everything passes through on its way to our brains, whether we consider ourselves "religious" or not. To say it plays some role says no more than saying I sometimes eat green beans; it doesn't make the fact meaningful.)

What did Anders Behring Breivik really think? Here is an interesting (and brief) commentary from John R. Hall, Professor of Sociology, UC Davis. "It is an astonishing and significant document, far from the incoherent ravings of a mad person, as I would wish it to be...As others already have commented, the label of 'Christian fundamentalist' seems wrong."

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2011-07-27/article/38182?headline=The-Oslo-Bomber-s-Manifesto-News-Analysis ➚

[1] FOX News noticed this before I did and I happened to overhear while flipping channels; I'm no fan of FOX News or anyone on it, but as painful as it can be, sometimes even the most egregiously misguided and annoying people are right; this is one of those times. Note also that I am not saying religion is never a motivating  factor in horrendous crimes, that would be absurd; only that in this case, the association may be unwarranted and so doesn't merit constant pairing with the word "extremist."