To understand how messages are conveyed, you must pay close
attention to the language being used. One
of the most subtle tells is the use of pronouns. A study was done that concluded men tend to
use the first person and second person singular more often, whereas women tend
to use the second person plural more often.
The second thing to pay attention is how information is
presented. In the linked-to article for
this thread, I take a look at Katie Yoder’s article on Fox News titled, “5 NewYear's resolutions for our out-of-touch media. (Hint: Start with somechocolate)”
The title itself invokes the idea that the article will be
about all media, and her use of the first person plural possessive indicates she
is referring to all US media. The implication
here is that she believes that the current state of US media is out-of-touch
with what “real” Americans are thinking.
Before I go any further, keep in mind that one of the frames of the
Right is that the Left, and by extension, all, so-called, “liberal mainstream
media” is completely out of touch with most Americans, and the reason for this
is that the Left is mostly populated with wealthy, university educated elitists
who have never worked a hard day in their life.
Realizing that, then there is a not-so-subtle hidden agenda in this
essay’s title, and being that it is posted on FNC’s site, a certain audience is
being targeted whose ears are attuned to what some people refer to as, “dog
whistles”.
Her essay certainly begins benign, hopeful and unbiased
enough: “When someone asks me “What’s the most beautiful thing you've ever
seen?” I don’t give the typical answer. I don't point to the majestic Mount
Kilimanjaro or Austria’s lavish Schönbrunn Palace -- though each site has taken
my breath away. No. My answer is kindness, especially this new year.” So far, so good, right?
It’s not until four and a half paragraphs into the
essay when she makes an abrupt turn to the right.
“and the liberal media smear conservative news sites as
"fake," writers easily lose themselves in an agenda forgetful of the
everyday life.”
Read that part carefully; she is claiming that all “liberal
media” is, apparently, smearing, all conservative news sites and then, very
adroitly, she ties that to an “agenda” which is targeted at forgetting the “everyday
life”, but it’s not too hard to read into “life” as really meaning, “people”.
Her next paragraph is, when you really think about it, a
very puzzling transition that features two pieces of information which, while germane,
are not connected to one another linearly, especially in light of what the focus of
the essay is supposed to be about: “A recent poll revealed that a majority of
Americans prefer "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays." But
many in the liberal media don’t just ignore that, they also take a step farther
by mocking and attacking Christians during this special season.” Remember her title? This was supposed to have been about all
media, but clearly, it’s not; it’s about “liberal” media. They’re the ones out of touch with America,
and, according to her, a recent poll is proof of that. However, not only does she not provide a link
to that poll, she goes on to make a completely false and unsubstituted claim
that “many in liberal media…ignore that”.
The reason why this is an awkward transition, aside from the fact that
the article was presumably about all media, is that she was just describing the
alleged smears of right wing media by left wing media. The awkwardness continues in the second half
as she somehow tries to relate her false claim with a much more severe one;
that all liberal media is mocking and attacking all Christians “during this
special season.” Funny, she didn’t call
it Christmas…
Then, she makes another awkward transition with the next
paragraph: “That’s all part of the disaster that was news in 2016. Journalists
need to find a positive way to get past that. To learn how to report with no
regrets, we must first learn to live with no regrets.” This essay began with a personal anecdote
regarding her family, Midnight Mass and a homeless man, then abruptly veered
into claims of smears, mockery and attacks by “liberal” media, then, just as
abruptly, she pulls back and makes a claim that “that was news in 2016”, which
she claims was a “disaster”. The word, “that”
is an antecedent in this case, so it must have a referent, so the question is,
what is its referent? Her story about
Christmas; that liberal media apparently smears conservative media or that
liberal media is supposedly mocking and attacking all Christians?
We never find out because she takes another hard turn, this
time, back to her focus: appreciate life and the people around you.
I guess, but notice how, in the third part of her essay, she
switches back to the use of the second person, and first person plural; she went from first person to a very directed third person plural to an
inclusive and expansive first person.
Regardless, I want to focus on the message and the words
used in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, and specifically, three words: smear,
mock and attack.
Each of those words is a hyperlink to an outside
source. Typically, when this technique
is used, the author is linking to something specific which provides unbiased
support for their argument.
However, all
three links connect to Newsbusters-a site for which she is a writer, and, it
should be noted, that two of those articles target the Washington Post while
the first targets CNN. No need to state
what the Right thinks of those two media outlets.
Linking to the same source for support of your argument is
frowned upon in academia, science-just about everywhere-but also linking to
your place of employment further decreases any legitimacy of your
argument. But remember; she was making
the claim that it was all liberal media against all conservative media and all
Christians.
The apparent “smear” was made by one person, a consultant
called into CNN to give his opinion on so-called, “fake news” and the proof of
that smear is that, during the short segment, there are two screen shots of a
webpage belonging to Newsbusters. I shouldn’t
have to point this out, but one man, who never directly refers to any media
source, his opinion and a news outlet displaying a graphic which has a picture
of one conservative website does not, in any way, fulfill the argument that all
liberal media is smearing all conservative media.
As for the next two, Yoder links to a critique of a review,
posted in, you guessed it, WaPo, of a musical that, apparently mocks
Christianity. The author of the NB article,
Tim Graham, makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that, “Let's guess Islam
got left out, since satirizing Islam leads to a fatwa. It certainly doesn't
lead to a favorable review in liberal papers.”
I write unsubstantiated because he admits, without expressly doing so,
that he did not see the show, has not read its script and did not contact
anyone in affiliation with the show. But
why bother with doing any actual journalistic research when you can use another
right wing meme; that liberals love Muslims over Christians and Jews. But let’s not forget the premise of the
argument; it’s all liberal media mocking all Christians, however, a review of a
musical that does the actual mocking is not only not proof of that, is
scientifically flawed because it ignores Jews who are also targets of the
musical.
As to the “attacking” that all liberal media perpetuates
upon all Christians, Yoder, once again linking to her employer’s site, uses as
support to this argument, one article written in regards to comments made by
two different people on two different sites; The Daily Beast and, yes, WaPo,
again. The person quoted in WaPo, Ruth
Everhart is a Presbyterian minister and the other person, also a woman, Candida
Moss, is a scholar of religion. Once again,
two people does not at all constitute all liberal media and their giving their
opinions about modern Christianity’s take on the Virgin Mary hardly rises to
the level of “attacking”. But again,
none of that matters.
And it doesn’t matter because Yoder’s target audience is
already convinced that there is a giant cabal of liberal, mainstream media and
that they all despise real Americans, hate Christianity and idolize Islam.
Finally, there is this:
In January, 2015, after the offices of Charlie Hebdo were attacked in
Paris by Islamic gunmen, Yoder wrote a piece for NB in which she laments about the attacks upon free
speech. And the very real attack that
she uses to highlight her argument is, ironically enough, a very, and openly,
liberal media source.
