erik lundegaard

It Depends on What the WSJ's Meaning of the Word 'Was' Is: Revealing propagandist tendencies in the right-wing press

James Fallows posted this on his Atlantic blog the other day. It’s a screenshot from a reader’s iPad newstream that tells the same story two different ways:

Depends on what the WSJ's use of "was" is: propagandist tendencies in the right-wing press

Fallows’ post was headlined “Why to Get More Than 1 Newspaper, iPad Edition,” and included the following subhed:

One paper’s headline writers choose the word “dips”; the other's choose “only.” The difference those two words can make.

To me, Fallows focuses on the wrong word. It's less “only” than “was.” Something sinister lies behind that word.

Let’s look at the headlines again. The New York Times:

 U.S. Economy Adds 148,000 Jobs, as Unemployment Dips to 7.2%

This is a Sgt. Friday headline: Just the facts, ma’am. Both things are correct.

Now here’s The Wall Street Journal:

U.S. employers added only 148,000 jobs in September; unemployment rate was 7.2%

Until now I didn’t notice the difference between “U.S. Economy” and “U.S. employers” but that’s problematic as well. It’s as if the WSJ is dredging up tired GOP talking points. But onward.

Fallows focuses on WSJ’s use of “only” but that doesn’t bug me too much. It’s a value judgment but ultimately, or at least comparatively, correct. In the eight months prior, the U.S. economy added more than 148,000 jobs five times, and exactly 148,000 jobs one time, so, yes, September wasn’t one of our better months. Last year, eight of the 12 months were better in terms of job growth. So I’ll let them have “only.”

But they fuck up big time with “was.”

First, writers and journalists go out of their way to avoid passive verbs. “Is” and “was” just sit there. That’s what they do. That’s their job.

The WSJ headline writer went out of his way to embrace the passive verb. Why? Because he wanted the unemployment rate to just sit there. Apparently he didn’t want people to know that it moved.

Read it again. It’s so awkward: Jobs added and “... unemployment rate was 7.2%.” Was? You mean in the past? So what is it now? Oh. That’s what it is now? So why didn’t you just say that?

The headline writer has tied himself into knots to avoid any sense of movement, and in so doing has created a sentence fragment that doesn’t inform. He is trying to hide facts, rather than reveal facts, with his words. That’s not the work of a journalist; it’s the work of a propagandist.

Indeed, this little screenshot is indicative of exactly what’s wrong with the mainstream media. The Times strives for objectivity and gives us the facts. WSJ strives for right-wing talking points and hides the facts. Somehow, even in the mainstream press, this combination is known as “the liberal media.”


Posted at 07:32 AM on Thu. Oct 24, 2013 in category Media  
Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

Richard Lavin wrote:

Was is not a passive verb; it's a linking or state-of-being verb. If the headline said something to the effect of “the unemployment rate was reduced”, that would be a passive verb. The construction requires the use of a past participle (reduced) to make it passive.

Comment posted on Thu. Oct 24, 2013 at 08:58 AM

Erik wrote:

Passive verb, not passive voice.

Comment posted on Thu. Oct 24, 2013 at 09:01 AM

You may bypass the ID fields and security question below if you log in before commenting.


 
 





Receive notification of further comments via e-mail

« Outer Space Needle   |   Home   |   Why I Missed One of the Oddest Finishes in World Series History »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES

All previous entries

LINKS
Movies
Jeffrey Wells
The Film Experience
Roger Ebert
Baseball
Rob Neyer
Joe Posnanski
Cardboard Gods
Politics
Andrew Sullivan
Alex Pareene
Hendrik Hertzberg
Friends
Cloud Five Comics
Copy Curmudgeon
Deb Ellis
Andrew Engelson
Jerry Grillo
Tim Harrison
Eric Hanson
Ben Stocking
Jim Walsh
dative-querulous