Orwell had it almost right, but he should have called it WestSoc.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Protocols of the Commissars of the Ministry of Truth
Orwell had it almost right, but he should have called it WestSoc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
In case the link "accidentally" disappears:
Guidelines for Countering Racial, Ethnic and Religious Profiling
Diversity > Guidelines for Countering Profiling
On Oct. 6 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to redouble their commitment to:
Use language that is informative and not inflammatory;
Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences;
Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.
Guidelines
Visual images
Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.
Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing.
Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.
Stories
Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.
Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.
Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.
Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.
When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.
Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.
When describing Islam, keep in mind there are large populations of Muslims around the world, including in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, India and the United States. Distinguish between various Muslim states; do not lump them together as in constructions such as "the fury of the Muslim world."
Avoid using word combinations such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices, depending on context, include "Al Qaeda terrorists" or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, "political Islamists." Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate.
Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.
Consult the Library of Congress guide for transliteration of Arabic names and Muslim or Arab words to the Roman alphabet. Use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council, including "Muhammad," "Quran," and "Makkah ," not "Mecca."
Regularly seek out a variety of perspectives for your opinion pieces. Check your coverage against the five Maynard Institute for Journalism Education fault lines of race and ethnicity, class, geography, gender and generation.
Ask men and women from within targeted communities to review your coverage and make suggestions
We know how to hit a link, AA. OK, maybe not AI, but the rest of us do. BTW, these guidelines are tad top-downish but don't constitute newspeak to me.
Newspeak to JJ is Good. Clever Newspeak is Gooder.
As for "hitting a link", please read that lone sentence before the pasted article.
Is that newspeak for Alzheimer's?
Is this serious, or a spoof? On the assumption this is from the we-are-not-amused-we-are-the-keepers--of-the-pinko-bien-pensant-orthodoxy, yes, I see AA's point that such links may suddenly disappear down the memory hole, if the powers-that-be decide newspeak has to be modified. So, JJ, get off his case, and assume AA knows what's he's doing.
Now, to the substance: I got hung up when reading this sentence: "Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.". WTF are they talking about? The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US? But then, why not come out and say so? And what "truth" are they seeking? The sort peddled by Thierry Meyssan, Marion Cotillard, and assorted trendy-lefty Frenchies?
At any rate, this is too disgusting, I don't need to read after that to know exactly where these bozos are coming from.
We'd like to think a "variety of perspectives" means how multiple angles of one commercial jet and then another slamming into one Trade Tower and then another might give us more depth and scope to the atrocity of it all. Perhaps. But I doubt that's what is meant. For example:
Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.
I agree, but I doubt they are alluding to the religiously-sanctioned, tribal origin, circumcised adolescent female as a victim of a hate crime.
...I'll continue this in a minute.
I disagree with the planted assumption -- one that equates "harassment" (which is an infinitely malleable word) with terror and murder. Having a bun pinched in the subway is not the same as having your throat slit by KSM or Zarky, like they did to Pearl or Berg. If these guys can't see the difference, sorry, I have nothing to say to them.
There are levels of harassment, too. Verbal and physical are distinctions that the court is interested in. I'm more concerned about the physical variety which, it seems to me, delves closer to the assault and battery aspects.
Note: AI, we're not disagreeing on anything here. These rules, I mean "guidelines," are bonkers, period. I couldn't elaborate in previous post because of pressing familial issues. That's all.
Post a Comment