impartial journalism
January 4th, 2007 by 
elenamary
Journalism should be impartial. I can only assume it is difficult for any journalist to be impartial because of their own views. And of course, I bet editors have a hell-of a lot of influence by changing a word or two here and there. I came across this article published in both the Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post and it really pissed me off. It was titled “Plea deals sought by caught illegals“. There are two words out of these six words that offend me…anyone want to guess?
Dictionary.com caught:
- To capture or seize, especially after a chase.
- To take by or as if by trapping or snaring.
The word caught reminds me of trapping a mouse. It is dehumanizing, and comes across as some kind of cat and mouse game. A chase, a hunt. I don’t want my people hunted.
The word “illegals” is even more offensive. People, humans, are not illegal. People commit illegal acts, but are not illegal. A nun who robs a bank, is not illegal, but she did commit a crime. Her act of robbing the bank was illegal, the nun isn’t “an illegal”.
The sentence, with the words “caught” and “illegal” is very dehumanizing. But I guess, it doesn’t matter since these “caught illegals” aren’t really human.
Posted in Ohio, immigration | 