Euphemism creep and immigration — and politicization issues

First, "euphemism creep", or the "euphemism treadmill," per Steven Pinker is a real thing. James McWhorter has also written much about it.

It's when a euphemism replaces a no-longer acceptable term, but soon enough becomes no longer acceptable itself.

Think "handicapped" being replaced by "disabled," then that becoming not acceptable and it being replaced by "differently abled." Some day in the not too distant future, because of the word "differently," that will be replaced as well.

This is a field with enough to mine that I am going to write about this on various spots, including my philosophy and critical thinking blog. But, there as here, I'll use the same starting point — Substacker Corey Hutchins talking about how different media outlets in Colorado struggle (or maybe "struggle" with scare quotes intended) on how to talk about "people who aren't supposed to be here," or if I need scare quotes inside that, "people who aren't 'supposed' to be here."

Or, per old friend Brains, who used it non-disparagingly? "Ill Eagles." 

Here, it's not just ground-level, but, in media, an official style issue, as the Associated Press long ago said both "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" aren't allows.

I agree for sure with the word "alien." That said, quoting Hutchins, I disagree with the AP already trying to get ahead of euphemism creep three years ago.

“We don’t use the terms illegal immigrant, unauthorized immigrant, irregular migrant, alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented (except when quoting people or documents that use these terms),” the AP wrote. “Many immigrants and migrants have some sort of documents, but not the necessary ones.”

As I said in a comment to Hutchins, why not just add "allegedly" in front of "undocumented immigrants"? 

Per that Shitter link, the AP does offer alternatives. But? Most of them are kind of cumbersome, which undercuts the usefulness of language.

Also, per the authors I cited at the top of the page, this issue tends to get politicized. And, it's usually "conservatives" vs "liberals." Setting aside L/libertarians and some Green types who claim to be neither right nor left, the politicized polarity also ignores friendly skeptical non-liberal leftists.

In my first comment, Hutchins noted that I had used the word "roundup" and he had edited it out of his post, when thinking about using it, as dehumanizing. I noted that I've seen "roundup" in places like a "kindergarten roundup" at a local school district.

I also commented, in a short bit lower in his post, about a Denver TV news anchor wearing a tie from a Soviet journalist to make a statement about the Russia-Ukraine War. I first noted the fact that, pre-invasion, Zelensky was already restricting press freedom in Ukraine. I then referenced Gaza. Hutchins didn't refer to either one.

And, with that, it strikes me that he's probably framing this in a politicized sense, and within the conservative-liberal axis, or, within the two-party duopoly axis.

To me, right-thinking (NO pun, intended or unintended!) people in general should step outside that box. And, media shouldn't step into that box in general.

We all should move beyond language that's harmful, but at the same time:

• Recognize the euphemism treadmill is real;
• Avoid politicization;
• Accept we won't please everybody;
• And, per Humpty Dumpty, never let language be the master. 

And, that's that.

Metric Media is now pretending to be Catholic Tribune

 Yes, Metric Media, the king of the pink slime hill, and the Timpone Brothers, are hard at it. Actually, these "Catholic" journals, reports Pro Publica, started in 2020. But, per the story, they appear to have really ramped up this year.

Sadly, as PP notes, the Timpones have the backing of nutbar billionaire Peter Uehlein, owner of the Uline box and packaging company with the environmentally unfriendly doorstop catalogues.

Even Nature magazine rejects Russiagate!

A team of researchers has a piece there that looked in minute detail at the Internet Research Agency's activities on Twitter in the 2016 election campaign and says it was next to a nothingburger. (It's a long read, because it's detailed social science and social media research. But, #BlueAnon claims to be the "reality based party.")

The only limitation on the research is that it's only about Twitter, not the broader-reaching Facebook.

But, here's the bottom line:

We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.

But wait, that's not all.

One of the researchers, speaking of Twitter, has a Twitter thread that goes into yet more detail.

I know this will do nothing to deter #BlueMAGA, whether the likes of Mueller She Wrote on Twitter, Emptyhead I mean Emptywheel on her blog (along with other ex-Kossacks, or the exorcised Nancy Pelosi, from spouting bullshit, but, it's actual facts.

The callout above goes to the mainstream media, too, like the New York Slimes that tried to revive Russiagate just before midterms. As for them? I saw this piece linked and mentioned at Nieman Lab, in a Joshua Benton piece about how the power of both misinformation and information is overrated.

As for collusion claims? 

I've said it before and will say it again: Vladimir Putin is way too smart to have entangled himself with a flighty weathervane like Donald Trump. And, if it WERE true? Trump didn't stay bought. Proof? He sold arms to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't, something that the BlueMAGA Twitter rank and file appear clueless about but that the leadership class knows full well. The non-elected leadership class, like the bloggers and Twitterati I've called out above, know there's plenty of good grifting happening here.

As for other collusion? Well, Flynn may have done that — with Turkey. The ultimate end object of that, though, was Israel, proving that both duopoly parties think Tel Aviv is located in the United States. Related? Has Joe Biden moved our embassy back out of Jerusalem? And, that's yet another reason I'm not a Democrat.

Quick thought hot take on Naomi Osaka

I won't say I have zero sympathy for Naomi Osaka's decision to withdraw from the French Open (hold on to that link from Red Satan) but I don't have a lot.

That's in part being a member of the media, who has at the local level, seen in person politicos and businessmen trying to stiff the media, and seeing those same folks — AND athletes and other entertainers — pull the same nationally and globally.

In general, and definitely with Osaka in person, it all boils down to communication, or apparent lack thereof on her part, AND her willing choices made in all of this.

First, let us remember that she won the Australian Open. I don't remember her expressing that much angst during or after matches in Melbourne, or after the whole open were done, about being interviewed. She did admit to being "funny" and "nervous" in the interview after winning the final there. See below.

Second, let us note that if she DID have any such problems that she kept private, she's had nearly 3 1/2 months to communicate with the folks at Roland Garros. 

She chose not to. 

Instead, just days before the start of action, she dropped a bombshell social media statement with a blanket "no interviews." Note that she wouldn't give any interviews about that statement, either.

The folks in Paris said they reached out to her and got crickets, acting on behalf of all four Grand Slams. It was only after that reach-out was snubbed that a further warning was issued saying fines could escalate and that even a disqualification was possible. Given all the above, for Red Satan's author to call this surprising is laughable, naive or worse. The statement within that link says these are normal escalating enforcement provisions within normal Code of Conduct regulations.

Her personal withdrawal statement was also? Posted on her social media. No interview afterward. No returning of questions by the Associated Press.

She DID claim, hypocritically in my opinion, that she NOW wanted to talk with the Grand Slam organizations. Maybe this was because they'd fully indicated that a conversation, not a set of social media posts, needed to happen, that it would happen as a conversation, and not on unilateral terms.

That's probably part of what she didn't imagine a few days ago.

As for other aspects of her withdrawal statement?

First, introversion is not a mental health issue, and it's insulting of her to call it one. It's also sad if she really believes that about introversion in herself. 

And (see links below) her desire to market herself as a brand? Introversion is not shyness.

And now, to tennis as a business.

The Roland Garros statement notes contractual obligations. That's the bottom line. This is a business, and a big one.

Though, as of 2019, not as big as Osaka's endorsement money.

Someone on Twitter suggested the tradeoff of "no interviews, fewer endorsements." Sounds great in practice, but how do you enforce it in reality? In the US, it would run afoul of the First Amendment, especially on individual sports with no team owners to enforce discipline.

Next, to tie that back to her statement? I'm sure Osaka has done marketing interviews related to some of her endorsements, like this big one for Levi's.

Next, to the sports media she first complained about, but pulled in her horns on her withdrawal statement.

Yes, there's inane questions there. Anybody who's watch the full press day at the Super Bowl knows that, too.

But, there's real questions, too. Like at the PGA, to go to golf, asking Brooks Koepka after Round 4, if anybody did, if he's thought that he's lost some of his "majors aura."

OR, with the interview after the Aussie final, Osaka being asked about different court surfaces for upcoming Grand Slams and other events.

Yes, that interview was long, but normally, before the quarters level at a Slam, press availability time is 5-5 minutes, no more.

Could this be further shortened at the quarters, semis, and finals? Yes? Beyond inanity, does sports media have its version of Jim Acosta? Yes. Plenty of them.

Again, though, Osaka has had 3 1/2 months to raise this. And chose not to.

 

When she actually starts talking with the Slams, she needs to include an on-the-record explanation of why the wait. 

==

Update: Per CJR, some people are saying that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, she's owed a reasonable accommodation. 

Well, there's several things to unpack here.

The French clay of Roland Garros ain't in America, first. Neither is the grass of the All England Tennis Club nor the composite surface of Melbourne, Australia.

Second, even in the US, what would a reasonable accommodation be?

 

Third, what is the line between responsibility and obligation, Jon Allsop asks in that piece. He tangentially touches on business aspects but not too directly.

==

Update, June 7: Osaka has a funny way of wanting to talk to the Grand Slams. She's withdrawn from a "Wimbledon tune-up" tourney in Berlin and her appearance at Wimbledon is doubtful.

Update, June 13: Roland Garros makes clear how they reached out to Osaka, repeatedly, and heard nothing (and apparently continue to hear nothing, per the update above).

Texas Trib turns 10; cause for joy? Maybe, maybe not (totally)

Well, maybe. It depends on what metrics and how you analyze them, as we look at Evan Smith's hoorah piece.

OK, first, financials.

$10 million intake and $9.7 million expenses. Yes, you're in the black.

At 3 percent.

A total haul of $76 million over that decade?

How much of that haul is from your "sponsors" in what Jim Moore five years ago called pay-to-play journalism, as I blogged here? Care to open your books all the way, Evan? I didn't think so. Remember, at the same time, Moore called you out for lack of transparency, as well. (I have a more detailed analysis below.)

And, how much of your haul over the years is from advertorial pieces? Easier to do that, maybe, when you have "sponsors."

Ten years in, we still consult at no cost with any wide-eyed, big-hearted social entrepreneurs who want advice and insight on how to create an operation like ours from scratch.

I can consult like that, too, also for free.

"Dear Salt Lake City Tribune, as you now enter the nonprofit world, getcha a bunch of fucking money from big corporations. List them by name to be ethical, but ... don't let that actually bother if you shade your writing their way."

There ya go!

What Evan won't tell you, in addition, is that if that money comes from a foundation, attached to it are foundation terms of use and other strings.

Does that have an effect?

Arguably yes.

Especially when it comes to talking Earl, which the Trib don't have much of in Utah, compared to the Black Gold, the Texas Tea, and the refining thereof in Texas. The Trib has always been light in the loafers about calling Big Oil to account, let alone following fellow light-in-the-loafers Politico to write something about climate change legal liabilities. I noted that at its 3-year mark, with this piece.

Reaching more than 2 million per month on various platforms? Does that include, or not, the New York Times website on cross-produced stories carried at both places?

Speaking of separate platforms and sponsored journalism, running Trib Talk pieces separately is now being killed. That would, therefore, not be a success. How clearly they'll be distinguished in the future, who knows?

About 80 full time and part time employees? Sounds good, as others still gut. But how many are FT and how many PT?

Oh, and per that same environmental piece link, Evan, you were making more than $300 large 7 years ago. Care to tell us what the current haul is? Also within that link, Editor and Publisher had other issues to raise, like Ross Ramsey's cozy past relationship with John Sharp when comptroller, especially since the Aggies that Sharp now runs are an official "partner."

I'm surprised that Evan hasn't branched Trib Talk into a TED Trib Talk channel. He must be slipping.

Finally, given ProPublica's recently announced partnership with the Trib on investigative journalism, what happens when serious dirt gets found on a Trib sponsor?

At least Smith, in an interview with Texas Monthly, admits he got lucky. He refers to livestreaming Wendy Davis and her pink shoes inside the pink dome in 2013.

Sadly, Poynter can only see fit to write a puff piece.

I shouldn't totally bitch on Poynter. It does tell us what Evan didn't — where the money comes from:

Its diverse revenue stream, according to a 2018 financial report, is 25% from foundations, 24% from individuals, 19% from website sponsorship, 18% from events, 10% from membership. 5% is “earned.”

OK. So Poynter doesn't have a breakout of income level of the individuals. Nor $$$ amounts to attend events. Nor does it tell us that at places like The Atlantic, Washington Post and elsewhere, "events" have led to ethical conundrums — conundrums enough for one of said places to generally drop the "events."

Well, it SHOULD have led to ethical conundrums. In reality, Atlantic tut-tutted the people who were tut-tutting the WaPost's soirees, and this was all so it could turd-polish its own such events. This was a full decade ago, meaning that Atlantic gave Evan cover to do this at the Trib.

So, less ethical than the WaPost. Got it. But, in the same slime mold realm as The Atlantic, which can go fucking paywall itself. 

Meanwhile, the Trib is losing its top editor.

Kuff, as part of last week's Texas Progressives roundup, offered a Twitter link salute to Emily Ramshaw (and Amanda Zamora) all the best in their new media venture.

I added a bit to it ... starting with:

as they go bowling for pink-themed sponsorship dollar or whatever. No, seriously, they may not be doing that, since their new gig isn't the Texas Tribune. But, Ramshaw jumped from the Snooze to Trib because, per Robert Wilonsky,  because she "didn't want to go down with a sinking ship." No, she was willing to close one eye (maybe not both) at pay-to-play journalism and its problems.

But maybe they will be doing that? And I still don't get how the hell Ramshaw got from Focus Daily News to the Trib's top editor spot. Or even to her level at the Snooze. Oh, I do now. Family background, which gave her exposure, and even privilege, per this story. (I also get why Focus Daily News publisher Marlon Hanson said she was going places.)

Or to put it another way? Her wedding was written up in the New York Times. No, really.

That said, Robert Wilonsky, before HE jumped the Observer ship to jump the Snooze shark, slightly p'wned her and very much did the Trib, with this brief.

==

Update: Evan wants to help local news, he says. And he's starting an incubator lab or whatever. And, his primary funding? From Hucksterman, the last person in the world to actually help local news.

Sadly, Poynter can only see fit to write a puff piece.

I shouldn't totally bitch on Poynter. It does tell us what Evan didn't — where the money comes from:

Its diverse revenue stream, according to a 2018 financial report, is 25% from foundations, 24% from individuals, 19% from website sponsorship, 18% from events, 10% from membership. 5% is “earned.”

OK. So Poynter doesn't have a breakout of income level of the individuals. Nor $$$ amounts to attend events. Nor does it tell us that at places like The Atlantic, Washington Post and elsewhere, "events" have led to ethical conundrums — conundrums enough for said places to generally drop the "events."

Well, it SHOULD have led to ethical conundrums. In reality, Atlantic tut-tutted the people who were tut-tutting the WaPost's soirees, and this was all so it could turd-polish its own such events. This was a full decade ago, meaning that Atlantic gave Evan cover to do this at the Trib.

'Old media' vs. 'new media' and media vs. messages

"Old media" vs. "new media"? The difference is ultimately in the medium more than the message quality. Yes, blogs have broken news stories before the "MSM" and Twitter has added color to stories, but Twitter has releasd just as much inaccurate info as the MSM outlets at breaking news events, adn blogs can look like news but be as slanted as bad MSM coverage.

Sports-newspapers conflict of interest: the bottom line

How can newspapers truly claim to cover sports impartially, when you have a media-sports team ownership conflict of interest lie this:

(Being a director of the Boston Red Sox) was not the first time (former Senate Majority Leader George) Mitchell would have a financial stake in a baseball team. At the same time he joined the Red Sox, Mitchell was a member of the board of directors of the Walt Disney Co., the parent company of the Anaheim Angels and eventual 2002 World Series champions. He has been on the Disney board since 1994, and was chairman at Disney from 2004-06.

But from the beginning, the Red Sox sale was a particularly sensitive issue for Selig. The commissioner was accused of engineering the $660 million Red Sox transaction to the Henry group, while various other competitors to buy the Red Sox, such as HBO and CableVision founder Charles Dolan, believed the Henry group's bid had not been the highest. Dolan reportedly believed he had outbid Henry by nearly $100 million, and a bid by Miles Prentice was said to be the highest, at $755 million. Selig denied any involvement in managing the sale of the team or that he favored Henry, who had owned the Florida Marlins, or Werner, who endured a turbulent experience as owner of the San Diego Padres during the early 1990s when baseball was embroiled in a rift between large- and small-market franchises. Selig, who was fond of Werner, watched the bitterly divided owners push Werner out of the game in 1993 and told him he would run a team again one day.

In the days following the sale, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced an investigation of the transaction on the grounds that the Yawkey Trust, the charitable foundation that held the team following the 1992 death of Jean Yawkey, was entitled to the highest bid. Reilly threatened a lawsuit against the Red Sox and Major League Baseball, depending on his findings. The Boston Globe, which holds a 17-percent stake in the Red Sox through its ownership by the New York Times Company, referred to Henry's purchase as "a bag job." The Boston Herald called the sale, "the fix." Ultimately, Reilly did not take legal action after the Henry ownership group agreed to increase its charitable contribution to the Yawkey Trust.

So, you have Disney, with multiple media ownerships, above all, ESPN, controlling the Angels. You then have the Boston Globe, via the New York Times Company, with an interest in the Red Sox, which not only raises Red Sox conflicts of interest, but, given the Times is in New York, Yankees conflicts of interest as well.

But, it’s not just MLB. The Dallas Morning News at one time owned a share of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.

If major professional sports leagues, above all MLB, had any guts at all, they would ban media ownership of sports teams, period.

Army lists media as same threat level as drug cartels

Seriously. No bullshit. The media is now an official threat to the United States Army. Read on:

It looks like it’s official: the United States Army thinks that American reporters are a threat to national security. Thanks to some great sleuthing by Wired’s “Danger Room” blogger Noah Shachtman, the Army's new operational security guidelines (OPSEC) hit the Web in a big way yesterday, and the implications they have for reporters — who are grouped in with drug cartels and Al Qaeda as security threats to be beaten back — are staggering.

Make no mistake, this is a very big deal, and every American citizen, not just reporters and soldiers, needs to understand the implications of the Army’s strict new policy, because it directly affects how citizens receive information about their armed forces: information that it has every right to get.

Shachtman reproduces a slide from the new “OPSEC in the Blogosphere,” document, which lists and ranks “Categories of Threat.” Under “traditional domestic threats” we find hackers and militia groups, while “non-traditional” threats include drug cartels, and — yes — the media. Just to put that into some perspective, the foreign "non-traditional threats" are listed as warlords, and Al Qaeda. In other words, the Army has figuratively and literally put the media in the same box as Al Qaeda, warlords, and drug cartels.

While snake oil salesmen like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh would surely rank the American press up there with Bin Laden and his homicidal ilk, for the Army to do so is shocking, displaying a deep ignorance on the part of at least some segments of the uniformed military over just what the media’s role in a democracy is, while sending the unambiguous message to soldiers and DoD employees that reporters are to be treated as enemies.

Under the new rules, all Army personnel and DoD contractors are told to keep an eye on reporters and anyone seen speaking to the press, and that they should “consider handling attempts by unauthorized personnel to solicit critical information or sensitive information as a Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army (SAEDA) incident.”

Great. Even less reason to trust the military’s comments about Iraq than we have now. Even more reason to be suspicious of kowtowing embedded reporters.