Hi folks - my first post in GD so please go easy on me.
I like to watch the news quite a bit, and often hear politicians and commentators talk about Big Oil, or Big Pharmaceuticals, or Big Whatever. I have no problem with this, as this is what politicians and commentators do. I also, however, hear straight-up newscasters use these terms all the time - people who I expect to deliver the news in an unbiased fashion. Whenever I hear a newscaster use this term, I feel that the station (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, whatever) or, in some cases, the newspaper if it is a written story, loses credibility. To me, calling an industry “Big ____” is meant to diminish that industry, and to show it as some kind of evil empire out to hurt The Middle Class. I don’t care if it is Big Oil or Big Conservation, it just makes the person saying it sound bad.
Is it fair for newspapers (in their news sections, not Opinion or Editorials) or newscasters on TV to use a phrase like Big Oil, when they are supposed to be simply reporting the news?
I usually just blow it off, the way I blow off pretty much all of the news anchors’ buzzwords, but you’re right.
“Big Whatever” gives the impression that the entire industry is a cartel, instead of a handful of competing businesses. If it were a monopoly, you can bet they’d use the name of the actual company. Look how often they talk about Microsoft and Wal-Mart.
Sure, it is a convenient shorthand, too, and I don’t doubt that is how it is intended; but it suggests some sort of collusion between companies who are in reality fierce rivals.
Yeah, and how are we supposed to know a story is about Merck or Pfizer and not Eddie’s Drive-Thru/Mix-it Yourself Pharmaceutical Company if they don’t refer to “Big Pharma?”
Certainly it’s a bias, but I tend to overlook it as such.
Me, too. It’s just journalistic shorthand for any group of related businesses, even if they’re fighting each other tooth and nail for market share. I don’t give it any more thought than to references to “Wall Street,” “Capitol Hill” or “the Midwest,” or any other sweeping overgeneralizations.
It’s poor journalistic practice and does show bias. We all “know” that big = bad.
But are you sure this happens (much)? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it in an actual news article. A few links would help… I’d be surprised to see it done at, say, the NYT or the WaPo.
It reminds me of the media propensity to put ‘so-called’ in front of anything they wish to denigrate, such as saying ‘so-called abortion rights groups’ or ‘so-called gun rights groups’ or whatever.
Every time I hear ‘so-called’, it’s like a boot to the head reminder of the bias of the news outfit that used it.
John Mace, I thought I had seen an example of this in a local newspaper but I haven’t been able to find it so far. You are likely correct that this would be rare in some of the more prestigious national papers.
Keep in mind that on the Cable News channels, especially FOX, it’s easy to forget that you’re watching commentary, not news, most of the time. IIRC, FOX really only has one hour of “news” in the evening-- Shepard Smith’s show. All the rest is commentary. Brit Hume’s show might be an exception, but it’s got a lot of commentary mixed in. O’Reilly and all the rest is commentary. MSNBC and CNN aren’t that different, I don’t think, even if they offer a broader range of opinion than FOX.
If I hear O’Reilly or Matthews say “Big Oil”, then I’m not istening to a reporter, I’m listening to an commentator.
Not always. I work for what is commonly referred to (amongst lawyers at least) as “Big Law,” and there is no negative connotation.
Well there is in some ways - lawyers who work for small firms often claim to prefer it, and I am sure they do. Big law works for me though.
What I mean is that there isn’t the intent, as far as I can see, to demonize by referring to Big Law (hey, all lawyers are demons, remember). It’s merely descriptive in this industry.
But how many people are in the know on that? I suspect very few. If I hear someone say: “Big Law is trying to push this legislation”, I’m going to assume they mean “big” as in “the big, bad wolf”.
Hadn’t really thought of it that way. Given the general poor impression of lawyers, I would think the negative connotations would come more from the word “push” than the word “big” but I certainly concede you have a point there.
While the OP has a good point, let me offer a mild counter-argument, since I’ve had to use the term a few times, mostly in headlines: I don’t think it’s inappropriate when applied to events that are effecting all major oil companies, and only major oil companies are being discussed.
While I’d prefer not to use the phrase because it’s vague, and can be interpreted as being vaguely accusatory, brevity is sometimes required in reporting. You can’t easily fit something like “Oil companies with market capitalizations of $200 billion or greater” into a headline, and it may be unclear in a lead sentence or nut graf as well. If you’re picturing the term “Big Oil” in a story that talks about the enormous profits those companies are making on the war, or something, it should be avoided due to the bias issue. But as shorthand goes, it’s not that bad.
When an industry reaches a certain size, though, and even if the individual companies are in tough competition, isn’t there a tendency to pool some resources to protect their collective interests, i.e. tobacco companes funding a think-tank called (for example) “Truth in Scientific Study”, whose actual purpose is to spin health reports and testify before Congress that tobacco’s reported harm is overstated. When an industry starts taking collective action in this manner, though it represents a tiny portion of budget of any one company, I’d guess they qualify as “Big Tobacco”. They aren’t colluding in the production or sale of tobacco products, merely in keeping Congress off their collective backs.
Thinking about it again, I’m not sure I’ve ever actually used the term “in print.” “Major oil companies” or something, maybe, but I think I’ve only used “big oil” in slugs, which readers don’t see.
