[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Yeah, why would anybody want to do that?
[/QUOTE]
Well, when the standards for good journalism are the same as standards for campaign buttons, you’ll have a point.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Unless both Hillary and Bill are involved in the same story, there need be no confusion.
The first mention of someone in a news story or newspaper article should always contain the person’s full name anyway, and the audience should then be able to work out who is being referred to when the last name is used later in the story.
[/QUOTE]
in headlines, however, ISTM, they use one name. and “Clinton talks to RUssert tonight!” woudln’t be at all helpful.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Well, when the standards for good journalism are the same as standards for campaign buttons, you’ll have a point.
[/QUOTE]
What, pray tell, constitutes good journalism?
[QUOTE=wring]
in headlines, however, ISTM, they use one name. and “Clinton talks to RUssert tonight!” woudln’t be at all helpful.
[/QUOTE]
Well, firstly, this whole tendency is, it seems to me, much more pronounced in television and radio than in the print media and news websites. If you do a search for “Hillary” in Google news today, you’ll actually see that most of the headlines do, in fact, contain the word “Clinton,” which i think is a good thing.
Secondly, in the cast majority of cases, the context of the headline (e.g., “Clinton’s Senate Voting Record Criticized”, “Clinton Library Nears Completion”) will make quite clear who the subject of the article is (how often do you really see a headline along the lines of “Clinton talks to Russert Tonight”?).
Finally, even if it doesn’t, the subheading or the very first paragraph of the story will quickly clear up any confusion.
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
Have you ever called a male politician ‘shrewish’?
Everyone has a right to their own political opinions and insults are a dime a dozen, but there are certain ones that seem to be reserved for women only, and often have to do more with ‘bad vibes’ or personality than hard facts or positions. Shrewish. Shrill. Hysterical. And, my personal favourite, a ‘congenital liar.’
ETA I find the ‘vulnerable’ as odd as the ‘bruises’ bit in the headline. Not scientific, but Hillary+ vulnerable comes up with way more than that word paired with anyone else in the running. Despite what the polls may say.
[/QUOTE]
The Encarta definition of “shrewish” is
.
American Heritage defines it as
.
Merriam-Webster defines it as
.
As you can see, none of the definitions say that it is gender specific so I am correct in describing her as shrewish. Fred Thompson and Hugo Chavez are also ill-natured nad have quarrelsome ill-tempered dispositions so they can accurately be described as shrewish. Maybe instead of comparing her to a shrew I should have compared her to a weasel or a worm? How about a rat? Any other animals with negative connotations? Yeah, I don’t like her. I think Giuliani has the charm of a warthog and Bush is pig-headed, too. Don’t badger me. 
If the editor wanted the allusion to be along pugilistic lines instead of DV lines how about saying she is “on the ropes” or “facing a tough round” but she “isn’t down for the count” (god I hate clichés). But when the press keeps going on about her being the female candidate and the boys are hard on her they give an image of a weak woman who has been beaten down by a man.
I read the headline and can think of a couple ways that people will interpret it:
- The press is trying to portray her as weak. We must rally to her support!
- The press is showing that she is vulnerable. We must rally to attack while she is wounded!
The words give an image depending upon the reader. Her supporters will be outraged that she is being compared to a battered wife. Her detractors (especially the Coulter crowd) will be overjoyed that she is being put in her place.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
What, pray tell, constitutes good journalism?
[/QUOTE]
If you really need a lesson in journalistic standards and ethics, i suggest a subscription to Columbia Journalism Review as a good place to start.
For me, i would simply like journalists to apply the same standards to all politicians, rather than using a familiar form of address (first name) for some, and a more distanced, respectful form of address (last name) for others. I think, for example, that the New York Times does a good job of this, referring to her as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton at the first mention, and then Mrs. Clinton thereafter. Nary a reference to “Hillary.”
[QUOTE=Revtim]
Have you considered the possibility that not everybody has the image of abused women invoked by the simple use of the word “bruise”? Even when used referring to woman, in an obvious metaphorical manner?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if all she’s got is bruises, she’s hardly being abused, is she?
[QUOTE=erie774]
The Encarta definition of “shrewish” is .
American Heritage defines it as .
Merriam-Webster defines it as .
As you can see, none of the definitions say that it is gender specific so I am correct in describing her as shrewish. Fred Thompson and Hugo Chavez are also ill-natured nad have quarrelsome ill-tempered dispositions so they can accurately be described as shrewish. Maybe instead of comparing her to a shrew I should have compared her to a weasel or a worm? How about a rat? Any other animals with negative connotations? Yeah, I don’t like her. I think Giuliani has the charm of a warthog and Bush is pig-headed, too. Don’t badger me.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, you’ll be lucky. Round here it’s all badger, badger, badger, badger…
[QUOTE=erie774]
The Encarta definition of “shrewish” is .
American Heritage defines it as .
Merriam-Webster defines it as .
As you can see, none of the definitions say that it is gender specific so I am correct in describing her as shrewish.
[/QUOTE]
That’s denotation. Connotation for that word is strongly female. “The Taming of the Shrew” – ring any bells? The appellation “shrew” in my experience is exclusively applied to women, not men.
[QUOTE=erie774]
worst of all, liberal.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you hate freedom?
[QUOTE=mhendo]
If you really need a lesson in journalistic standards and ethics, i suggest a subscription to Columbia Journalism Review as a good place to start.
[/QUOTE]
I guess the whole “NY Daily News” thing threw me off. Would you say it’s an example of good journalism?
Totally bogus. Remember Lamar Alexander? His posters said “Lamar!” while his press packets said “Lamar Alexander” or “Senator Alexander.” Call him Lamar on the street but not in the press.
Sen Clinton is doing it differently because she wants to scurry away from the Hillary Rodham Clinton moniker. She wants to be friendly now. The press is saying it how she wants.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
That’s denotation. Connotation for that word is strongly female. “The Taming of the Shrew” – ring any bells? The appellation “shrew” in my experience is exclusively applied to women, not men.
[/QUOTE]
And I’d imagine that usage of it to apply to a man would be greeted in a similar way to how calling a man a bitch would be received.
[QUOTE=Telperien]
And I’d imagine that usage of it to apply to a man would be greeted in a similar way to how calling a man a bitch would be received.
[/QUOTE]
I think the word “shrill” is used in place of “shrewish.” Dennis Kucinich, for example, is sometimes called shrill even by his supporters.
As a liberal/conservative/libertarian/authoritarian, I will formulate whatever argument is necessary to disagree with a liberal/conservative/libertarian/authoritarian.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
That’s denotation. Connotation for that word is strongly female. “The Taming of the Shrew” – ring any bells? The appellation “shrew” in my experience is exclusively applied to women, not men.
[/QUOTE]
Much like chick, bird, bitch, biddy, pussy, cow, nag, dragon lady, cat fight (vs. wolf, weasel, pig- unless it’s in reference to an overweight woman… dog could be both, though it’s more like ‘you sly dog’ for men and ‘dog-faced’ for women).
I’m waiting to hear about a catfight between Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
[QUOTE=Telperien]
And I’d imagine that usage of it to apply to a man would be greeted in a similar way to how calling a man a bitch would be received.
[/QUOTE]
They’d assume that the name-caller was either a rapper or a homosexual?
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
I guess the whole “NY Daily News” thing threw me off. Would you say it’s an example of good journalism?
[/quote]
No, i wouldn’t. But just because so many media outlets fail to adhere to decent journalistic standards doesn’t mean that we should abandon the standards.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Totally bogus. Remember Lamar Alexander? His posters said “Lamar!” while his press packets said “Lamar Alexander” or “Senator Alexander.” Call him Lamar on the street but not in the press.
[/quote]
Which is exactly what they should do for Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Sen Clinton is doing it differently because she wants to scurry away from the Hillary Rodham Clinton moniker. She wants to be friendly now. The press is saying it how she wants.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you’re sort of making my point for me. The press is not there to patronize politicians, and nor should it be there to cater to their PR preferences. The standards the media uses in referring to politicians should be consistent, and should be independent of campaign slogans.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Oh, you’ll be lucky. Round here it’s all badger, badger, badger, badger…
[/QUOTE]
I feel like there’s some response I should give here, but I can’t think of what it might be.
Some setup for some internet meme, maybe some mindless flash video reference.
Grr. Why can’t I think of the proper fungus to go here, I just can’t return Malacandra’s set up without knowing that.
Toad-Stool Toad-Stool
hmmm… doesn’t look right…Oh well
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
That’s what I thought. See, I thought we were going to pugilism for our metaphor, not to woman-beating - and I think it is patronising and demeaning of the OP to assume that the only reason we would picture a gutsy political contestant as taking a beating is that, being female, she must necessarily be a helpless victim of a violent partner. If it was a man, we’d be picturing one of those awesome 15-round slugfests that Ali and Frazier got into, back when boxing was boxing.
[/QUOTE]
No, if it was a man, we’d be picturing a schoolyard pile-on with a boy at the bottom. As it is, we’re picturing a schoolyard pile-on with a girl at the bottom. Where did all these single-assailant metaphors come from?