Peter Skurkiss posted a article entitled, Reliving the bloodiest battles in the War on Language, and takes note of an article by Beth Reinhard appearing in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Abortion Battle Set to Rage Anew", pointing out "the wording in the story that might be a harbinger of things to come." Why? What happened? It's simple - the author called promoters of abortion "pro-abortion".
That is - in my opinion - a major tectonic shift.
The left has consistently tried to hide what they do by holding language hostage in the newsrooms of the mainstream media - both print and electronic. That hostage is now being released. Why?
The author opines it might be because of the way Donald Trump exposed the media for "the hollowness of political correctness during his presidential campaign" with his direct attacks on these political operatives masquerading as journalists. That was a violation of all the rules regarding how to win an election - and then turned around and won! That puts all the main stream media on the spot because if Trump can call things as they are and win - why can't the rest of society call things as they truly are - and change the nation? And the Internet is now the king of news.
In February of 2015 I posted this article, "Who Reads Blogs?", saying:
For the most part – I don’t have a clue, but I do believe many of my regular readers are what’s called “Quality Readers”. ......“Blogads surveyed 17,159 blog site visitors during a two-day period in May, inquiring about their age, income, media consumption, online spending habits and political affiliations. The survey learned that 61 percent of blog readers were more than 30 years old and nearly 40 percent of those surveyed have a household income of $90,000 or more. “
“Though one would think the younger generation would be perusing blogs day and night, 30 percent are between 31 and 40, while more than 37 percent are 41 to 60. Only 17 percent of blog readers fall between 25 and 30 years, while a mere 10.3 percent are 19 to 24-years old. The study found that nearly 80 percent of readers are male.”
So what is it that attracts these people? Especially since we now know – absolutely know –these aren’t “fringe” people. It turns out nearly “80 percent read blogs because they offer news they can't find elsewhere. About 78 percent say blogs give them a better perspective, and about 66 percent say blogs provide them with news faster than other sites or media. The study found that blog readers are media hungry….”For years we've heard the pro-abortionists called pro-choice, and the anti-abortionists pro-life. Both are misnomers, both are intended to fool the public. Furthermore the term pro-life was used by the left to claim hypocrisy on the part of anti-abortion proponents. How?
So-called pro-life people are usually supportive of the death penalty, so that gave the left the hammer they desired to beat them by calling them hypocrites. In reality anti-abortion groups are not pro-life they anti-murder groups, and abortion is murder. They want to save the innocent lives of the unborn but are more than willing to execute the guilty lives of murderers. Whereas the so-called pro-choicers all are for the murdering the innocent unborn while saving criminals who've been tried and found guilty of heinous acts.
The author goes on to say: "To refer to a candidate or some organization as "pro-abortion" would invoke howls of protest from the likes of Planned Parenthood, the Democratic establishment, and the mainstream media, causing a retraction." Why? Because by calling abortionists pro-abortion exposes them for who they really are. Murderers of the unborn!
If we're going to change the meanings of words lets make it what it is - infanticide. Infanticide is defined as "the crime of killing a child within a year of birth". If we're going to change the meanings of words let make changes that clarify what's happening - abortion is infanticide.
Blue state, red state - why are the Republican - supposedly conservative states - called red states, and why are the Democratic - clearly communist states - called blue states? In day's gone by Red was the color of communists. How did that change, who did it and why? As in all things with the media - it wasn't an accident and it was clearly .......watch out now here it comes ..... a conspiracy.
This started during the 2000 election with Tim Russert, who before his elevation to media stardom was the chief of staff to Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and council to liberal Democrat Gov. Mario Cuomo. It was from this liberal echo chamber of head nodders that Russert was hired by NBC.
The author notes: "Clearly, Tim Russert was one of many Democrat operatives posing as journalists. Another noticeable one is - George Stephanopoulos, a senior adviser in the Clinton administration now embedded in ABC as a top "journalist."
He goes on to say: "Russert and those in the liberal media knew exactly what they were doing when they mislabeled the coloring of states. But the conservative intellectual class didn't seem to." (Side bar: I noticed! RK)
"They swallowed this distortion with nary a complaint. Conservative publications, one after another, complied with the red state-blue state model as if a law had been passed on the matter. Why? Is their excuse that they didn't want to confuse their readers? Somewhat more plausible, but still not excusable, is that in 2000, the conservative media, what with the Internet and talk radio, might not have been as strong as it is today."
There are a host of examples of the left convoluting language to promote their latest philosophical flavor of the day, but at this point liberals (aka, leftists, socialists, which includes fascists and communists) are losing control of the news. Society is now aware that "the public dialogue is polluted with their distorted, self-serving language", and, as the author points out - the conservative media needs to stop "taking direction" from them and needs to start calling them out.
This is the time.