From Obsidian Wings:
one particularly infuriating example is the ubiquitous use of the words “hawk” and “dove.” Here’s Dan Balz in the Post discussing Clinton’s Iran issues:
Whichever view is correct, Clinton’s actions have elevated Iran even more as an issue in the Democratic campaign and demonstrated anew her possible vulnerabilities among dovish Democrats on national security issues.
And here’s the NYT on Rudy’s band of lunatic foreign policy advisors:
But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers.
Maybe I’m making mountains of molehills here, but these words color perceptions. I mean, think about it — who do you want to be associated with — a weenie wussified dove or a big manly hairy-chested hawk. There are implicit value judgments in these terms. They also reinforce stereotypes of war opponents as Mr. Van Driesens from Beavis & Butthead.
We might think of war differently if the NYT wrote:
But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers who aggressively advocate starting wars to solve foreign policy problems.
Or if the Post wrote:
Whichever view is correct, Clinton’s actions have elevated Iran even more as an issue in the Democratic campaign and demonstrated anew her possible vulnerabilities among Democrats more skeptical that starting wars is the answer to our national security issues.
That’s why Americans always go with ”strong and stupid”. "Smart" is always framed in the media as weak and nerdy.
Leave a Reply