When word choice means picking a side
Some energy issues are so controversial that people can’t even agree on the words used to talk about them.
Chris Carmichael and I noticed during a recent trip to Ohio that supporters of a new electricity-generating plant in Meigs County call it a “power house.” Opponents call it a “coal plant” or a “coal-fired power plant.” Similarly, a West Virginia miner’s “surface mine” is an environmental activist’s “mountain-top removal site.”
I’m convinced that each group’s word choice is an important piece of the larger turf war. Just as a fence indicates the boundary of a suburban yard, people are using words to scratch rhetorical boundaries at the edges of their communities. Whether a person talks about “mountain-top removal” or “surface mining” is a signal of that person’s larger way of thinking about how America should produce energy.
This turf-scratching leaves journalists in a tough spot, because sometimes there is no neutral way to talk about an issue.
My coworkers and I had a debate in a recent editorial meeting about whether we should use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in our stories. On one hand, “climate change” is the term used most often by scientists to describe what is happening as people increase greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Yet many activists use “global warming,” which is probably the term best understood by the American public.
Making matters even more complicated, Republican pollster Frank Luntz has recommended that opponents of greenhouse-gas regulations use the words “climate change” because it sounds less scary than “global warming”:
It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming...As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. (From page 12 of this Luntz memo, a PDF.)
So when journalists talk about the issue, either word choice is a loaded one.
In our editorial meeting, our team ultimately decided to use “climate change” because it’s the most scientifically accurate term. But we haven’t made any decisions about the words pairs I mentioned at the beginning of the post.
What do you think we should do to make the best word choices?
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Brad
said:
|
... Hi, Sara. In articles that relate to the technique as controversial I've only seen it referred to as "mountaintop removal." If you do a google search for "surface mining new york times" the only stuff that comes up pertains to laws and gov't offices (ie, The Office of Surface Mining). But if you do the same search and substitute "mountaintop removal" then actual articles on the topic can be found. Hope that's helpful. |
Kristi Kappes
said:
|
... Hmmm...good questions and I don't have any good answers...but I did want to comment that I think the photo attached to this posting is really powerful. The beauty of nature (sunset) as the backdrop to the evidence of man/industry (power lines, smoke stacks). |
Beth
said:
|
... Kristi- "The beauty of nature (sunset) as the backdrop to the evidence of man/industry (power lines, smoke stacks)." is ironic because sunsets are actually created by pollution... The disappearing sunlight is filtered through molecules of various pollutive substances suspended in the air and displays a various spectrum of colors. |
Anne Trump
said:
|
... haha yea you are right there.choice of word i think is important for all of us to really know what we are talking about especially regarding our energy issues. Gay Matchmaking Service |
Anne Trump
said:
|
... and also reagrding climate change i think the name really does fit for the situation. thanks! Gay Matchmaking |
Show/hide comment form
