The media are calling it a 'spill' on purpose

[lunatica]

At the behest of their owners. I have no hard proof, but I do have experience of how they've manipulated language for years. Bush called it catapulting the propaganda.

I know people who still think it's a spill and who are shocked when they find out it's a gusher. That makes a huge difference in public perception. The language is deliberate.

I think it's vitally important that we understand this and accept it because we need to see the reality of it. We need to engage people and dispel the deliberate disinformation.

edited to add the last segment

[abq e streeter]

Very good point--the wording of the propaganda/news is NEVER an accident

I had a conversation with a guy at my HS reunion a few years ago who had just left his job as a newswriter at CNN that he had held for several years, and this guy was not radical at all; sort of a moderate Democrat at most. But he said that even then, ( this is about 7 years ago) they had supervisors making sure everything that went out over the air had a pro-corporate tilt to it.

[SpiralHawk]

1. Corporate media is playing a republicon mindf*ck game with the word 'spill'

No way is this a spill -- corporate media are deliberately twisting and spinning reality.

Ptoooey.

[DURHAM D]

2. I noticed from day one they refer to British Petroleum only as BP.

Even Obama did not refer to the culprit as British Petroleum.

I felt they were trying to keep people from knowing/thinking it is a British company because of our "special relationship" with them.

[independentpiney]

4. We overthrew a government for British Petroleum in the 50's

so there was definitely some special relationship there. But they've been re branded as just BP for years, I think many people probably don't even know what it stands for.

[harun]

25. BP were the folks that brought us the coup in Iran in 53.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

If that is what you are referring to.

Which of course brings us today the distrust Iranians have for Britain and the U.S.

[DURHAM D]

30. My favorite factoid from that unfortunate decision:

"The CIA sent Major general Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. to persuade the exiled Shah to return to rule Iran. Schwarzkopf trained the security forces that would become known as SAVAK to secure the shah's hold on power."

Two generations of Schwarzkopf got to muck around in the mideast.

If Eisenhower had not decided to help BP the mideast might be a totally different place.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. When's the last time you heard someone say,

"I'm going down the street to British Petroleum to get some gas and cigarettes."
You probably haven't because people most commonly call BP by "BP". That's how it's known.
I have never heard "british petroleum" used in dialogue other than the explanation of the BP acronym.
Heck, if I walked down the Cleveland streets asking "Do you what BP stands for?" I'll bet less than 40% get it right.

Are you seriously trying to stir up poutrage over the media calling BP... "BP"? :wtf:

[WinkyDink]

14. This story is a mite larger than buying gas. The ENTIRE TRUTH should be known.

As for what Americans know or care to know: Another issue altogether.

[Echo In Light]

3. Yes. Downplay - Trivialize - Obfuscate - DEFEND!!! = standard Con/RWer approach

[KharmaTrain]

5. Maybe Cause That's What It Is...

Is there a limit on when a spill becomes something else? I was more offended by them refering to the gusher spewing the oil as a "leak"...an the attempt to minimize the amounts of oil that are creating a massive spill. Is using the word "slick" better? All one needs to see are the satellite images and endless loop pictures of the large clumps of oil to start to realize the scope of this disaster (who I don't think any of us truly understand yet). If you still are donwplaying this disaster, then it's deliberate denial.

[lunatica]

11. You should look up the definition of spill and gush.

I've always thought you were pretty smart. Do you think a volcano 'spills' lava and gas? Eruption and spill are not the same. Gushing leak is not 'a spill'.

[KharmaTrain]

21. I Was More Concerned WIth The Term "Leak"

Looks like that meme was laid to rest when the BP video was forced to be made public.

While I understand your definitions, I think by now those who want to downplay and minimize (especially the corporate media) deserve to be called out on it. Earlier I heard a newsreader on C-SPIN claim that BP was "recovering" 1,000 gallons per day and still citing the 5,000 gallon per day figure to make it sound like there was progress being made. Sounds like she was reading AP wire copy. We know this gusher (which I refer to as the oil coming out of the pipe vs. the spill which is what its leaving...we all chose our words to suit) is pumping out far more than that figure...and here's a major corporate network still citing the "company line".

Again...after all the pictures that are coming forward that is showing the extent of this spill, slick...whatever, and still are denying the disastrous impact deserve massive ridicule. The words mean little when the basics are misrepresented.

Cheers...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Spill as opposed to what?

For decades, "Oil Spill" has been common venacular for "we fucked up and tons of oil is being poured into the environment".

It's an oil spill... so that's what they're calling it. :eyes:

[lunatica]

7. tankers spill oil

Since when is a natural spring called a spill? This is NOT a spill. Milk gets spilled out of finite container, and oil gets spilled out of tankers that can hold just so much. This is an oil pocket that has from 3 to 15 billion gallons of oil in it pushing oil out because of the tremendous natural pressures of the planet. If you don't understand the difference I can't help you.

[tekisui]

8. It isn't a spill, it is a leak. Ongoing, not finite.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. While it is ongoing, are you suggesting there is not a finite amount of oil in that well?

That would actually be phenomenal news... an oil well with an infinite amount of oil therein. :rofl:

[tekisui]

13. Sure there is. But it is still a leak,

and we don't know how much is in the well. How can you spill from an underground well? It is a leak, and for all intents and purposes it is an infinite amount.

I have yet to hear one person suggest we let it flow until it runs out.

[lunatica]

15. It contains an estimated 3 to 15 billions of gallons

It will gush and then leak for years

[lunatica]

18. 3 to 15 billions of gallons is hardly a small amount

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

[WinkyDink]

19. So how much oil IS in that part of the Earth, hmmmmm?? Your laughing Smiley is bizarre in context.

[tekisui]

22. There are a handful of DUers determined to undermine the truth

of this gushing leak. The use of ridicule and sarcasm in reference to such a serious event is telling. Shills.

[LeftyFingerPop]

26. It has to do with what your mind visualizes when you hear the word "spill".

If someone trained a fire hose on you and used the pressure of the water to knock you to the ground and control your movement, would you call that a "spill"?

[DURHAM D]

29. If not checked it will not stop "spilling" in your life time,

or your children's lifetime, or you grand children's lifetime.

Gheez...

[WinkyDink]

16. Read the OP.

[WinkyDink]

17. (Duplicate.)

[Subdivisions]

9. The correct term going back to the early days of oil is 'gusher'. Of course, they

wouldn't be using that term to refer to the "spill".

From http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=spill">WordNet:

Spill: cause or allow (a liquid substance) to run or flow from a container; "spill the milk"; "splatter water"

Gusher: an oil well with a strong natural flow so that pumping is not necessary

[slackmaster]

20. A "gusher" sounds like a good thing to me

It's what used to happen in the early days of petroleum exploration when a drill hit a highly productive source of oil. A gusher was cause for celebration.



This pseudo-point could be argued in many equally unconvincing ways. The OP is projecting a conspiracy theory.

K&U for sophistry.

:kick:

[WCGreen]

23. It's not a spill simply because it is not in a man made carrier...

You can't spill something that is not in a container...

[ThomWV]

24. I believe the correct term is "Blow Out"

[SpiralHawk]

28. "Blow out" rings true

[LeftyFingerPop]

27. Good post. K&R. n/t

[Silent3]

31. Why can't you simply criticize the term "spill"...

...without having propose the use of the word is part of a vast conspiracy "at the behest of their owners"?

Do you have proof, or is this the usual, "If you don't think it happens that way, you're a naive fool!" argument?

I do believe that crap like this happens at Fox -- and there is ample evidence of internal corporate memos explicitly telling Fox fashion models (you can hardly call them reporters) what stories to push and how to slant the news. But most people calling this underwater oil geyser a "spill" are likely doing so simply out of plain laziness of language usage, with the most sinister language control going on likely being the PR people for BP et al telling their own people to call the incident a spill, and our lazy news reporting culture simply repeating what they hear.

I know people who know quite well how bad the oil well blow-out is, yet they still call it a "spill", without anyone sending them a memo, without anyone telling them they'll be fired if they call it something else, without any creepy anonymous phone calls threatening their families.

[lunatica]

32. If you believe that you're the one who is naive

News organizations pick their words very carefully. That has nothing to do with 'conspiracy', though I'll put forth that a conspiracy is a simple agreement to do things a certain way, or to say things a certain way. It doesn't have to be some vast underground secret action to take over the world. Lots of people get into to trouble with the law for conspiring with criminals in some way or other.

[Silent3]

34. Choose their words carefully?

Hah! I hear newscasters mispronounce names, misuse vocabulary, completely screw up details of technology and science that I know better myself (which makes me think that doctors probably wince at medical news reports, fireman at news of fire fighting, etc.) all of the time.

[lunatica]

35. What you're talking about is the people in front of the camera

Sorry, but they're just reading what someone else wrote.

[Silent3]

42. And I see no evidence...

...that someone else wrote for them text that's coordinated down to every word choice by anyone's "corporate masters" or any central authority or even an unspoken but well-understood agenda that's going to make sure of a detail like having everyone say "spill" instead of something else.

Got evidence for anything else, anything more? Or are you going to simply act like a rigged game is the default position -- not just rigged, but meticulously rigged -- and someone has to prove it's not? If so, you've got strange ideas about the burden of proof.

With Fox, the evidence for crap like what you're talking about is there and can be proven -- the memos aren't hard to find, and Fox only half pretends to be "fair and balanced" while at other times behaving almost perversely proud to be explicitly designed as right wing propaganda.

But you think everyone else is in on the same game too, they just do a better job of keeping their memos from leaking out or having anyone talk about the game that's up?

It's one thing to understand that there are biases and influences that can and do occur with corporate sponsorship and ownership of news organizations. It's quite another to get paranoid about thinking some powerful THEY are shaping every word.

[RoyGBiv]

33. ::sigh::

This is not recent.

Events like this have always been called "spills." They're called "spills" by the NOAA and the EPA for pity's sake.

I can sympathize with not liking the use of the word and preferring something different, but this is the wrong tactic. Start with the conspiracy angle and people otherwise agreeable to the message you're offering will simply roll their eyes and tune out.

[lunatica]

36. that's mighty condescending of you

So you think there are no conspiracies? All it takes is for people to agree to do something in a way that serves their ends in order for a conspiracy to be present. How about all those people who are found guilty in a court of law for conspiring to commit a crime? It happens all the time.

Do you really believe no one makes decisions to downplay a story, or to exaggerate one? Or to lie about parts of the stories? How very naive of you.

[RoyGBiv]

37. No, it's not condescending ...

If I wanted to be condescending, I could point out how many different kinds of logical fallacies you just committed in your response by echoing them back at you.

But I'm not going to do that.

I am simply going to repeat that using the word "spill" to describe these kinds of events is not new. I did a Lexis-Nexis and Newsbank search and found references going all the way back to the 19th century. Use of the word seemed appropriate at its origin since uncontrolled gushers of the era collected in pools strewn about the landscape as though the oil had been spilled there. In the context of an undersea gusher dumping millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, perhaps the word "spill" is quite understated and should be eschewed in favor of a more descriptive term, but I have absolutely no clue how one would go about doing that.

As for conspiracies, I need evidence of one, not a suggestion that plays on people's anger, fears, or ignorance. You yourself said you had no evidence. Ergo, I reject your suggestion outright.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoyGBiv]

41. Yes, I reject it outright ...

Just as I would reject outright the suggestion that you initiated this thread in order to provide evidence that Democratic Underground is populated by crackpots who will believe any theory that fits their prejudices, regardless of its viability.

As in the case of the use of the word "spill" I believe the actual reason to be far simpler and in fact have ample evidence to support that simpler explanation.

In any case, I actually agree with your sub-premise suggesting that the use of the word "spill" is inappropriate because it connotatively minimizes the problem, and I was attempting to suggest your argument would carry more weight if you focused on that rather than your imagined conspiracy. That you've abandoned this premise in favor of baseless insults is regrettable, but unfortunately not surprising.

[SidDithers]

45. I'm going to start calling it megabad super cellular growth disorder...

because cancer just isn't bad enough, and the media is just using the term cancer to downplay how serious the disease is.

Sid

[trotsky]

38. Or maybe they're just calling it a "spill" because people know what that means.

I.e., a massive amount of oil released into the environment.

Or perhaps the Illuminati are behind it all, too.

[lunatica]

39. Do you know the difference between a hemorrhage and a mere cut

One is far worse than the other.

And what do the illuminati have to do with who decides what to write in the news? Your obvious attempt to ridicule is actually ludicrous. Are you afraid to question how the news is slanted because someone will accuse you of being too crazy to be taken seriously? I'm not. Please point out where I intimated the your illluminati are behind everything.

[trotsky]

43. You yourself said you have absolutely no evidence of anything.

And as others have pointed out, while it would be nice to have accurate terminology, and I certainly applaud you for your interest, it does your cause no good to flail about and claim a massive global media conspiracy.

[raccoon]

44. This need to be shouted from the rooftops. I was one of those who didn't realize

until this thread that it was an effing GUSHER.


"The language is deliberate." You said that right.

It's like if a person had a limb amputated, and it was reported "he had a few stitches."