Keep your quote marks to yourself

Recently, here in the quiet Valley of Cache and Inversion, a headline writer for the local daily stirred the pot when he or she put quote marks around a selected word in a headline.

There's a lot of words in a newspaper on a given day; lots of words in headlines on this Wednesday or that Saturday. But he/she found an interesting one to pick on.

Referring to some news regarding the LDS Church, this headline writer put quote marks around the word "apostle." You know, like: Funeral Services Held for LDS "Apostle."

Now, in that same issue and subsequent issues of the "newspaper" (oops, you can see where I'm going with this already, can't you?), quote marks could have been put around lots of words: The new principal used to be an "educator" in a local elementary school. There are seven "student"-athletes on the team. The city manager and three of his "friends" were uninjured in the accident. The "pope" is in the hospital. The “attorney” has been "practicing" “law” for three years.

Oh, the power of the quote mark, especially when it's nowhere near a quote. With just a stroke of the keys, verbs and nouns can get enough spin to fly right up and hurt someone. Of course, considering the demographics of the newspaper’s readership and "little" things like that, this headline made a bit of flap. Not enough to blow out the fog, mind you, but a flap nonetheless.

Did the headline writer know what he or she was doing?

Of course he/she did.

Why did he/she do it? Can I read "minds?" (See, it is pretty easy to do.) But, predictably, there were readers that both vilified and defended the action.

It got me to thinking. Doesn't take much to get me "thinking," you know. I started snooping around a bit on the subject of spin and turns out there are few mini-flaps going on right now, and involving bigger media than little local dailies. For example, some national media -- New York Times, for one -- will not use the term “war on terror” or if they do, they put quotes around it and no capitalization. The Chicago Tribune will only use it when Bush -- the primary user of the term -- refers to certain, specified activities and not everything and anything currently on his Iraqi plate. CNN and many other major players use it liberally and covering a wide range of activities.

The Associated Press tries not to use the phrase and tries to limit the use to times when they are independently quoting someone else. The biggest debate at AP is the capitlization question. Currently, they do not. AP worries a lot about such things.

These debates are not necessarily new but are becoming more frequent and that's a good thing. It's been said that he who controls the language controls the debate.

Political consultant (sounds better than lobbyist, see?) Frank Lutz says the reason the idea of cutting or repealing the once-invulnerable estate tax finally got sold was because he started referring to it as a "death tax." Estate sounds wealthy and death sounds inevitable. And suddenly something that wasn't always viable received support of 75 percent of the American people.

Consider the Social Security program, which was almost called Economic Security, but Depression-responsive Congressmen felt the former was better and more comforting. It is a tax, mind you, but is hardly ever called that. Some even call it a contribution. Currently, many in the media are debating whether changes proposed by Pres. Bush should be called Social Security "reforms," "revisions" or "overhaul." National Public Radio, for example, suggests words like revision, revamping, retooling and overhaul are all more objective than reform -- Bush's word of choice-- which carries an implication of improvement. But do the others carry an implication of impending doom that "reform" does not?

Bush was also advised to use the term “personal accounts,” rather than “private accounts” when referring to his plan. How do those words spin you?

Do you spin when the "conservative" versus "liberal" labels are debated and how some within those camps prefer "moderate" or "initiator of change?"

Be careful. The spin could make you a bit dizzy if you're not paying attention. So pay attention. Don’t put up with words that don’t work. I refuse, for example, to accept “entertainer” Howard Stern. Give me a break. There’s a baker’s dozen of modifiers closer to the truth than that one. “Actress” Paris Hilton. Ha! The entertainment industry, as we all know, is spinning out of control.

But on a “serious” note, watch for red flags and spinning words when the subject is politics and religion. Or liberal and conservative. Or political correctness and diversity, or your money. Or education and laws.

Or newspaper “columnist.”