Thursday, November 7, 2019
Impact of Wording on Political Opinions
The other day in class we learned how wording can impact a person's opinion on a topic even if the meaning remains the same. I have recently learned how phrases such as "gun control" "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used to shape people's political opinions. For example, a phrase such as "pro-life" essentially says that a person supports life which can make it very difficult for a person to oppose, especially if they do not know the details of the debate. This is the same thing for the term "pro-choice" because it is extremely difficult for people to say that they do not support the right of choice. Many politicians are now focusing on the wording of issues in order to manipulate people into supporting their opinions. For example, in the documentary, we saw that Republicans have started to call "global warming" "climate change" because it sounds much less threatening and Republicans are typically not as liberal when it comes to environmental issues. These phrases are used in a similar way as political slogans. A recent example is the phrase "Make America Great Again" which sounds like it would be a good thing because no one would not want America to be great but in reality, it is a way to support Trump and Republicans. The problem with this wording bias is that it can convince people to support political issues without actually knowing the details. Instead of using phrases that actually represent the details of the debate they are being used to guilt people into joining the cause.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For the most part, I agree with the points you made in your post. The different phrasing that political groups are using manipulates the American public without actually informing them of what the issue consists of. But this is something that will be always be present in not only politics but also in marketing as companies use choice words in order to get consumers to buy their product. This is something that will likely never change.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with you that parties are trying to mislead uninformed people, but since it usually happens on both sides I don't see too much of an issue with it. For example the pro-life and pro-choice movements. Since both are using this tactic, they kind of just cancel each other out. Neither of them are a clear choice on first glance, and thus work the same as if they didn't try to manipulate people. Because of this, I don't think that it will go away anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post, and I liked how you explained specific examples. I believe that this is a really important issue, with the polarization of the modern-day political climate and media echo chambers. To provide another example of how wording can influence the abortion debate, conservatives may call abortion “killing babies”. This phrasing immediately makes abortion sound immoral, as the embryo is described as a human, inherently giving it rights. Sly wording frequently manifests itself in politics due to its controversial nature, but we actually encounter the practice a lot in everyday life (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/opinion/how-texas-teaches-history.html) and should always be on the lookout.
ReplyDelete