Monday, May 22, 2006
INTERESTING SEMANTICS
FoxNews reports on the Grand Jury indictments of four persons accused of setting the fires that destroyed several buildings at the world-class Vail Colorado ski area:
“Grand Jury Indicts 4 Accused Ecoterrorists for 1998 Vail Firebombing”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196219,00.html
From the article:
“Four alleged environmental extremists have been indicted in a 1998 firebombing at the Vail ski resort that caused $12 million in damage — one of the most devastating ecoterrorism attacks in U.S. history.”
I find the semantics here fascinating… “alleged environmental extremists”…
These are “alleged arsonists”… There is nothing “alleged” about their extreme attitudes or politics, of which they are very proud…
A slip of the pen? Maybe… But this same wording, more or less, can be found in several news accounts of this event.
I wonder… Is someone implying being an environmental extremist who burns buildings is somehow different than a common arsonist?
Is it a more – or less – heinous crime? Is why they lit the match more important than lighting it?
And how is the implied reasoning any different than the reasoning behind hate crimes?
Just wonderin’…
“Grand Jury Indicts 4 Accused Ecoterrorists for 1998 Vail Firebombing”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196219,00.html
From the article:
“Four alleged environmental extremists have been indicted in a 1998 firebombing at the Vail ski resort that caused $12 million in damage — one of the most devastating ecoterrorism attacks in U.S. history.”
I find the semantics here fascinating… “alleged environmental extremists”…
These are “alleged arsonists”… There is nothing “alleged” about their extreme attitudes or politics, of which they are very proud…
A slip of the pen? Maybe… But this same wording, more or less, can be found in several news accounts of this event.
I wonder… Is someone implying being an environmental extremist who burns buildings is somehow different than a common arsonist?
Is it a more – or less – heinous crime? Is why they lit the match more important than lighting it?
And how is the implied reasoning any different than the reasoning behind hate crimes?
Just wonderin’…