Do Some Words Have Hidden Meanings?

When you are reading an article or listening to a broadcast do you perceive a different meaning in the words Claimed, Alleged, Said and Advised? They can all be used to express the same thought, “to convey information.” In my mind Claimed means it was said, but I don’t believe it. Alleged means someone said it, but it needs to be verified. Said means the information was relayed and, usually accepted as truth. And Advised, I perceive, as more scholarly or knowledgeable. I make these distinctions between the terms because I often see news pieces saying, “The witness said blah blah blah and the police alleged blah blah blah. My feelings when I see such articles is that the writer is diminishing the stature of police and saying, between the lines, that the police report saying the officer had been attacked (Or whatever) is not reliable. I have been seeing this for a long time. Maybe I’m overly sensitive to it. Do you see it happening?

I see the term “state funded” when a story is dealing with any number of programs initiated by the government to financially help individuals, businesses or, in some cases, other organizations that don’t fall into the first two categories. I wonder if the program would sound as flowery or benevolent if the simple truth that it is “tax payer funded” was stressed. Remember government doesn’t make money, it takes money.

A popular phrase used by many politicians is “I misspoke” when they are caught in a lie. If what that person said benefitted them, in some way, diverted attention from a mistake or illegal activity they were involved in or, somehow, “Got them off of the hook” I think whoever is doing the interview is morally obligated to ask a lot of follow up questions, Can you clarify for my readers why you misspoke? Would you please now truthfully explain what did happen?

The press is calling “Riots” that have resulted in millions of dollars of damage and/or deaths of the innocent, police officers or the “rioters” themselves “protests.” This is truly misleading and is a case in which the words do not mean the same thing, but are used as synonyms.

Some politicians are calling for a “mandatory buy back” of guns. That sounds a lot like confiscating them to me. Many guns are worth several hundreds to thousands of dollars, is the government going to give fair market value? Also, when they mention these plans they are not saying they want to eliminate the second amendment. If the second amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms is still in effect how can a “mandatory buy back” even be considered? Weather you are for or against gun control, isn’t it just “misspeaking” to say “mandatory gun buy back” instead of “universal confiscation?”

How fortunate was it for that side, that someone coined the term “Pro Choice” to describe the group of politicians, medical people and citizens who are in favor of abortions on demand. Without choosing a side in this political/moral debate honesty demands that the terms “Pro Abortion” or “Pro Death” could be used to describe that side of the argument. The main stream media uses “Pro Choice” exclusively. I have heard all of the arguments that abortion is not murder because it is merely a fetus at the point it is aborted- can that argument still be made now that, in some states, it is legal to abort a baby up to the time of birth. Anyone interested in the topic, and many that are not, have heard the Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, saying that if a baby was to survive an abortion “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and family desired and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.” I don’t believe we are getting a true picture of the abortion issues from the media, do you?

What about “Assault Rifles”? Are all rifles “Assault Rifles”? What about rifles used for hunting, or home protection? According to Wikipedia “Assault Rifles are rifles that use an intermediate cartridge, a detachable magazine, and can switch between semi-automatic and automatic fire.” I have heard many news stories of people being killed by assault rifles, but manufacture of automatic rifles of any kind, other than military use, have been illegal in the U.S. since 1986. The term assault rifle is used much more often than actual assault rifles are used in the U.S. Whatever sells, I’m afraid, is often the rallying cry of the U.S. Media. Truth be damned.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (SCOTUS, 1937-1971) said, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. Do we have that currently? I submit we do not.

In a Kindle article summarizing David Keltz book MEDIA BIAS IN THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND THE EXTINCTION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MILLENNIAL: HOW THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA STOLE A GENERATION OF VOTERS I read that only 7% of the press identify as conservative. The article adds that since Trump’s inauguration the main stream media has published an increasingly larger number of false or erroneous articles pertaining to him and his supporters. Some of the most prominent, according to the book summary, are The Jessie Smollett coverage, The false sexual assault allegations against Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and the vilification of the Covington Catholic School students. Keltz points to these examples as some of the reasons the public’s faith in the media is eroding. The summary lists a string of media outlets that show “Explicit and intentional bias.” That list includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.

I urge everyone reading this to seek information other than the lies the main stream media is selling. I believe our country is at a crossroads with this election. I know for a fact that it is impossible to make an informed decision on any candidate, or any election, if you don’t seek out both sides of a story, not just the side the main stream media is pedaling.

Thanks for reading this. Please like, share, or both