How Language Affects Opinions

Last week, the Wall Street Journal featured a headline over a story on the brutal ISIS beheading of an American aid worker:  “Militants kill U.S. hostage”.

What did the use of the term “militants” convey?  Was it accurately descriptive?  Would “savages” or “radical Islamists” have been more appropriate?  Dictionaries define “militants” as people who are “vigorously active, aggressive, often combative”.  Included are those “engaged” in combat.

Accordingly, “militant” is not incorrect as such, but it is a term that obviously encompasses a wide range of behavior from the strong supporter of a particular public policy to a violent warrior. 

Thus, its use fails to convey clearly the nature of those labeled “militants”.  In the context of ISIS, I suggest that it fails to convey the seriousness – the threat and danger – of those to whom it is applied.

Think of an individual who, beforehand, knows nothing about the organization.  He reads a headline that applies the term “savage” or “terrorist” to it.  Will he have the same view of ISIS if it were tagged as being “militant” instead?

The use of language – the use of a label – strongly influences how we perceive the subject matter.  Abortion labels are illustrative.  When the still highly-controversial Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was issued a half century ago, those in favor of the decision sanctioning abortion were viewed, understandably, as pro-abortion.  Those opposed were anti-abortion.

But then the opponents had a brainstorm.  Instead of positioning themselves negatively, they put a positive spin on their posture.  Their position was trumpeted by them as being “pro-life”.  Abortion supporters were immediately put on the defensive.  (Who wasn’t pro-life?)  But they soon found a new term for their position:  “Pro-choice”.   (Who doesn’t favor choice?)  And the verbal battle has been joined ever since. 

[Frank Luntz, a pollster and focus group leader, well known to Fox News viewers, wrote a fascinating 2007 book on the power of language in the shaping of opinions:  Words That Work – It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.]

It’s unlikely, in forming an opinion on ISIS, that one’s view of its “militant” members will be anywhere as hostile if the group were known to be composed of “terrorists”.

Labels matter.  They do indeed shape opinion.

There’s considerable irony, given the paper’s support for a strong foreign policy, in the Wall Street Journal’s “Militants” headline.  One would expect to see it in The New York Times, not there.