Metaphor run amok
Journalists really need to learn to report on this more precisely.
As do headline writers: the Times headline is both wrong and bad.
Truss hits out at abuse of Kathleen Stock, professor in trans dispute
No she doesn’t. The story doesn’t even say that. The lede:
Liz Truss has spoken out against the abuse a university professor has faced for her views on transgender rights and the police have told her to install CCTV cameras at home and have a bodyguard on campus.
Speaking out isn’t hitting out. The distinction is quite important, so what are newspapers doing blurring it? It’s an important distinction and it’s at the heart of this very story, which is all about violent threats against Stock because of her writing and her opinions.
Truss, the minister for women and equalities, wrote on Twitter: “No one should be targeted and harassed simply for holding an opinion.”
That’s not “hitting out.” It’s about not hitting out.
This calculated dishonesty in reportage is quite extraordinary. First of all, it shows me that they don’t really believe they’re on “the right side of history.” If they were, they wouldn’t have to use “hitting out” when they mean “speaking out.” (If Truss had gone on to condemn and disparage Stock’s critics, that could arguably be called “hitting out” but she doesn’t even do that. She upholds Stock’s right to freedom of opinion and expression and bemoans those who would see her fired for her views.)
Earlier, when a news report spoke about “escalating tensions” it’s as if Stock is going head-to-head against these students when she’s only the target of their campaign of harrassment and abuse. The writers of these articles HAVE to know the significance of the words they’re choosing.
One scary thing is that while they might acknowledge their biases and their resulting slanted coverage, they might honestly think it’s for a good cause. But if part of that “good cause” is allowing violent male sexual predators access to female prisoners; or entitled, deluded transwomen to work in rape shelters, … then ….
Whom did police tell to install cameras and have a bodyguard? As written, it sounds like Truss, but as far as I can tell she’s not on campus (unless “campus” has a different meaning in Britain). But if it’s Stock, then that’s a horribly written sentence.
Me @ 1 – the headline writer is often not the same person as the reporter, especially on newspapers, so I think it’s the headline writer [the editor] who swapped “hits” for “speaks” out.
WaM @ 2, you’re right, that’s shit writing. I was so focused on the headline I missed that one.
They really need to be more careful when reporting controversies.
Wouldn’t “hitting out at abuse” be missing the point?
“Truss dealt with abuse by knocking the stuffings out of, besmirching it with invectives and, when the abuse had finally had enough, kicking it right out the door, so there.”
Heh, yes, that’s another reason it’s such an irritating metaphor. The UK press love it and I cannot figure out why.
Another British headline word that started to crop up a few years ago is “rips.” “Hits” and “rips” both suggest violence in stories which are about strongly worded speech, rather than physical confrontation. This attracts attention, which is the point of a headline. More importantly, perhaps both words are short, which means any headline they are in can be bigger than would be the case if a longer word or phrase were used instead.