Ok this wikipedia article is pissing me off so much
yeah i’m gonna re-write this fucker
goddamn. there is so much bias in the first paragraph alone:
this is an EXCELLENT example of the way word choice and tone can be used to create bias and transform the truth to suit the writer’s purposes.
Here’s my re-write:
i got rid of the passive tone (which distances Profumo from his actions), and changed the photo. notice how the original writer chose a photo taken before the scandal, portraying Profumo in a respected position of power, a powerful man seated at a desk. I chose a photo taken in the aftermath. Which would you say more accurately reflects the context?
some other changes:
“denied impropriety” like he’s some maiden aunt clutching at pearls. No, what he actually did was:
oh, and he wasn’t
he was, in fact
after lying through his teeth. now here’s my favorite bit:
what does that MEAN? what the hell does that MEAN??? oh boo hoo hooey the Prime Minister’s self-confidence was damaged, how dreadful for the poor dear. the poor sweet man…
fuck that. in fact, Profumo’s actions
of the government, and rightly so.
oh, and the young woman in question was a model, not a “would-be” model. But ultimately her profession has no relevance here–what is relevant is that a middle-aged man in a position of power slept with a 19-year-old. I wonder what motive the original author could have had, to choose to emphasize her career over the fact she was still a teenager…
Words can be used to bend anything. Pay attention to tone. Pay attention to authorial intent. Pay attention to what is included and what isn’t.Question everything. But especially question the language used to describe historical and current events. Every writer has an agenda–look for it. Above all:
