Comments on: Sleazy public relations trick #413: The alternate definition dodge

By: The Ridger

The Ridger — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:06:32 +0000

Yeah, Jake. But the point is that she’s trying to claim she didn’t mean “liberal bias”.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:02:21 +0000

The school promised to print “all of your wonderful words.” So if the words “surviving so many of the Belleview teachers’ liberal teachings” are not “wonderful,” the school could be justified in leaving those words out. And even under Mrs. Altman’s definition, the message would still constitute a criticism of the school’s educational practices, which it is reasonable to expect the school might not want printed in its yearbook as being a non-”wonderful” characterization of the school.

By: Jake L.

Jake L. — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:37:37 +0000

I am a law student and hold an advanced degree in English Composition and Literature. If you think there is no liberal bias in public school, even in the 5th grade, you are sorely mistaken. Additionally, there could be legal complications for the school not delivering on the $5 contract to print whatever the parents submitted, so long as it conformed to printing guidlines; it’s called freedom of expression and that of the press. Even if the word was not intended as a liberal jab, the mother would still have been entitled to her printing. This is not libel in any case.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:23:27 +0000

Ms. Altman’s explanation fails also because of the noun she selected to follow “liberal.” By referring to “liberal teachings,” she made a normative statement about the content of the teachers’ communications, not a descriptive comment about procedures or styles. Had she meant the latter, she might have said, “liberal teaching style.” That phrase would be susceptible to both meanings, but at least her argument would be more plausible.

By: will

will — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:01:54 +0000

Anon, I would definitely say this is an American thing. The term “Liberal” so dominates political discourse about the left that it’s nearly synonymous. For me, the alternate meaning never entered into my head until I read her sleazy explanation. Ahh, the joys of dialectical variation.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:43:08 +0000

Perhaps this is a Brit vs. American thing, but the political meaning never even entered into my head until you mentioned it in your entry.
I’m willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt in that respect.

Still, taking pot shots in a yearbook, regardless of their nature, is a bit… low :)

By: Deborah

Deborah — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:04:41 +0000

Great rationale in the case about the parents leaving the message in their daughter’s yearbook. … I’d be interested to know if you’d apply the same logic to the widespread and increasing use of the term “illegal alien” to argue against immigration. From the perspective of many U.S.-born Latinos, the phrase has become a euphemism for “Mexican” and not just anyone who has violated our nation’s immigration laws. As such, it is seen as a not-so-subtle way to depict all Latinos in a negative light. Yet many people will argue that they mean no harm with the phrase. Interestingly, I’ve never seen the phrase used to describe Europeans who are in the United States illegally. The “objective” press always seems to “write around it” by using the phrases, “The Irishman was deported due to a visa violation” or “The woman was deported back to England for criminal behavior and because she was in the country illegally.” … Language is powerful.

By: L

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:23:09 +0000

I bet Ms. Altman’s next defense of her bigotry would be to say, “But it’s just a word! Come on, you’re gonna get all wound up about one little word? They’re only as powerful as you let them be!” Ugh.