University of South Carolina Libraries
editorials Media's language dims wars'reality Once again, war is front-page news. In the Falklands, Britain's final assault on Port Stanley resulted in an Argentine surrender, while thousands of miles away, Israel occupies much of Lebanon after an invasion that began June 6. Coverage of these wars includes the horrid, dehumanizing body counts, which list for the public the number of people killed and wounded. The media also make the distinction between civilian and military casualties. But worse than body counts purporting to tell how war progresses is the news media's use of euphemisms to sterilize bloodshed. When the British surrounded Port Stanley, news reports said British artillery *'softened up" Argentine positions in the capital city. The phrase appeared again when the British began their assault to drive the Argentines out of Port Stanley. The audience is never quite sure how artillery fire will ''soften up" anything. What the media's use of "soften up" means is destruction. Artillery fire transforms buildings into rubble. If troops are in these buildings, they will be injured or killed ? not "softened up." A CBS reporter covering Israel's incursion into southern Lebanon described it as a "clean up" operation, giving the image of an army of maids sent to remove some dirt. While Israel may think of the Palestine Liberation Organization as dirt, 20,000 soldiers accompanied by hundreds of tanks constitute more than a "clean up" force. And the Israeli soldiers hardly want to "clean" anybody. These, however, are not the onlv euphemisms used to sanitize war. In World War II the public was subjected to the "mopping up" operation, and during the Cuban missile crisis President Kennedy and his advisers discussed the possibilities of a "surgical strike." Such phrases hide the destruction and loss of life resulting from armed conflict. These euphemisms are dangerous because the public becomes comfortable with war and cannot visualize what happens during a battle. The news media are wrong to use this language to dim public perceptions. The public must never forget the main results of war: people killed or wounded, people left homeless and property destroyed. When wars are reported, it should be remembered nothing is "softened," "cleaned," "mopped" or "surgically removed." When these euphemisms are used, the public needs to think beyond the words and realize what is obscured. ???Gamecock Editor-in-Chief Richard Meyers Copy Desk Chief News Editor Entertainment Editor David DeWitt Forrest Brown Sally McUill Editorial Page Kditor Photo Editor Advertising Manager ' Chris Handal Capers Hammond Linda S. Haines Business Manager General Manager Production Manager Jean Hatchell Jerry lirewer Mark McEwan Adviser ! Mark Ethridge Jr. M nxttQ rnnm 777-71 ft I AilvprtiGinp 777-4249 Business Office 777-3888 Production 777-2833 The Gamecock welcomes letters and guest editorials. All letters and guest editorials must be typewritten, triple-spaced on a 65-sp<ice-(ine. Letters should be no longer than 300 words and columns should be limited to one newsworthy subject no longer than four typed pages, l.etters and columns MUST be signed with the writer's name, telephone number, mailing address, class standing or faculty position and major Pseudonyms are unacceptable, but the writer's name may be withheld upon request. We reserve the right to edit columns and letters. Address letters and columns to: Editorial Page Editor, Gamecock, Drawer A. USC. Columbia S C. 29208. fguefe pp I ibexes V letters. Conservation Editor: I found Dr. Oswald F. Schuette's pro-nuclear power editorial in the Gamccoch very interesting. He bases much of his argument for the need of nuke-generated electricity on statistics such as this: "A conservative estimate is that our nation's capacity for generating electricity must be doubled by the year 2000. (This) growth rate (is) greater than the expected rate ot population increase." I have no reason to doubt the validity of this statement but feel that the key issue is the ever-increasing per capita energy consumption that it implies. The issue of source (nuclear, cnlar fnccil fnol ) is nnf> thflt receives great debate these days yet no one seems willing to cut back on the level of consumption. Dr. Schuette appears to accept ever Nuclear was and a burdei Editor: Dr. Schuette's guest editorial (C promoting nuclear power expansion cc nuclear cataloging of specious reasons viable energy source. Fortunately, thi become aware of the myths of "econc and, since Three Mile Island, peopl potential for a catastrophic accident plant if either operator error or te prevents the operation of necessary systems. There are a tew points 1 teel obliged to 1) Nuclear power is not the saf< generation, as Dr. Schuette said. Nuc! deadly radioactive wastes for which th years, have devised no safe and permar We should halt nuclear fission power waste problem is adequately dealt v fusion power is feasible. 2) Dr. Schuette says we are burning * carbon dioxide released is creating a on innritoco i n rtlnhnl t ?i UMU C 4 K1 IUV.I L.UOV III ^1\/P>7UI W-llipvi Mill disagree over the effects of increased < atmosphere, some saying just the op general cooling of temperatures worl wmummmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmb ilirTlMi 'A dH ^vp jD/^S T^J TAP ^ r wmsm us answer to ene increasing per person levels, as do the no-nukers. This comment about the anti-nuke faction is based on ob servations while attending the recent Bonnie Kaitt concert. I find it absurdly hypocritical that an organization that is energy conscious would utilize a rock concert as a benefit. When you are running 1,000 amps for sound and 1,500 amps for lights, rock concerts become one of the leisure activities that is highest in energy consumption. Eighty percent of the audience looked like they blowdried their hair, in an air conditioned apartment, with the stereo cranked up, the TV on and the sound turned /\f f r% l-\ /-* K1/\i^/4rvt* uiWinmnif i irv UI I , UI1U UJC U1CI1UC1 vvili^pilig up cocktails, just before leaving for the show. I would suggest to Dr. Schuette that we may not need to double our output by the year 2000 if we learn to get :fo 'A Panrlnr iiu n uiiuub n for future g would be a moot is: iamecock, June 9) go beyond, Clear mtains the usual pro- levels to aceeptab why this should be a expenditures versu e general public has 3) Saying a per< >mic" nuclear power would amount to e now know of the waste" each year i to occur at a power level waste contaii chnical malfunction known, and that nu emergency cooling Savannah River P substance, I woui make: radioactive waste 3St form of energy material from whi( lear fission produces Scientists such a e "experts," after 30 very imperfect ar lent disposal solution, many others are r generation until the Atomic Scientists) /ith, and until safer the issue for the I9f contained. The by* io much coal that the be around for man "greenhouse" effect waste must be p< res. Many scientists burden to impose o carbon dioxide in the iposite will occur: a Idwide. Besides, this anHHBHHHnmMDMana K, rgy needs along on a lot less electricity. For future no-nukes benefits I would / suggest this rate of exchange: / Fully Working * Number of V Appliance Donated T' for Destruction In Kxi Hair Dryer 2 ^ Can Opener 1 TV 20 Toaster Oven 2 Blender l Air Conditioner 20-(>0 Food Processor 1 Stereo 15 * These figures are set relative to three factors: 1. original cost; 2. energy consumption; j. relative ease of going without. Name withheld by request a's Box' lenerations >ue if industry would comply with, or even Air Act standards and reduce emission le levels. The issue once again is capital is public neaitn. ion's share of nuclear fuel, reprocessed, a "teaspoon of high level radioactive s unbelievable. Considering that this high tis plutonium, the most deadly substance iclear reprocessing facilities including the lant must account for every gram of this Id say that any amount of high level is unacceptable. Plutonium is also the !h nuclear bombs are made. is Dr. Schuette may be content with this id potentially devas tating technology, but lot (one may refer to the Bulletin of the . A Pandora's Box has been opened, and !/\c ar\rl I (MUk* n ??rUA,(U<\w> ^,x iv/o UI1U i is V* UClllCl 11IC ft Cctll UC jroducts of our nuclear fission legacy will y thousands of years, and this radioactive irpetually monitored. That is an unfair n future generations. John Van Dalcn Education graduate studt ut