Loaded Words

   Politicians are fond of saying, "What I really meant was ... " when their words come back to haunt them when published or broadcast.
   A reporter's response is this: "We only reported what you said. If you meant something else, you should have said something else."
   "But it was taken out of context," the politician objects.
   "There was no context," replies the reporter. "It was a brief quote, reported in full."
   And TV folks can add, "Roll the video. This is what was said."

   Meanwhile, there are words that are so loaded with emotion and secondary meanings that they can be triply damaging to anyone who uses them carelessly or speaks ill of someone with certain attributes.
   Here's an example from this weekend: "Mother dead soldier."
   To criticize, attack or belittle in any way such a person is asking for trouble. Yet that is exactly what a candidate did, insisting that the mother of an American officer killed in Iraq did not speak at the Democratic National Convention because, according to the candidate, as a Muslim she was not allowed to speak publicly.
   Instead, her husband spoke at length of the death of their son, and challenged the Republican candidate to list any sacrifice he might have made. Moreover, the father offered to lend the candidate his copy of the Constitution, since clearly the candidate had never read it.
   In response, the candidate claimed via a Twitter post that he had been "viciously attacked," and deserved an opportunity to respond.
  Then he appeared on TV talk shows to insist that his record of success in business, creating many thousands of jobs, was a sacrifice on his part.
   Some response. Some sacrifice.
   
   Reporters and editors have a journalistic responsibility to record and publish accurately and succinctly what is said and done that is newsworthy. At the same time, there is such a thing as editorial judgment, the decision-making process as to what is newsworthy and what is not.
   Some comments can be placed in the lead paragraph on Page One, and some can be relegated to the end of another story at the bottom of Page 17.
   This depends largely on what the editors perceive as news value. That, in turn, is heavily influenced by the characteristics and demographics of the readership.
   How a story is handled and where it is placed depends heavily on a variety of factors, some of which do indeed reflect the views of the publication's owners as well as the opinions of the readers. Most major American newspapers strive to be neutral, and report objectively what is said by political candidates. That in itself reflects the opinion of the publishers. Be neutral and objective.
   Even so, some candidates are prone to say things so outrageous that they deserve to be placed prominently, and that means the top of Page One.
   Is this news judgment or bias? Or does it reflect the values and opinions of the readership, those people who want neutral and objective reporting?
   There are some comments, however, that are so loaded with negative connotations that no amount of polite phrasing can cleanse or neutralize them.
   One such phrase is "belittle mother of dead soldier."
   The full headline, on Page One of the New York Times Sunday morning, was this: "Trump belittles / Muslim mother / of dead soldier."
   In interviews later, she explained that she did not speak at the convention because her emotions were so strong, even years after her son died in Iraq in a car bomb explosion. Moreover, she is still unable to enter a room in her home where her son's pictures remain.
   
   Yet the candidate responds, not with sympathy but by redoubling his self-praise for his own accomplishments and success in business, no matter the sacrifices of others.
   And all along, the news media will record and report exactly what the candidate says and does.