A story on a local organization reaching out to help the unhoused in my current area. The director of the organization is quoted using the term “unhoused”, but the reporter (or their editor) decided to use the more charged term “homeless” in the by-line and the article.

  • displaced_city_mouse@midwest.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    …there is a big, big difference between calling someone homeless/addict or saying “experiencing homelessness/addiction”

    I agree with this – my point in bringing this up was to highlight the differences in the language we use and the images and ideas those words conjure in the reader/listener. Your experiences are much more direct than mine, and I appreciate the insight.

    … I don’t think the author intended to degrade people with their wording. … I think we do a disservice to the people directly suffering from homelessness/addiction/mental health by misdirecting our frustrations towards the journalists increasing awareness of the problem.

    I see your points. However, had the director of the facility also used the term “homeless”, I would have never posted this. Its the changing of the word from what was said to what was written that gave me pause.

    On the other hand, you have also given me some other ways to think about this story and how it was presented. Thanks for forcing me to confront some of my biases.

    • ConTheLibrarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Barring evidence of malice, if anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt on intent, its gotta be the person running the shelter. That’s not an easy job, to say the least.

      I get where you’re coming from though because in these post-ironic days people use everything to mean anything making it hard to guess intent.