The Relativity of Objectivity Open Thread

I was a bit surprised to read a line in an arts article in The New York Times this morning that used what even I consider a subjective term in the context of journalism to describe the ongoing effort to fight terrorists hellbent on attacking the US. It's a term I use myself frequently, it's a term I totally understand and sympathize with, and it's a term that I read without giving it a second thought in the editorial section of the Times just yesterday.

My reason for highlighting it is not to disagree with the writer or even to suggest the writer is consciously making an overt politic statement by doing so. I was simply surprised, that's all, and it got me to thinking about how it's become rather difficult to separate out politics from anything these days.

In a report on the third annual Conflux festival that was held in Williamsburg this past weekend, Martha Schwendener (who I know to be an insightful and thoughtful writer) wrote the following:

....was a presentation on “Guy Debord’s Game of War,” a work in progress by the Radical Software Group that the artists plan to publish eventually as free, open-source software. Taking their cues from an actual game developed by Debord, the group used its discussion to gather feedback on how older war-game strategies jibe with contemporary warfare, like the so-called war on terrorism. [emphasis mine]

With no quotes around it suggesting this was the term the Radical Software Group used, I was surprised to read this. Has "so-called war on terrorism" reached such a widely accepted usage that it's now truly, more-or-less neutrally synonymous with the "Global War on Terror." Or was Martha editorializing?

Now I don't mean to pick on Martha. She's a great art critic, and her report represents the sort of coverage I would like to see a lot more of, but this phrase made me wonder at what point does what was once a clearly political characterization become neutral enough to get past the editors?

Don't get me wrong, I consider Global War on Terror to be equally political (and grammatically, if not logically, challenged), but because the administration uses it (they still use it, no? Or has it morphed into the "Global War on Enemy Combatants and by 'Enemy Combatants' I mean anyone I, George Bush [and by 'I George Bush,' I mean I Dick Cheney] decide to haul off the streets and send to our 'enhanced interrogation' chambers"), I guess I let it go when a journalist uses it (but even as I write that I can see the inherent laziness of that).

In the end, I agree with Martha's characterization, but if someone uses it during dinner conversation I do indeed make a mental note that he/she is on my side of that issue, so I don't see it as entirely neutral. On the other hand, if Martha had used "Global War on Terror," I would have suspected interference by an editor (perhaps the one who dropped the ball in monitoring the propaganda Judith Miller was filing daily). So I wonder if a journalist isn't caught between a rock and a hard place here (yes, puns are calling).

Or is there a spectrum of objectivity for journalists based on their beat? If everyone you write about refuses to use the term Global War on Terror, aren't you making an equally questionable political statement by discussing their actions via the use of that phrase? Yes, quotes would technically absolve you, but even quotes (saying "these are not my words, Home Land Security") becomes a political statement, suggesting the subjects being covered are perhaps out of step with (who?) the President(?) to use what they do.

I'm sure there have been studies (anyone?) of how language or terminology shifts as the general sentiment for or against a political action shifts. Consider this an open thread on art, politics, language and objectivity.