Weasel Words

I was watching conservative tv host Lou Dobbs in an ugly debate/argument with Janet Muguira , an activist leader of a Hispanic civil rights organization. This was just about the nastiest extended exchange between two people I have seen on television. The debate was an outgrowth of the larger issue of how to handle illegal immigration. Particularly Muguira was objecting to the appearance of guests on Lou Dobbs' show that spoke strongly against illegal immigration and had ties to racist organizations. Further more, Muguira connected the repeated appearances of anti-immigrant speakers to a 23% increase in hate crimes against hispanics. Dobbs claimed absolution under freedom of speech and that he was little more than a facilitator for discussion. Maguira asserted that Dobbs needed to be responsible and stop having people who used 'hate-speech' on his show.

I saw where Dobbs was coming from in his defense and I can see why Maguira was on the offense. I have heard people using the kind of speech that Maguira objects to but I have trouble finding the adjectives to describe it. In architecture, similar words would be called 'weasel words'. They are words that architects use to cover their ass, or shift/ deflect direct responsibility away from themselves. "Verify in Field" for example. I think the situation is also somewhat similar to the scenario of the bartender and the drunk driver. If a man gets drunk, goes driving and kills someone, how responsible is the bartender who served the man his drinks? (In some states I think that the bartender is open to some responsibility) We have all heard "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This is one of the slickest pieces of propaganda that has ever been created. It sells the idea that guns really aren't that bad. And people bought it. 2005 Gun stats: 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. there were more than 16,500 murders in 2005 and 66% were done with a firearm (actually that's impressive. I would have bet it was much higher) If people didn't have guns would they still kill people? or atleast 66% less people? Just to be clear, my personal opinion is that people should have the right to bear arms as long as it is in a manner that is in accordance with the state and federal laws which i think are too lenient.

Is contributing to/building a negative 'stereotype' on national television 'hate-speech'? Or creating an atmosphere where it is 'okay' to degrade other people?

How responsible is Lou Dobbs if at all? Maybe it is a simple case of irresponsible reporting. You need a background check to get a gun but they will put almost anybody on national TV. Who really wants to do the homework or ask the 'hard' questions about a person's affiliations?

I ask plenty of questions but I don't really have any answers, just opinions. I apologize if anyone reading was expecting me answer any of the questions. Personally, I think that the general media and their puppets needs to be held accountable for what they say. Taking responsibility is one of the great weights of being an architect. It is a large part of what makes us professionals and one of the first things that an architect learns is that their decisions have profound effects on people. If a journalist wants to claim to be professional then I expect them to approach their 'profession' with that same degree of rigorous understanding of the responsibilities and consequences that my profession places on me.