3 ms·
"Consent" is starting to become a really loaded word. It doesn't seem journalistically honest to start a conversation and use non-neutral language in the headli
by tw1010 9y ago
"Consent" is starting to become a really loaded word. It doesn't seem journalistically honest to start a conversation and use non-neutral language in the headline to frame the tone of the discussion.
- chc 9y agoIt seems like the right word in this context. It sounds like you have an issue with the word for some reason, but I can't work out what the issue is, much less how it shows a lack of journalistic integrity.
- tw1010 9y agoIt is definitely not a grammatically incorrect use of the word. I have nothing against it per se. But the word is almost exclusively associated to negative emotional content, and that fact primes the reader to feel a certain way about the issue before they have even read the piece. See Russell conjugation: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181
- chc 9y agoHow would you phrase it that communicates "without consent" without that sounding like a potentially bad thing?
- tw1010 9y agoA more neutral candidate could be just: "Is It Legal to Swap Someone’s Face into Porn?" (It delivers the same information since it wouldn't be a legal question if all participants agreed to the act.)
- Slansitartop 9y agoI kinda see where he's coming from. There's a lot of negative charge around the phrase "without their consent," to the point where it primes and automatic "no" response that might cloud a discussion of the actual issues. There a lot of stuff that people should rightly be able to do without an affected person's consent (such as leaving a negative review of their work), but having framing that centers on "consent" obscures that.