Did I mention I'd be posting infrequently?

Because I am.

So here's an interesting little news story:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Accused-child-rapists-gets-to-watch-kiddie-porn-1464194.php

Yes, the subject matter is abhorrent.  Yes, there's a grammatical typo in the headline.  But what I'm interested in here is the framing.  Framing is huge in journalism - in theory, journalism espouses an ideal of objectivity.  In reality, however, even the most "just the facts, ma'am" article will almost always have some sort of angle or perspective.  Seemingly insignificant word choice and collocation (the instances of certain words in proximity to each other; think "Christian right" or "Muslim" and "terrorist") on the part of journalists like Keith Eldridge can vastly change the meaning and tone of the article.

For example:
"To make sure no other inmates get a chance to see the pornography, Gilbert is made to review them in a separate room."

The phrase "get a chance" implies that other inmates would want to see the pornography and/or that if they did see it, it would be a positive experience for them. This is framing the fact in a particular way.  The journalist could have chosen to state it another way:

 "To make sure no other inmates view the pornography..." or "To make sure no other inmates are exposed to the pornography..."  These two alternatives would carry very different meaning. 

While there are other instances of framing, almost all of the rest of the article is direct or indirect quotes from officials, so the journalist's word choices are not as easy to discern.

Finally, the headline is interesting as well.  In daily journalism outlets like the Seattle PI and KOMO-TV, many journalists do not get to write their own headlines, so Eldridge may not have written this one.  But it fits well with the tone of the piece, and is also an excellent illustration of framing:

"Accused child rapists [sic] gets to watch kiddie porn"


Again, we have the choice of "gets to," though in this instance it makes a bit more sense given the accusations.  What's striking to me is the use of "kiddie porn" - this is much more informal than the "child pornography" used later in the article.  It's a common phrase (at least in US culture) that is almost certainly guaranteed to provoke an extremely negative reaction.  Either phrase conjures up acts and images that are abhorrent and taboo in our society, but "child pornography" is a bit more of a technical descriptor and, I argue, does not provoke as visceral a response as "kiddie porn." 

The case against the man sounds quite damning, but because he is still "innocent until proven guilty," I think word choice in this article is worth looking at.  To be clear:  I am not advocating on behalf of Gilbert or accusing Eldridge of any sort of journalistic wrongdoing.  For the purposes of this blog, I'm just interested in the word choice and how it plays into the framing of the piece.