RedSparrows
Member
Shortly before the EU referendum in Britain on 23 June this year, the MP for Batley and Spen in Yorkshire, Jo Cox, was murdered in the street by a man called Thomas Mair, who stabbed and shot her, and stabbed another man (non-fatal), whilst shouting 'Britain first'. This is both the name of a far-right 'patriotic' group concerned with Islamification, liberalism, and the invention of the wheel, and also politically relevant considering the rhetoric and narratives of the EU referendum, vis EU powers vs British powers, etc.
The murder was an outrage, and was condemned as such. However, during the referendum campaign the more febrile parts of the right were very quick to condemn any attempt to 'politicise' the murder. The gist was 'it was tragic, but it wasn't political, move on'. Of course, demanding people ignore things like what Mair said is in itself political, but heyho.
Fast-forward to Mair's trial. He was sentenced to life, for what the judge described as a 'brutal, ruthless' act, that was pre-meditated and politically motivated.
Cue the British press reaction. Most papers carried the news on their front pages. But then we come to the Daily Mail (which didn't mention the verdict on their front page, iirc), and the power of a hyphen.
Currently the main story about Jo Cox on the Mail Online is this:
If you're at all familiar with British politics, you'll see the touching points: housing, immigration, political elites out of touch, terrorism. The Mail call Mair a terrorist, as has essentially been demanded of them, and rightly so (they are classic players of the 'white terrorist is mental loner, brown terrorist is an appendage of a vast Islamic conspiracy', whereas mental health, ideology, and terrorism are surely rather entwined, and so it's something of a coup to even have them use the word here).
The article itself explores Mair's Nazi obsessions (SS material, Breivik, etc) and isolation, and whilst it would never, ever, ever print anything like this about any other kind of political killing, it at least tries to paint a somewhat rounded picture so it can, if needed, retreat behind statement of basic facts about the case, which should be the bare minimum of any journalism.
But at the same time, look at the headline, and then the hyphen. It can very easily be read that Jo Cox, the victim, did not help Mair with his problems. But Mair never approached Jo Cox. The hyphen, one could reason, is the Mail splitting one clause from another to emphasise Mair's isolation and mindset.
But what do we find below the article? These (amongst other nonsense) comments:
The Mail are masters at this kind of thing, and I think the hyphen is a powerful example of this. The third paragraph (normally explicating things are down in the infamous paragraph 19...) explains that Mair thought Cox wouldn't help him. But look at the space left by the hyphen before you read that.
Sorry for the rather particular topic, I just find this kind of thing very interesting at a time of such heightened concern over rhetoric and dogwhistling.
The murder was an outrage, and was condemned as such. However, during the referendum campaign the more febrile parts of the right were very quick to condemn any attempt to 'politicise' the murder. The gist was 'it was tragic, but it wasn't political, move on'. Of course, demanding people ignore things like what Mair said is in itself political, but heyho.
Fast-forward to Mair's trial. He was sentenced to life, for what the judge described as a 'brutal, ruthless' act, that was pre-meditated and politically motivated.
Cue the British press reaction. Most papers carried the news on their front pages. But then we come to the Daily Mail (which didn't mention the verdict on their front page, iirc), and the power of a hyphen.
Currently the main story about Jo Cox on the Mail Online is this:
If you're at all familiar with British politics, you'll see the touching points: housing, immigration, political elites out of touch, terrorism. The Mail call Mair a terrorist, as has essentially been demanded of them, and rightly so (they are classic players of the 'white terrorist is mental loner, brown terrorist is an appendage of a vast Islamic conspiracy', whereas mental health, ideology, and terrorism are surely rather entwined, and so it's something of a coup to even have them use the word here).
The article itself explores Mair's Nazi obsessions (SS material, Breivik, etc) and isolation, and whilst it would never, ever, ever print anything like this about any other kind of political killing, it at least tries to paint a somewhat rounded picture so it can, if needed, retreat behind statement of basic facts about the case, which should be the bare minimum of any journalism.
But at the same time, look at the headline, and then the hyphen. It can very easily be read that Jo Cox, the victim, did not help Mair with his problems. But Mair never approached Jo Cox. The hyphen, one could reason, is the Mail splitting one clause from another to emphasise Mair's isolation and mindset.
But what do we find below the article? These (amongst other nonsense) comments:
The Mail are masters at this kind of thing, and I think the hyphen is a powerful example of this. The third paragraph (normally explicating things are down in the infamous paragraph 19...) explains that Mair thought Cox wouldn't help him. But look at the space left by the hyphen before you read that.
Sorry for the rather particular topic, I just find this kind of thing very interesting at a time of such heightened concern over rhetoric and dogwhistling.
