thedrifter
04-07-07, 08:38 AM
Kent Ward: News media's overuse of 'soldier' can rankle
By Kent Ward
Saturday, April 07, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
The letter to the editor in the Thursday morning newspaper hit the nail squarely on the head. And sitting there reading it, I realized I had found a soul mate when it comes to deploring the news media’s odious practice of referring to everyone in uniform as "soldier."
The letter was written by retired Marine Corps Col. John D. Carr of Belfast in response to a story in the March 22 newspaper. The article, about funeral services for a Maine Marine killed in Iraq, was headlined "Hundreds attend funeral for Maine soldier" — even though the article reported that the serviceman was a Marine and was accompanied by a photograph of him in his dress blues.
"Soldiers are in the Army, Marines are in the Marine Corps, sailors are in the Navy, airmen are in the Air Force and coast guardsmen are in the Coast Guard. That is the way it is and should be recognized as such," Col. Carr wrote.
Good on him, as my Canadian neighbors are inclined to say when a man speaks out about such insensitivities. No longer am I Johnny One-Note, the stuck whistle crying in the wilderness about this particular new-age flouting of convention. The United States Marines have arrived, and they are here to help. I had long suspected that the grouping of all servicemen and women under the catch-all "soldiers" umbrella rankled The Few, The Proud. Now I have affirmation.
"All of these service personnel are in a unique and separate service and do not want to be lumped into the one category ‘soldiers.’ They are proud of the fact that they are serving in a separate service and want to be addressed accordingly," Carr advised. "I have seen this time and time again in the newspapers, television and radio news. Doesn’t the news media know the difference?" he asked.
Unfortunately, the short answer to the question is, in many cases, "No." As Exhibit A, I cite another newspaper story, written by two Los Angeles Times reporters based in Tehran and published in this newspaper last weekend on Page A12 under the headline, "Captive British marine apologizes for ‘trespassing."’
The reporters got it right early on in the story when they wrote about the "15 captured [British] sailors and marines" Iran had arrested a week earlier for allegedly trespassing in Iranian waters.
But six paragraphs into the article, they blew it. "The European Union on Friday, in a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Bremen, Germany, demanded that Iran free the soldiers," the reporters wrote. (The emphasis is mine. Not that the word "soldiers" didn’t fairly catapult off the page of its own volition for any reader who was half paying attention.)
The last time I flogged this subject to within an inch of its life I received an e-mail from a reader who apparently had never served in any branch of the military, and most certainly not in the Marine Corps. "Picky, picky, picky," was the gist of the e-mailer’s message. Lighten up, old boy. There is nothing wrong with referring to anyone in military service as a "soldier."
My dictionary defines "soldier" as "one engaged in military service, and especially in the army." Applying the definition loosely, I suppose news reporters may refer to all who serve in the armed services as generic "soldiers," if they wish — may even morph British sailors into soldiers — and not expect to get hauled before a military tribunal to answer for their affront to tradition.
But in a profession where being specific to help clarify things for readers and viewers is supposedly a highly valued stock in trade, you’d think the media would take heed of Col. Carr’s wise counsel: "Soldiers are in the Army; Marines are in the Marine Corps; sailors are in the Navy; and coast guardsmen are in the Coast Guard."
Painting everyone in the military with the same broad "soldier" brush is a civilian blunder akin to that of the raw Army recruit who makes the egregious mistake of referring to his first sergeant as "Sir," a form of address normally reserved for officers, baronets and knights of King Arthur’s Round Table.
Referring to all who serve in the armed forces as "soldier" because they are members of the military family is a lot like referring to any old evergreen tree as a "pine" tree, as some folks do, because it is a member of the pine family.
The dictionary may seem to give permission to do so. But why would anyone ever want to, when things can as easily be called by their real names?
BDN columnist Kent Ward lives in Limestone. Readers may contact him via e-mail at olddawg@bangordailynews.net.
Ellie
By Kent Ward
Saturday, April 07, 2007 - Bangor Daily News
The letter to the editor in the Thursday morning newspaper hit the nail squarely on the head. And sitting there reading it, I realized I had found a soul mate when it comes to deploring the news media’s odious practice of referring to everyone in uniform as "soldier."
The letter was written by retired Marine Corps Col. John D. Carr of Belfast in response to a story in the March 22 newspaper. The article, about funeral services for a Maine Marine killed in Iraq, was headlined "Hundreds attend funeral for Maine soldier" — even though the article reported that the serviceman was a Marine and was accompanied by a photograph of him in his dress blues.
"Soldiers are in the Army, Marines are in the Marine Corps, sailors are in the Navy, airmen are in the Air Force and coast guardsmen are in the Coast Guard. That is the way it is and should be recognized as such," Col. Carr wrote.
Good on him, as my Canadian neighbors are inclined to say when a man speaks out about such insensitivities. No longer am I Johnny One-Note, the stuck whistle crying in the wilderness about this particular new-age flouting of convention. The United States Marines have arrived, and they are here to help. I had long suspected that the grouping of all servicemen and women under the catch-all "soldiers" umbrella rankled The Few, The Proud. Now I have affirmation.
"All of these service personnel are in a unique and separate service and do not want to be lumped into the one category ‘soldiers.’ They are proud of the fact that they are serving in a separate service and want to be addressed accordingly," Carr advised. "I have seen this time and time again in the newspapers, television and radio news. Doesn’t the news media know the difference?" he asked.
Unfortunately, the short answer to the question is, in many cases, "No." As Exhibit A, I cite another newspaper story, written by two Los Angeles Times reporters based in Tehran and published in this newspaper last weekend on Page A12 under the headline, "Captive British marine apologizes for ‘trespassing."’
The reporters got it right early on in the story when they wrote about the "15 captured [British] sailors and marines" Iran had arrested a week earlier for allegedly trespassing in Iranian waters.
But six paragraphs into the article, they blew it. "The European Union on Friday, in a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Bremen, Germany, demanded that Iran free the soldiers," the reporters wrote. (The emphasis is mine. Not that the word "soldiers" didn’t fairly catapult off the page of its own volition for any reader who was half paying attention.)
The last time I flogged this subject to within an inch of its life I received an e-mail from a reader who apparently had never served in any branch of the military, and most certainly not in the Marine Corps. "Picky, picky, picky," was the gist of the e-mailer’s message. Lighten up, old boy. There is nothing wrong with referring to anyone in military service as a "soldier."
My dictionary defines "soldier" as "one engaged in military service, and especially in the army." Applying the definition loosely, I suppose news reporters may refer to all who serve in the armed services as generic "soldiers," if they wish — may even morph British sailors into soldiers — and not expect to get hauled before a military tribunal to answer for their affront to tradition.
But in a profession where being specific to help clarify things for readers and viewers is supposedly a highly valued stock in trade, you’d think the media would take heed of Col. Carr’s wise counsel: "Soldiers are in the Army; Marines are in the Marine Corps; sailors are in the Navy; and coast guardsmen are in the Coast Guard."
Painting everyone in the military with the same broad "soldier" brush is a civilian blunder akin to that of the raw Army recruit who makes the egregious mistake of referring to his first sergeant as "Sir," a form of address normally reserved for officers, baronets and knights of King Arthur’s Round Table.
Referring to all who serve in the armed forces as "soldier" because they are members of the military family is a lot like referring to any old evergreen tree as a "pine" tree, as some folks do, because it is a member of the pine family.
The dictionary may seem to give permission to do so. But why would anyone ever want to, when things can as easily be called by their real names?
BDN columnist Kent Ward lives in Limestone. Readers may contact him via e-mail at olddawg@bangordailynews.net.
Ellie