Page Summary
ninebelow.livejournal.com - (no subject)
burkesworks.livejournal.com - (no subject)
coalescent.livejournal.com - (no subject)
anton-p-nym.livejournal.com - (no subject)
momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com - (no subject)
philmophlegm.livejournal.com - (no subject)
nmg.livejournal.com - (no subject)
danieldwilliam.livejournal.com - (no subject)
robhu.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 12-09-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 09-09-2025
- 3: Interesting Links for 11-09-2025
- 4: Photo cross-post
- 5: Photo cross-post
- 6: Interesting Links for 08-09-2025
- 7: Interesting Links for 06-09-2025
- 8: Interesting Links for 07-09-2025
- 9: Interesting Links for 05-09-2025
- 10: Interesting Links for 04-09-2025
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 04:20 pm (UTC)I was more wondering if, in general, people had some other definition in their head where "reform" just meant "change".
Because from the definition, the BBC are entirely correct. They should be non-partisan, and thus refer to it as "Proposed voting change" or something equally neutral in nature. Otherwise they risk looking like they're in favour of something. And much though I want the AV referendum to come out "Yes", I don't think the BBC should be partisan.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 04:30 pm (UTC)So while it may have positive connotations in general, when used by the BBC in other circumstances it's used as if it's a neutral term. I don't think one can say that 'banking reform' or 'NHS reform' are less partisan subjects than electoral reform, and I don't think the AV referendum should be made a special case.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 04:46 pm (UTC)Everything's labelled as a reform these days and there have been so many reforms over the last few years, some good, some bad, some utterly pointless, that the dictionary definition and its positive meaning has been lost in the noise. As one I. Montoya put it, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Government Reform" to me just means wasting huge amounts of cash for no noticeable change other than to appear different from the last lot, even if the net result to the man in the street is exactly the same as it ever was.
Maybe that's why they're picking on "Electoral Reform", it's a change that might actually do something!
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 05:14 pm (UTC)Hah. A blessing in disguise, perhaps, not being tarred with a word that no longer means what it says on the tin?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 12:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 05:16 pm (UTC)-- Steve does agree that the term "reform" does kinda connote that something's wrong with things as-is, and may honestly be perceived as a non-neutral term.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 07:27 pm (UTC)When it's the Tories -- eg today's stuff about DLA reform -- I instinctively worry.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 07:49 pm (UTC)See my post here:
http://philmophlegm.livejournal.com/171247.html
no subject
Date: 2011-02-09 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 10:12 am (UTC)Therefore I think, in this context it is neutral, in the same way that boot black and black balling are not racist.
Not calling electoral reform, electoral reform is like not calling that game where you try to move a round leather object from the middle of a field to one end mainly by using those things at the end of your legs, football.
Reform means to make again.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 11:35 pm (UTC)B. If it does not have any positive connotation and really is neutral then there's no reason to get in a tizz about it.
I strongly suspect those campaigning against the BBC about this (who you've not linked to) want people to think B applies but clearly their campaign implies A is true.