New Hampshire U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas defended his support for the National Defense Authorization Act that strips trans kids of military members of care in a statement to The Advocate.
Thank you! I understand it’s focused on one person, but ya get what i mean? It invites misunderstanding.
It’s not wrong to phrase it this way, it’s technically accurate to say" Lone LBGTQ+ Democrat". However it’s definitely clunky and unnecessarily confusing.
Reading the title immediately raises the question in the reader: "If only one LGBTQ+dem, how many other Dems?
If his sexuality is the point, then his party affiliation isn’t. If his party is the point, his sexuality isn’t.
The Advocate speaks to issues in the LBGT+community, therefore speaking to his sexuality is relevant. Titles are supposed to summarize the article with more information as you read. If the article, brings up information it does not then answer, why mention it if not to confuse? Reading the title could easily cause the reader to mistake “Gay Democrat is lone LBGT+ vote” as the lone Dem vote.
WAS this the Intent? Well that’s harder to parse.
Really, I’m not like, saying the advocate is trash or w/e, but i AM trying to take into consideration how often our news sources have biases (deliberate or internal) towards the 2 parties. MSNBC et al are known to push for the Democrats, FOX n ONANN etc for the Repubs. No arfument there, right?
Further, if "The Advocate"does in fact has a pro-Dem bias, I’m not even claiming they’re morally wrong for doing so! But! As someone who personally feels the DNC is not a party for the people of the US, and sees often the cover they get from the aforementioned media who do, i’m very sensitive to and always looking out for examples of wording that give the Ds cover for doing its constituents dirty like they did with this vote.
80 other Democrats (thanks again btw) sold us out; and that information matters. Leaving that out is an extremely important omission, and for a magazine that frequently interviews Democratic representatives, it’s an omission i cannot believe is unintentional.
Thank you! I understand it’s focused on one person, but ya get what i mean? It invites misunderstanding.
It’s not wrong to phrase it this way, it’s technically accurate to say" Lone LBGTQ+ Democrat". However it’s definitely clunky and unnecessarily confusing.
Reading the title immediately raises the question in the reader: "If only one LGBTQ+dem, how many other Dems?
If his sexuality is the point, then his party affiliation isn’t. If his party is the point, his sexuality isn’t.
The Advocate speaks to issues in the LBGT+community, therefore speaking to his sexuality is relevant. Titles are supposed to summarize the article with more information as you read. If the article, brings up information it does not then answer, why mention it if not to confuse? Reading the title could easily cause the reader to mistake “Gay Democrat is lone LBGT+ vote” as the lone Dem vote.
WAS this the Intent? Well that’s harder to parse.
Really, I’m not like, saying the advocate is trash or w/e, but i AM trying to take into consideration how often our news sources have biases (deliberate or internal) towards the 2 parties. MSNBC et al are known to push for the Democrats, FOX n ONANN etc for the Repubs. No arfument there, right?
Further, if "The Advocate"does in fact has a pro-Dem bias, I’m not even claiming they’re morally wrong for doing so! But! As someone who personally feels the DNC is not a party for the people of the US, and sees often the cover they get from the aforementioned media who do, i’m very sensitive to and always looking out for examples of wording that give the Ds cover for doing its constituents dirty like they did with this vote.
80 other Democrats (thanks again btw) sold us out; and that information matters. Leaving that out is an extremely important omission, and for a magazine that frequently interviews Democratic representatives, it’s an omission i cannot believe is unintentional.