As a “newsmaking criminologist” and as one that has for more than 40 years been dealing with issues of concision and accusation (both as a critical writer and editor for academic as well as public audiences), I have found that there are two ways of dealing with this semantic quagmire—depending on who my audiences are within and without academia, and whether the medium comes with or without commercial interferences.
I can’t speak to the creativity of these ideas, but they have been my tools for trying to overcome these twin forces: (1) You can quote the objectionable person by taking the offensive and briefly disarming the accuser/accusation anticipated, or (2) paraphrase the objectionable person/idea without outing her (or yourself) by name in the process..
By simply referring to the idea or to those in general who argue this minority, anti-status quo position, the latter tactic can be particularly effective in live situations. This is because the accuser or detractor doesn’t know who to attack, and probably is not prepared to attack you. If she was, then you probably wouldn’t have been invited for a discussion in the first place.
>these ideas come across to people like ridiculous pro-Kremlin nonsense.
That’s because they are.
Conciseness is not the fault of the media. That is how people want their information, and that is true no matter what you are talking about or who your audience is and it has always been that way. That isn’t the the problem. To distill a complex idea down into an easily digestible sound byte that will resonate with your audience is a skill. The problem is that most people do not have this skill.
As a “newsmaking criminologist” and as one that has for more than 40 years been dealing with issues of concision and accusation (both as a critical writer and editor for academic as well as public audiences), I have found that there are two ways of dealing with this semantic quagmire—depending on who my audiences are within and without academia, and whether the medium comes with or without commercial interferences.
I can’t speak to the creativity of these ideas, but they have been my tools for trying to overcome these twin forces: (1) You can quote the objectionable person by taking the offensive and briefly disarming the accuser/accusation anticipated, or (2) paraphrase the objectionable person/idea without outing her (or yourself) by name in the process..
By simply referring to the idea or to those in general who argue this minority, anti-status quo position, the latter tactic can be particularly effective in live situations. This is because the accuser or detractor doesn’t know who to attack, and probably is not prepared to attack you. If she was, then you probably wouldn’t have been invited for a discussion in the first place.
>these ideas come across to people like ridiculous pro-Kremlin nonsense.
That’s because they are.
Conciseness is not the fault of the media. That is how people want their information, and that is true no matter what you are talking about or who your audience is and it has always been that way. That isn’t the the problem. To distill a complex idea down into an easily digestible sound byte that will resonate with your audience is a skill. The problem is that most people do not have this skill.