Then it’s “White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates criticizing Musk” or Biden through him. Just because he’s an important part of a spin squad doesn’t mean he’s a building.
He’s. Not. Speaking. For. Himself. He’s reading a statement that was crafted by a team of people and approved by another team of people because he’s speaking for the administration. “The White House” isn’t referring a building in this context, it’s a metonymy for the Biden Administration as an institution.
My point is that it’s a crappy metonymy that should be retired along with many others that only serve to muddy the waters as to who exactly said what on behalf of whom.
Disagreeing with the use of lazy and sometimes misleading language commonly used by hacks ≠ media illiteracy.
Your way of saying it is what would be muddying the waters as it posits the criticism as coming from the individual who is relaying the message which is not the case
Then use your words to SAY who the origin is! Don’t just use a vague catchall for “probably the president but could be anyone in the building”.
Better yet; ask the messenger who the message is specifically from and then talk with THAT person in stead of this mealy mouthed pretense.
I’ve had it up to here 🫡 with the media pretending that organisations and building are persons with unified opinions just because the bosses and middle men want denyability.
Then it’s “White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates criticizing Musk” or Biden through him. Just because he’s an important part of a spin squad doesn’t mean he’s a building.
He’s. Not. Speaking. For. Himself. He’s reading a statement that was crafted by a team of people and approved by another team of people because he’s speaking for the administration. “The White House” isn’t referring a building in this context, it’s a metonymy for the Biden Administration as an institution.
We desperately need media literacy education.
I know perfectly well what they meant.
My point is that it’s a crappy metonymy that should be retired along with many others that only serve to muddy the waters as to who exactly said what on behalf of whom.
Disagreeing with the use of lazy and sometimes misleading language commonly used by hacks ≠ media illiteracy.
Your way of saying it is what would be muddying the waters as it posits the criticism as coming from the individual who is relaying the message which is not the case
Then use your words to SAY who the origin is! Don’t just use a vague catchall for “probably the president but could be anyone in the building”.
Better yet; ask the messenger who the message is specifically from and then talk with THAT person in stead of this mealy mouthed pretense.
I’ve had it up to here 🫡 with the media pretending that organisations and building are persons with unified opinions just because the bosses and middle men want denyability.