Fun with labels

So it appears the “person of interest” in the Christie Wilson case had some of her hair in his car and is now being considered a “suspect” (Reader’s note: Still no word, like at all, on the missing Rio Linda foster mother).

At our last Sac Rag staff meeting we were laughing about this term “person of interest” and how it has made its way into our lexicon in recent years. I found an interesting article from 2004 that discusses it and brings up some great points.

“It’s a sloppy, irresponsible term,” said Ted Gup, journalism professor at Case Western Reserve University and a former Washington Post reporter. “Once you cast a pall of suspicion on someone, you can’t subsequently say, “I didn’t mean anything by that.’ It’s like trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube.”


Like trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube? Uh, ok, sure.

So what say you Sac Rag readers?

These labels can really hurt a person’s reputation. I am sure commenter Squirty Tip has yet to shake his label…you know the one, that he’s a “person of where poop comes out”. Or CoolDMZ’s unfortunate dubbing as a “person of insensitivity to musician tragedies.” Or Runnergirl’s label as a “person of longwindedness”.

These labels are out there, friends, and we must address them.

Unknown's avatar

Author: RonTopofIt

RonTopofIt is a complex personality, as are most of the small breed of modern day renaissance millionaires. He wishes more people were like him and yet believes that it takes all kinds. You've met RonTopofIt many times, you just don't remember him.

5 thoughts on “Fun with labels”

  1. Hmmf. Any label sounds like prejudice to me. On this sad day in civil rights history, shouldn’t we be seeking to eliminate all labels? As a “person for whom reasonable accommodations are always required” who is technically “of African origin” we obviously need to do away with labels all together. They’ve become too PC-ridden to the point that they apply to everyone. I guess that’s one way to do it. In the future, all “persons of interest” will be described as “humans”. Except those who are “relatively recently historically economically disadvantaged humans.” That sounds so nice. Eliminates any reference to physical characteristics. Works in the “suffered from prejudice while growing up” angle without really saying it.

    Of course I require reasonable accommodations. Who the hell doesn’t? And aren’t we all “of African origin”? If Mary Leaky is right, we are. Even calling “persons of interest” “persons” is dubious. What makes ‘em a “person”? The fact that they are “under investigation” (wink wink) for hacking their girlfriend into 40 pieces isn’t helping that argument. And of whom are they of “interest” to? While I do dig anyone with “Flavio” in their name, I’m certainly much more interested in Jessica Simpson (sigh) than Mario Flavio Garcia. Maybe calling them an “individual of interest by particular law enforcement investigation departments, but not related to any particular incident” would be more correct AND acceptable. But that takes up too much room in a 100 word story. Back to “suspect”?

    It’s a sad day when we label people based on their physical characteristics or behavior. Isn’t that what Ms. Parks fought against all her life? And now, as a final insult, she’s being labeled as “dead.” I just hope she still has the courage to stand up and say “NO! I won’t ride in the back of the hearse, just because some people think the ‘dead’ have fewer rights than the living.” It’s about time that we do away with ALL labels.

    Like

  2. Huh? Como? I’m picking up a vaguely angry vibe from ST but aside from that I have no idea what point is trying to get out here. Is he being sarcastic? Is he bemoaning prejudice? He can’t seriously be making fun of Rosa Parks can he? Me feel sad for ST. He pathetic.

    Like

  4. Why is that that only the authors can be sarcastic and make fun but commenters can’t? Isn’t everyone being a little too serious for their own good?

    Like

Comments are closed.