What's the difference between a flower and a weed?
Nothing, if you're describing a dandelion. Nothing, that is, except the perception of the speaker...or the slant they are trying to convey to their audience.
Almost no one says, "I'm getting all these darn flowers out of my yard."
They're getting rid of weeds.
Similarly, you don't often hear, "I'm planting a fresh bed of weeds this spring."
People plant flowers.
That's a very simple example of loaded language. Loaded language or words are words that technically could apply to the situation, but carry a strong emotional connotation. They allow the speaker or writer to tell the truth while at the same time creating a strong emotional bias in their audience.
If your goal is to understand what actually happened, you have to learn to recognize loaded language for what it is and to see past it.
If your goal is to choose a reputable news source, you will want to avoid ones that rely heavily on loaded language.
If you are evaluating a website or speaker, recognizing loaded language will allow you to know, often within a few sentences, which side of the debate the website or speaker is on.
Here are some words to watch:
* words that make you think of physical altercation. Recently, when politician Mike Huckabee said he was concerned about the message pregnant actress Natalie Portman was sending to young women, his statements were described as slamming, ripping, attacking, and even "taking aim" at her...and those "physical altercation" words were usually followed by a reminder that Natalie was pregnant. You don't even have to click the links to know that those articles are going to be critical of Huckabee's remarks...and in fact, the "taking aim" article was the most critical--and most loaded--of the bunch.
* words that suggest deception. "Supposedly" is often used this way. Take, for instance, this article. The headline says, "Polio, the Disease Vaccines Supposedly Eliminated, Actually Caused by DDT, Other Pesticides." In this case, "supposedly" kind of suggests that there's a big cover-up, doesn't it? Like that's what we've been told, but there's reason to disbelieve it. This headline is especially deceptive because the sentence's focus isn't on whether or not Polio was eliminated, but on new claims about its cause. The reader is supposed to skim right over "supposedly" and focus on these bold new claims about DDT and other pesticides...but it's now in the reader's mind, if they take any part of the headline seriously, that Polio was "supposedly" eliminated.
Quotation marks, usually used to directly quote someone, can also be used to suggest that one thing is being said but another is meant (as in Tammi is Aaron's "special friend", or The Justice Department must have "misplaced" those files.) When used in this fashion, they are sometimes referred to as scare quotes.
* Overly descriptive language without solid explanation. "He energized the crowd with his incredible speech. It was clear that this was a man of integrity, charm, and wit." Sounds great...except that it doesn't mean much. We know a man gave a speech. There's not a word about what he actually said, or what gave the writer the impression than the speaker had integrity, charm, or anything else. We do know that the person who wrote that sentence wants us to think highly of the man who gave the speech. If he'd "barked" at the "screaming crowd" and it was clear that he was "out of control, disjointed, and angry," we'd still only know that a man gave a speech and that the reporter was trying to influence our perceptions of the speaker.
Here is a fantastic example of overly descriptive language without solid explanation: LINK
Almost all websites, articles, and, heck, people are going to have a slant. We all use loaded language now and then. But it pays to be aware of it when it's used, and to recognize it for what it is.
