Taylor Jade

Comm. 1080

2 February 2019

Journal Two—Biased Language

“Bias in language refers to language that is uneven or unbalanced or not a fair

representation.” It’s language that is prejudiced or hurtful, often attributing superiority or

inferiority to certain groups.

One recent example of biased language was from White House Press Secretary Sarah

Huckabee Sanders. During an interview on January 30th of this year, she was quoted as saying

‘God wanted Donald Trump to become President.’ So many people, religious or not, would (and

did) take immediate offense to this headline, because of their beliefs and interpretations of the

actions President Trump has done in the White House. The problem, however, is that this is

language that is supposed to sell. News outlets don’t exactly see news and report it, they create

news as much as they can so that they can make money off of it. After reading the entire article, I

found that her opinions were not so irrational. She based them off of her religious standpoint and

was speaking through the press to those who shared her faith. I’ve seen and felt this standpoint

myself: Since it happened, it must have happened for the best, because God is in control. Sanders

was taking a look at the things President Trump has done that’s supported Christian values, and

supported him in turn. She was rejoicing in what she felt was a positive alternative to the cold

response religion tends to get in media. The problem, however, is that with her faithful

commentary on the President’s doings, she is ignoring a huge reality of devastation that people

have felt under his presidency. There are so many other standpoints that should be considered,
and we should be working to find the best solution for them all. Her real quote was, “I think God

calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that He wanted Donald Trump to

become president.” She was right in expressing that it was her opinion. She wasn’t even

necessarily wrong for putting her opinion out there. But it took the focus off of the important

things she said afterward and gave everyone’s derisive commentary a heyday. It fueled more

discontent with Christianity, doing more damage than solidarity. The best possible revision

would be to not say it at all and continue with her powerful, less inflammatory/divisive remarks.

Another recent example came from the fashion retailer Boden. A couple days ago, they

started receiving great backlash for their concerning advertising in their children’s clothing

catalog, Mini Boden. For the boys was the quote, “Boys start every adventure with a bike (or a

pair of very fast legs), fellow mischief-makers, clothes that can keep up.” And yet, for the girls

was, “Girls, new clothes are in sight. Fill your pockets (and wardrobe) with flowers and race this

way….” Parents and non-parents were frustrated that we are still differentiating children this

way, telling them while they’re so young who they need to emulate. Boden responded positively,

acknowledging the issue and taking responsibility for their ads. They said it wasn’t their intent to

play on stereotypes and gave an example of their female CEO working alongside their male

founder as inspiration. They handled the situation with maturity and poise, and gave no more

reason for consumers to continue to gripe. A supportive revision would be to put the children’s

clothes in categories, but together. They don’t need to be labeled or distinguished by pink and

blue. And if they are going to put labels on the clothing themselves, they should treat each child

equally by encouraging common strengths.

One last, less recent, more pop cultural reference happened with the release and

consumer testing of the James Charles x Morphe eyeshadow palette collaboration. A girl who
bought and tested his palette in November of last year had a reaction to the hot pink shade, Skip.

She posted a video about it, overreacting to the hives (which she frequently gets) and the staining

on her eyelid. But when she asked him over social media about this, his product with Morphe, he

did not respond in a professional manner, acknowledge the information he wasn’t given, or

apologize. Instead, he said, “most pinks, purples, & reds all stain certain skin types. this is

common knowledge to all makeup lovers. you accusing me of lying to fans & not caring

about people is a ridiculous cry for attention. if you have hives, consult your dermatologist,

not me for likes on twitter.” His intention was clearly to shut her down, and not to be

professional. But unfortunately, with backlash like this to your customers and fans, you’re going

to leave a bad taste in the back of their mouth. He mentioned in his launch video that some

shadows were pressed pigments, but he never quite understood what those were or what it would

mean for consumers. Neither he, nor the brand he was working with, informed their customers

that staining was probable and harmless. And instead of mitigating the situation, James Charles

gave her more fuel against him. To revise this situation, he should have been informed. He

needed to do his own research and hold Morphe accountable as well. He needed to mention this

information in the launch video. And, should the situation still come up after these warnings, he

should have been empathetic in his response, and not go on the offensive. Posting publicly was

not necessary, and he could have handled the individual situation through personal messaging. A

better response would be something like this, “Hi, (insert name)! I’m sorry to hear this shade

stained your eyelid. In most cases, the staining from the artificial colors in pressed pigments is

quite harmless. Morphe affiliates are always on hand to answer any customer questions.

However, if you have any pressing concerns, you should always consult your doctor before

continuing use. Cheers!”