The use of jargon, as in using military terms for things when reporting on them, has always been employed by news agencies to appear informed and official on a wide variety of topics. Pretty much any topic, really. We just notice this more because the various conflagrations around the world are more and more heavily and thoroughly covered. "In Baghdad today, a soldier sneezed- two crews were there to capture the event unfold as two other soldiers blessed him and a third offered a handkerchief." You know what I mean.
Think about for just a second. What sounds more like the reporter knows what they're talking about and is reporting something legitimate?
"In Somewhere today, a couple of pissed-off arab guys constructed a homemade bomb and buried it in the middle of a military road, which then blew up and hurt 10 soldiers."
"In Somewhere today, insurgents placed an IED- or Improvised Explosive Device- in the middle of a military vehicle route which detonated, injuring 10 soldiers."
Honetly. You can't tell me there's no difference. Using the jargon of the subject matter conveys confidence in the material and gives it more of an informed and "official" feeling.
Think of being told something by a stupid stoner teenager using massive amounts of slang, vs. being told the exact same thing by a person who speaks clearly and with eloquence. We judge the source and apply our confidence in the material's authenticity depending on that source. Using the official-sounding jargon conveys that confidence.
|