“Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. The “who?” link is used because a Wikipedia editor feels that the preceding statement uses weasel words. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can’t stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them.
For example, “Houston is the nicest city in the world,” is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: “Some people say Houston is the nicest city in the world.”
Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:
Who says that? You?
When did they say it? Now?
How many people think that?
How many is some?
How many is most?
What kind of people think that? Where are they?
What kind of bias might they have?
Why is this of any significance?
Weasel words don’t really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.” --Wiki
This i stoat al nonsense.
Are you referring to some individual’s use of phrases like, “Scientists discover…” without any reference to those actual scientists or their work?
Happy New Year Billy.
Ad hominem arguments are also banned.
Wikipedia is not a source of original work. However…
Kiplinger magazine has rated Houston as the #1 city in their 2008 Best Cities to Live, Work, and Play. [1]
References
- Best Cities to Live, Work, and Play, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine, July 2008. Retrieved on 2009-01-02.
What then, in the names of all your [gG]ods, will you be able to post, sir?
Does this make NPR a weasel network?
Greg, out of curiosity, and while fully prepared for a terse, curt retort, though hopeful nonetheless, do you spend much time listening to NPR? And if so, why?
(And for the record, I am aware that the first sentence above probably contains too many commas.)
WOW! You are in a Billy thread and you are asking Greg for a meaningful reply. Have we been imbibing to the New Year a little too much?
Thanks for the support, dude. Why don’t you go eat some wheat grass or something and then have a nice bowel movement?
Ouw… burrrrrn!
Now that you mention it, the phrase does hurt me deep inside 
Yes. They report the local weather at the correct time while I’m eating breakfast. Then I know how I need to suit up to ride my bike or uni in that day and what additional rain gear i may need to tow with me. Just today, while waiting for the weather, I got to listen to someone assert that the most powerful not-yet-sitting head of state in the world should, when he actually has some authority and, given the opportunity, appoint a Latino woman to the supreme court. (There was your reckless commatic retribution.) Why bother with qualifications for a supreme court justice, eh? Just put in a gay Jew or a transsexual Asian and everything will be peachy. They also have good jazz in the evening and, if Terry Gross is not interviewing either Al Franken or Gene Simmons, perhaps a good All Things Considered program will ensue.
okay… NPR is pretty good with news. It could be SO much more probing, intelligent and in depth, but it’s already better than most networks by far.
HOWEVER, they NEED to take A Prarie Home Companion of the air and put Peter Schickele but on.
P.D.Q. Bach kicks Garrison Keeler hardcore.
According to my reading of the Constitution Gloria Estefan is as qualified to be a supreme court justice as Sarah Palin is to be president.
NPR needs to give their presenters speed so they talk a little faster and with more power. It always sounds like they’re slowly reading a prewritten essay on the air. Boring.
I don’t watch/listen/read the news for entertainment.
I want to stay informed. If you have an intelligent story on a newsworthy topic, I don’t care if you talk slow.
I think most ‘news’ you see on tv or hear on the radio are just for entertainment.
They talk fast and dramatic to keep you on the edge of your seat.
L-A-M-E
Diane Rehm doesn’t talk fast. But I like the way she talks. Otherwise, I agree with you. I’m used to the New York City speed. Talk faster! I’m a busy guy!
According to my recollection, the Constitution of the United States can be read in its entirety in many reputable sources rather than in illustrated, paraphrased snipits altered for primary school readers on the back of a box of Trix cereal which, I fear, is the reference you may be using.
Granted, although Sarah Palin is, of course, hot, Gloria Estefan is SMOKIN’ hot and admittedly, as such, is marginally more qualified for the high court than is Sarah for the oval office.
If you knew anything about me, you’d know I was a Captain Crunch/Quisp/Quake sort of kid and wouldn’t go near fruity sweetened dry cereals and so the above couldn’t be correct.