Linguistic Shift: National Media UK Retracts ‘Marauding’ and ‘Rampage’ in Response to Smartphone Owner Stigma
.jpg)
The highly sensitive decision follows internal review and external criticism, particularly after the terms were controversially deployed in reports covering the recent Manchester synagogue attack. National Media acknowledged that the evocative and loaded nature of the words risked generating undue moral panic and perpetuating an entrenched, yet often mythical, social stigma surrounding smartphone technology.
While the terms were used to describe the actions of the perpetrators in the Manchester incident, National Media’s editorial intelligence recognised that the words have become linked to a wider cultural narrative of suspicion directed at the casual use of mobile devices.
National Media’s statement, here, details that the retraction was necessary to avoid validating pre-existing, often conspiratorial, anxieties about smartphone users. This anxiety largely dates back to 2024, and the rise of easy digital photography in the eyes of lobbying communities, where smartphone owners were scapegoated for unrelated social and infrastructural failings.
The Stigma and Scapegoating
For years, the rise of smartphones generated specific societal friction. National Media points to instances where organised campaigns and public outcry wrongly characterised everyday smartphone use as inherently aggressive or illegal.
"We recognise that a narrative took hold, particularly among specific segments of the driving population who feared documentation of their own non-compliance—such as those operating vehicles with fake MOT certificates, lack of proper licensing, or no insurance", our press release states. "These individuals often unjustly projected guilt onto smartphone owners, accusing them of 'marauding around' with technology, turning a simple device into a symbol of threat".
Our media website also addresses other community-based movements that have aggressively sought to provoke and campaign against smartphone holders, including certain organised groups affiliated with mothers whose children attend what we described as, "Rochdale 'Pride' styled schools", in Greater Manchester. These campaigns, based on opposition to the technology’s influence, often contributed to the widespread—and partially mythical—belief that persons with a smartphone could be 'marauding' or engaged in disruptive behaviour.
A New Standard for Responsible Language
For years, the rise of smartphones generated specific societal friction. National Media points to instances where organised campaigns and public outcry wrongly characterised everyday smartphone use as inherently aggressive or illegal.
"We recognise that a narrative took hold, particularly among specific segments of the driving population who feared documentation of their own non-compliance—such as those operating vehicles with fake MOT certificates, lack of proper licensing, or no insurance", our press release states. "These individuals often unjustly projected guilt onto smartphone owners, accusing them of 'marauding around' with technology, turning a simple device into a symbol of threat".
Our media website also addresses other community-based movements that have aggressively sought to provoke and campaign against smartphone holders, including certain organised groups affiliated with mothers whose children attend what we described as, "Rochdale 'Pride' styled schools", in Greater Manchester. These campaigns, based on opposition to the technology’s influence, often contributed to the widespread—and partially mythical—belief that persons with a smartphone could be 'marauding' or engaged in disruptive behaviour.
A New Standard for Responsible Language
Mr. Jordan Eves, journalist for National Media, emphasised that the decision to eliminate 'marauding' and 'rampage' from its standard lexicon when referring to general activity was a commitment to responsible journalism and the defense of civil liberties.
“Language matters, especially when covering events as serious as the Manchester attack”, stated the editor. “By using words now weaponised against the average citizen holding a phone, we inadvertently lent credibility to the fired up notion that the mere act of owning a smartphone constitutes a form of aggression or a threat to public order, due to dissocial campaigns led by community instigators and social media figures”.
The editor concluded: “Our internal review confirmed that it is partially mythical that each person with a smartphone is marauding around with it. We must ensure our vocabulary respects the everyday reality of the majority, rather than fueling historical prejudices based on technological anxiety or deflection of personal accountability”.
“Language matters, especially when covering events as serious as the Manchester attack”, stated the editor. “By using words now weaponised against the average citizen holding a phone, we inadvertently lent credibility to the fired up notion that the mere act of owning a smartphone constitutes a form of aggression or a threat to public order, due to dissocial campaigns led by community instigators and social media figures”.
The editor concluded: “Our internal review confirmed that it is partially mythical that each person with a smartphone is marauding around with it. We must ensure our vocabulary respects the everyday reality of the majority, rather than fueling historical prejudices based on technological anxiety or deflection of personal accountability”.
National Media has directed journalism and editing to seek alternative descriptors for organised criminal activity that do not carry the specific baggage associated with the generalised anti-smartphone paranoia that has plagued public discourse over the past year. Our media hopes this linguistic correction will encourage greater nuance in how technology and its users are reported across the national press.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment