because i rarely *listen* to news these days. i generally get it all online in text.
cnbc is always on at work, but i usually tune it out.
yes, i did notice that only republicans were referring to it as "obamacare", but in print you can't hear the sneer and derision that conveys on tv or radio. the word itself really doesn't have any negative connotations, in fact it's quite arguably positive in giving credit for obama for caring. it's ALL in the way the word is said that gives it the negative connotation that republican propagandists are famous for.
anyway, i don't know, i don't think it's required for journalists to take a clinical view of terminology when it comes to laws. sb123 might be a more accurate way to refer to some senate bill, but that's not helpful. and referring to it by its formal name is subject to easy manipulation by congress -- witness the "p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act". worse, republicans can give the name the "green energy act" some law that gives a tax credit for polluters to pollute more. you get the idea.
that said, journalists shouldn't be quick to let a law's opponents name it.
= new reply since forum marked as read