- When the media was mass media such as newspapers, it was necessary to use strong language that was easy for the parties involved to understand.
- why？
- The development of SNS has increased the ability of “influential individuals” to communicate.
- It makes no sense for the parties in this situation to use strong language that is easy to understand.
- why？
- A change in values, where “using strong language on your own is a sign of weakness”?
- Is it frowned upon for a party to transmit an interpretation in strong language because it violates the principle of “interpretation is left to the receiver”?
- We need to elicit interpretations from influential individuals who have nothing to do with us.
I still think it is a bad move to hear the words “academic freedom” coming from the people in the Science Council, but in the old days when there were no social networking services, it would have been correct for the people in the Council to use such easy-to-understand words themselves. Nowadays, on the contrary, the goal is to extract such words from someone who has nothing to do with them but has a strong influence on them. In the days when the only media was the newspapers, unless the people involved blurted out words that were easy to understand, no one would get the message in the first place. Nowadays, on the contrary, everyone knows that there is a problem as a matter of course, and the interpretation of the situation is overwhelmingly left to the receiver, not the sender. https://twitter.com/medtoolz/status/1319109077620813825
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/解釈は受け手に委ねられる using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.