Article Draft
Lead
Dog whistling is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking the opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. [1]
The context surrounding the dog whistle will also help detect the coded speech. [2]
- edit summary - The Merriam Webster source helps define exactly what dog whistling is.so it can help expand the first paragraph in the article or even go into the origin and meaning sub header
Origin and Meaning
"According to William Safire, the term "dog whistle" in reference to politics may have been derived from its use in the field of opinion polling. Safire quotes Richard Morin, director of polling for The Washington Post, as writing in 1988:
subtle changes in question-wording sometimes produce remarkably different results ... researchers call this the "Dog Whistle Effect": Respondents hear something in the question that researchers do not.
He speculates that campaign workers adapted the phrase from political pollsters.
In her 2006 book, Voting for Jesus: Christianity and Politics in Australia, academic Amanda Lohrey writes that the goal of the dog-whistle is to appeal to the greatest possible number of electors while alienating the smallest possible number. She uses as an example politicians choosing broadly appealing words such as "family values", which have extra resonance for Christians, while avoiding overt Christian moralizing that might be a turn-off for non-Christian voters.
Australian political theorist Robert E. Goodin argues that the problem with dog-whistling is that it undermines democracy, because if voters have different understandings of what they were supporting during a campaign, the fact that they were seeming to support the same thing is "democratically meaningless" and does not give the dog-whistler a policy mandate."
I think the the origin part of this section is informative but the rest of it utilizes sources from christian politics in australia which i feel like should be broadened. Also the last paragraph doesn thave anything to do with the origin or meaning, this paragraph would be better in the austrailia subheader.
I would like to add the merrium webster source to give a more general meaning
The political meaning of dog whistle may cause confusion as they are suposed to be undetecable to the majority. Merrium Webster makes the distinction clear of what is and what is not a dog whistle by explaining that:
"saying that speech is like a dog-whistle (which is a simile) is not quite the same as saying that it is a dog whistle (which is a metaphor"[1]
This essentially conveys that for a political statement to be considered a Dog Whistle it needs to have multiple, genuine interpretations and not just coded language.
The origin and meaning is also missing the context of dog whistling being closely tied with race and discrimination as early as the 1990s.
United States
21st century
"During the 2016 presidential election campaign and on a number of occasions throughout his presidency, Donald Trump was accused of using racial and antisemitic "dog whistling" techniques by politicians and major news outlets."
Trump is one of the most modern presidents that have been accused of exhibiting numerous accounts of dog whistling. One of the most prominent examples being his slogan which reads, "Make America Great Again" His slogan can be seen as a dog-whistle calling out to his radical nationalist following.[1]
.jpg)
Another example of Trump's alleged dog whistling can be seen through his tweets. A quote from Trump said, "America First" understanding the context of this quote is important to understanding why it is a dog whistle. In the 1920's the Klu Klux Klan used the slogan that said "America First" so when people have prior knowledge about these words, whether Trump meant it or not, it is a clear dog whistle.[3]
Criticism
Some have argued that it is difficult to tell whether purported dog whistles are in fact dog whistles. Robert Henderson and Elin McCready argue that plausible deniability is a key characteristic of dog whistles. Mark Liberman has argued that it is common for speech and writing to convey messages that will only be picked up on by part of the audience, but that this does not usually mean that the speaker is deliberately conveying a double message. Steven Pinker has argued that the concept of dog whistling allows people to "claim that anyone says anything because you can easily hear the alleged dogwhistles that aren't in the actual literal contents of what the person says".
Add quote from "Race, Law and Society"
"Because dog whistling appeals to prejudice and stereotypes, it can be hard to distinguish from straightforward, undisguised appeals to racial or other stereotypes. Moreover, because the key messages are often delivered using suggestive images, such as photos or music, or by reference to coded words or phrases, often only a segment of the intended audience will hear the message."