Nothing has the capacity to frame political debate more successfully than a good turn of phrase, characterization, or metaphor; nor can anything do more to pervert democratic discourse than inaccurate, imprecise, or misleading language. George Orwell understood the game and called its bluff more than sixty years ago. In words that offered an eerie forecast of the rhetoric of Vietnam, he noted that “defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine- gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.”
He understood, too, that political advocates trade in the use of language. Since there is “no agreed definition” of the word democracy, Orwell noted, “the defenders of every kind of rĂ©gime claim that it is a democracy.” This is one area where the world has not really changed since 1946, when Orwell wrote “Politics and the English Language.” Nor, indeed since a quarter of a century before that, when Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion described the role of “the publicity man” who shapes images for reporters, acting as “censor and propagandist, responsible only to his employers,” presenting the truth “only as it accords with the employers’ conception of his own interest.” But while political advocates and press agents have always had every right (and every incentive) to peddle their own version of the truth, and to spin their own clever phrases and metaphors, journalists should not blindly parrot their words. And once in a while, they don’t.
In late November 2006, when NBC News first used the words “civil war” to describe events in Iraq, the network took the unusual stand of defying the government in defining the war. The phrase had been employed for years by some observers inside and outside of government....
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
What the Hell?!
An in-depth UNBIASED investigation of political coverage?.. With BOTH sides of divisive issues explored...
How in the HELL did this piece of real journalism make it past the liberal watchdogs in McLearyland?...
I would say that Mr. Cowan should be commended for this work... But he really shouldn't be... At least not anymore than a bus driver should be commended for driving carefully in traffic... Or a teacher should be commended for grading homework....
Mr. Cowan is simply doing his job properly, and readers should expect nothing less than this from reporters.
Nevertheless, given the pathetic state of "professional journalism" it is remarkable to see such balanced reporting.
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 13 Dec 2007 at 04:19 PM
One More Note, For The Record
There is an important omission from MR. Cowan's article that CJR readers should know.. (I learned this from a commenter here a long time ago)
The term "surge" is a longstanding military term of art. It was not invented to "spin" the recent increase in troop levels in Iraq... Its adoption in the ISG report comes straight from military planning guides...
Here's an example of a 2005 article employing the term:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31686
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 13 Dec 2007 at 04:30 PM
Citizens however well informed they may be cannot be expected to parse language in an attempt to sift the wheat from the chafe. As Cowan noted, this must be the job of the mainstream media. Sadly, it has been quite some time since the media has elected to serve as the Fourth Estate and while their failures transcend word parsing, using simple English instead of doublespeak would be a huge help in assisting voters in making informed choices. Cowan uses surge as an example, but even more egregious double speak was George Bush's phrase "compassionate conservatism," a phrase berift of meaning that the press accepted at face value without bothering to understand the code behind it. The consequences of media botching their job included the elevation of a man to the job of president who is perhaps the most ignorant and incompetent individual to hold the office in the history of the nation.
Posted by RogerHWerner
on Wed 26 Dec 2007 at 09:29 PM
Mr. Werner Wrote
...but even more egregious double speak was George Bush's phrase "compassionate conservatism," a phrase berift of meaning...
padikiller responds
The phrase "compassionate conservatism" is hardly "bereft of meaning" to most people...
Indeed it came to signify a huge departure from the paleocon understanding of conservatism...
It embodies a "cut-and-spend" system of maintaining (or even expanding)social spending- a system that drove Reaganites nuts.
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 27 Dec 2007 at 10:32 PM