George Orwell, Beat Writer
Apologies to William Safire, but journalism needs a rhetoric beat. Yes, language has been used and misused in the service of politics since man first had both language and politics. Political rhetoric is not inherently bad, and I am not suggesting a War on Rhetoric. But there are aspects of our present political and cultural reality that heighten the need for a prominent, persistent, and intellectually honest airing of our linguistic dirty laundry, and the mainstream press is our best hope for getting it.Cunningham points out the issue of language and frames and word abuse that'd make Orwell proud – while tossing out manufactured political language like "unlawful combatant" and "achievement gap." Cunningham's point, which I agree with, is that politicians of all stripes use language laden with built-in assumptions and meanings for maximum political impact. (Though his examples are predominantly conservative ones.) And he wants to see if the media can't launch a language counterstrike.
Before I go further, I realize that it's very easy to get into a partisan argument when discussing framing. Furthermore, I think that the professional position Cunningham suggests would be a big old bulls-eye for partisan attacks from both sides in today's argument culture. (Trust me on that.) But I like his moxie in trying.
So in order for me to keep this free of "well, the other party says …" side arguments, I'll use an example from "The Simpsons."
There's an episode where Lisa Simpson becomes president and faces a natioanl deficit. In order to narrow the fiscal gap, she's forced to raise taxes. To massage the message with the American people, she decides against calling the suggestion a "painful emergency tax" and opts to call it a "temporary refund adjustment." So much better, eh?
What would Cunningham suggest we do about President Simpson's 'refund adjustment?' He would have a fact checker or a rhetoric reporter dig into the linguistic luggage that the term carries around, and try to clear the air in an inside-the-paper column or an online extra to a media's website or a weekend "thought" piece.
I agree with Cunningham ... and I disagree with him.
Such scrutiny of language is crucial. So crucial, indeed, that it's a job too important to be assigned to an inside the Sunday paper sort of scribe. It should be instilled in reporters from j-schools to their first time in a newsroom. All reporters should be language policemen, willing to make a civilian arrest when something happens before them.
Just as reporters are taught how poll numbers can be skewed or study results can be full of mischief -- reading books like "How To Lie With Statistics" – they should have a class or two on how language can be twisted or contorted to a position that would make Gumby wince. Linguists or political scientists could come into classrooms and newsrooms and showcase the assumptions that are built into everyday terms – and how those are abused and exploited.
Because by the time President Simpson's 'refund adjustment' has been covered for a few days on the news and people get to the online column or the Sunday column piece, it's already become ensconced in the national discussion. The rhetoric watch must be active, not reactionary. The time to filter the language is when the concrete is being poured, when it's still malleable; not after it has stiffened.
So yes, the rhetoric awareness is a worthwhile suggestion. But it needs to be added to the already-heaping pile of attributes that today's journalists must possess – not a separate position.