$26 billion language industry Coen Reports: In 1973, U.S. advertising expenditures were $26 billion; in 2003, an estimated $249 billion..
Committee on Public Doublespeak. After organizing and being active in this committee for over 20 years, I resigned. The NCTE Executive Committee not only killed the prospering Quarterly Review of Doublespeak (over 7,000 subscribers -- see my letter of 1997), but also had replaced, by fiat, our elected Chair in order to put a person, a token minority, without any previous work with the committee, as Chair. Later, the QRD was replaced by an online "Doublespeak" chat group which (see for yourself) is a disaster of incoherence and rude bickering. Alas.
housing problems One of the major domestic problems we face in the future is the increasing population (203 million in 1970; 300 million in 2006) and decreasing housing and space. Certainly the differing interest groups (developers, home-owners, home-needers, young and old, Haves and Have-Nots) will have a "war of words" to intensify the good of their side, about such issues as "affordable housing," overcrowding, NIMBY, and the "homeless." Consider California's Proposition 13 (in 1978) which favors the existing home owners who were "grandfathered in" at 1975 tax rates, a major cause (according to billionaire businessman Warren Buffett) of California's 2003 budget crisis. When Buffett, as a volunteer advisor to Arnold Schwarzenegger during the 2003 California Recall election, said this publicly, he was quickly silenced by the campaign strategists because any talk about a reform of the "Prop 13" tax inequities would immediately stir up the "Haves," those millions of homeowners who already have such tax breaks.
farm groups Who's
watching the watchman? Consumerist critics have pointed out that the
Dept of Agriculture's diet recommendations in the USDA's
food pyramid are increasingly influenced by scientists and appointees
from the agribusiness industry (meat, sugar, dairy).
The Bush Administration has been notorious in its word choice to describe its
environmental policies: their "Clear
Skies" initiative amending the 1970 Clean Air Act; revising the
"Clean Water"
Act in a way which favors big business and increases pollution; their "Healthy
Forests initiative" opens up wilderness areas for massive commercial
logging, described as "thinning" and "harvesting."
technicians of literature The situation in "English" has grown worse in the past generation. Although "rhetoric and composition" teachers and texts have had very positive improvements, I believe the study of "literature" has become less coherent and more Balkanized with the abandonment of any standard canon or any clearly defined set of goals.
"Watergate and the Language"
notes
In brief: "... The dominant language problem of the whole Watergate
affair was not what was said, but what was unsaid. Watergate essentially will
be remembered as a classic example of concealment and secrecy, in all phases
from the initial planning through all parts of the cover-up attempt. The language
problem was that of omission, a more subtle kind of lying and deception than
the "active" aggressive untruths we normally recognize as lies....
one of the political lessons which can be learned by all citizens is the need
for comprehensive disclosure laws, codes of ethics, open information laws by
which political groups, commercial corporations, and governments at all levels
must reveal full, clear, understandable information about their financing and
operations....
Watergate also revealed a serious, widespread public misunderstanding about
the adversary role of a free press in a democratic society. Even after all of
the disclosures and confessions of guilt, many Americans still believed that
the press, the media, had railroaded Nixon. History teachers might point out
to their students that American presidents in the past have had a long tradition
of wanting the press to act as a volunteer "public relations" staff,
but that the press sees its role more as a "watchdog," well aware
that political power can be abused, has been in the past, and probably will
be in the future. Perhaps schools ought to re-think their journalism and media
programs. Instead of teaching the few kids how to put together a school
newspaper, or training a few in the mechanical or electronic aspects of television,
it might be more beneficial, if we instruct the many of our future
voters about the issues and problems of the press in a free society." (6
pp.)
"Liars in Public Places" notes
In 1974, during the Watergate era, a major textbook publisher (Scott Foresman) invited me to edit a high school text on "the language of Watergate." My editors were enthusiastic and helpful during the editorial process. But, at the last moment, the publisher intervened and killed the project because he felt both the title (Liars in Public Places) and the essays were insulting to our country's president. Soon afterward (August 9, 1974), our country's president, Richard Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment. The introduction to that censored book was later published as an essay in English Journal (October, 1975).Everyone agrees that "unnecessary" paper work is bad. Everyone is against waste and "senseless regulations." The value of Kaufman's book is that it helps us to discriminate between unnecessary and necessary paperwork and procedures, to clarify what is senseless and what is sensible regulation, and to avoid either naive acceptance or uncritical rejection of what we call Red Tape. Back to "Red Tape"
During the past two generations, there has been
a growing inequality between the professional persuaders and the average
persuadees. In the past, only a rare person had the memory, intelligence,
wit, and skills of strategy to be an effective persuader; these abilities
died with the person. Today, computers can store massive amounts of information,
retrieve it instantly, sort it for use according to pre-set plans. Such tools,
together with money, media access, research abilities, and organized work
teams are available today to the professional persuaders....
Consider the gross inequality, for example, in the United States which permits
(at present) tv ads to be directed at very young children: the pre-school
children watching the ads are hardly the equal of the sophisticated adult
teams which plan them. In the past, I have written that certain advertisers
were "child molesters." Indeed, this is an attention-getting charge,
but it is accurate. In Language and Public Policy (p. 228),
I presented this analogy:
"Our moral sense is outraged by inequality. In sexual matters we already have a sophisticated vocabulary to describe situations of equality and inequality. For example, we speak of seduction when there is not an equality, a mutuality of exchange, when the knowledgeable or crafty seducer takes advantage of the innocent or naive; we speak of rape when force or violence creates a situation of inequality; we speak of child molesting when age is concerned, when the young are abused. Using this analogy, it is clear that in language situations today many of our advertisers are seducers and child molesters, taking advantage of the young, the innocent, the naive, the gullible." (2 pp.)
"Channel One: Asking
the Wrong Questions"
notes:
In brief: "The problem
with the surveys about Channel One is that they often ask the wrong questions
-- blurring issues, omitting relevant information, and neglecting ethical
issues. ... All arguments about the 10 minutes of programming
are side issues.... To focus on any of [these issues] works on Whittle's
behalf, as a diversionary smokescreen. These less relevant issues blandly
assume the validity of the commercial "package" accompanying the
news. They don't deal with the real issue specific to Channel One: two minutes
of ads....
The main issue is the presence of television advertising --
of commercial persuasion - actively targeted at the audience of children
within the classroom and sanctioned by the schools....
Commercial television is the appropriate venue for such persuasion. In our
society, commercial television is the main marketplace, where (as the courts
have often ruled) people expect puffery and "sellers' talk" that
intensify the "good" about a product and downplay the "bad."
In a society that values free speech and free enterprise and that accommodates
diverse political and commercial persuaders, we must expect to live in a
verbal environment of many persuaders in competition.... The schools, however,
are the appropriate venue for neutrality and objectivity, the place to teach
the young how to analyze and understand the techniques and patterns of persuasion
common to all persuaders....
Why did so many well-meaning educators sign up so quickly for Channel One?
Partly, Whittle was a skillful salesman: he came gifts in hand, not only
offering thousands of dollars worth of "free" hardware and packaged
programming, but also providing the mental rationalizations (the "good
intentions") needed by the teachers to justify their actions: altruism
("doing it for the benefit of the children") and pragmatism
("reasonable trade-offs"). Further, he flattered his audiences,
praising their sophistication ("Teachers know best," "Kids
today know all about TV ads").... Whittle's blitz was well funded,
well organized (one centralized national thrust, dealing with thousands
of individual school boards), and met with little organized opposition....
Ethically, it is wrong to exploit children. Teachers may agree in general
but sometimes exempt themselves because of their "good intentions."
But, as the debate continues, more ethical questions are being raised....
Avoidance of these questions may be the basic strategy of
those who advocate Channel One. Once educators grant the premise that their
function in Whittle's scheme is to deliver children as audiences
to persuaders (or that ads are "units of persuasion," "effective,"
and so on), then they are in an uncomfortable position, embarrassed that
others would view them as being seduced or bribed by Whittle.... Not only
have they made a wrong decision in a long-term contract, but others are
challenging their intelligence and integrity. It's no wonder that some educators
are going to get very huffy and defensive ("We've already settled that
issue!"). Perhaps "cognitive dissonance" might describe this
dilemma of educators who thought they were doing the right thing and then
were criticized as exploiting the children. Both positions can't be held
at once, so avoidance of this ethical argument is their first defense....
Denial is the second strategy. The compromise position reached by
many teachers is that of the "reasonable trade-offs." (unintended
side effects). But this argument will not hold up to close scrutiny if one
considers the teachers' lack of time and training, the sophistication of
the persuasion techniques, and the imbalance of the situation....
In practice, ethical issues are often blurred by hidden agendas. There are
some "dirty little secrets" seldom mentioned in the public arguments
over Channel One: some teachers like the program because it's entertaining
("I want my MTV!"), or an opportunity for them to catch up with
their other chores while students are pleasantly occupied. Some administrators
and school boards like the program because it's "easy money" --
funding they won't have to seek from an increasingly grudging taxpayer....
Channel One will continue to be divisive as long as it is in the schools.
"Good intentions" are not enough. Initially, teachers (or school
boards) could plead that they didn't realize the implications. But, future
arguments over adoptions and renewals should focus on these ethical questions,
not on popularity, not on programming. The first question must be self-reflexive:
Is it ethical for educators to deny the ethical issues raised? (6 pp.)
This was the final chapter (#12) of The Pep Talk (1980). When I originally researched the topic in the mid-1970s, I was surprised at the scarcity of analytical writing about lying and deception. I thought that this lack of discovery was my fault, so I was reassured when Sissela Bok's brilliant book (Lying, 1978) opened with her "astonishment" at the paucity of writing about lying: "the major works of moral philosophy of this century, so illuminating in other respects, are silent on this subject. The index to the eight-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains not one reference to lying or to deception, much less an entire article devoted to such questions."
My extended review (5 pp.) of Sissela Bok's Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, this most important contemporary writing about the ethics of lying and deception, immediately follows my own essay. We wrote for different reasons and different audiences. Her treatment is a most subtle and sophisticated philosophical inquiry, concerned primarily with ethical issues, moral choices, and human intentions. Mine is a simple, sorting out process, pragmatically concerned with providing some useful tools of understanding for the average reader.
In brief, my essay systematically examines issues about lies and deceptions: any statement can be a lie, any behavior deceptive; such lies and deceptions can be used to attack or defend, to intensify one's own " good " or the others ' " bad, " to downplay one's own " bad " or the others' "good." Lies and deceptions involve intent, not technique. To focus on the real problem areas, it may help to sort out what is not deceptive, to clarify common controversies. People have differing opinions, sometimes illusions and delusions, and can make errors. Furthermore, fictions (including metaphors and hyperboles) and imitations need not be deceptive, nor are implied messages (including suggestions and evasions) involving omitted elements. Promises and threats about the future also involve elements of ability and changing conditions. "Good intentions" motivate most deceptions, including white lies in everyday situations and political lies told by leaders; if discovered, liars usually claim lies were told for "your own benefit." However, people deceived seldom appreciate such "good intentions" and often see them as self-serving rationalizations. Issues of governmental lying and deception are very crucial in a democratic society and need more attention." (23 pp.)
After Bok's groundbreaking work, other writers have followed: e.g. Paul Gray's cover-story overview,"Lies, Lies, Lies" in Time (10/5/92); books by academics, e.g. David Nyberg, The Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life (1993); James Stiff & Gerald Miller, Deceptive Communication (1993) esp. nonverbals; Charles Ford, Lies, Lies, Lies: The Psychology of Deceit (1999); Evelin Sullivan, The Concise Book of Lying (2001); and many popular books, often promising how to detect lies. <> A google.com search gets 55,000 hits for the terms "lying and deception," but, from a quick look, they seem to be mostly examples, accusations, and rantings rather than analyses.
In the original text, I wrote:
"The
use of vague abstractions also allows flexibility. In a threat situation,
for example, it's often better for a diplomat to threaten a vague "appropriate
action" than to specify a specific response ("We'll bomb Moscow").
This vagueness gives both sides some leeway to compromise without losing face
or being forced to go ahead with the threat."
In 2004, I add this example, immediately following:
"Weapons of mass destruction" is such a vague abstraction, a
high-level generalization which includes all chemical, biological,
and radiological weapons -- both tactical and strategic -- from local
battlefield gas attacks to long-range bombing of cities using nuclear bombs.
One of the key arguments concerning the 2002 Iraq war was President Bush's
frequent use of this term with shifting and multiple meanings. It can be explicitly
said that Saddam Hussein did use WMD -- gas -- in local tactical
attacks. But, President Bush's frequent use of WMD implicitly suggested
that Iraq had long-range strategic weapons which posed an imminent danger
of an attack on the United States. This was the causus belli
- the cause of war - justifying a pre-emptive strike. But, when such stockpiles
of weapons (and their delivery systems) couldn't be found after the war, a
great controversy occurred. Much of the world believed that President Bush
was deliberately deceptive; but, the Bush administration argued its "good
faith" intentions and that the weapons simply hadn't been discovered
yet, or that they were moved to another country.
Noble Lies
Today ( 2004), if I were to revise this essay, I'd add a discussion of Plato's "noble lie" -- his influential concept that lying by leaders is excusable when done with a noble goal, for the benefit of the followers. But, I'd certainly follow the analysis by our modern gadfly, I.F.Stone (in The Trial of Socrates) that Plato's attitude is anti-democratic, condescending, paternalistic -- and wrong. We've had enough recent experience with our leaders lying to us, for "our own benefit."
Of related interest,
see: David Corn,
The Lies of George W. Bush (2003)
From the Introduction: "George W Bush is a liar.
He has lied large and small. He has lied directly and by omission. He has
misstated facts, knowingly or not. He has misled. He has broken promises,
been unfaithful to political vows. Through his campaign for the presidency
and his first years in the White House, he has mugged the truth -- not merely
in honest error, but deliberately, consistently, and repeatedly to advance
his career and his agenda. Lying greased his path toward the White House;
it has been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the 43rd
president of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of opinion,
not an inflammatory talk-radio device. This insult is supported by an all
too extensive record of self-serving falsifications. So constant is his fibbing
that a history of his lies offers a close approximation of the history of
his presidential tenure."
Yet, after 300 pages of documenting the President's deceptive evasions, omissions, implications, misstatements, errors, (about the Iraq war, tax cuts, corporate scandals, September 11th, and so on), the author has to qualify the term "liar" because, precisely speaking, a lie involves the intent to deceive: "Does Bush believe his own lies? Did he truly consider a WMD-loaded Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to the United States? Or was he knowingly employing dramatic license because he wanted war for other reasons?" (p.320)
Such a book points out the limits of my essay's simple sorting-out process. I could point out to David Corn that Bush's deceptions were not, technically, lies -- because we don't know if the President really knew something was untrue and he intended to deceive. But, this kind of linguistic precision doesn't help much. I would assume that -- in any situation -- the President would claim "good intentions." Thus, our focus should be on consequences.
David Corn concluded with a chapter speculating about the credibility issue: while activists and extremists may have been enraged, the mainstream media treated the credibility gap almost as a charming idiosyncrasy, naughty but harmless. Why was the press -- and the public -- so easy on the President's deceptions? Was it a show of support for a wartime president? Was it a partisan thing? Republicans were furious about President Clinton's evasions ("What 'is' is?") and his mental reservation in defining "having sex" ('I did not have sex with that woman."), but Democrats were more tolerant ("boys will be boys") and afterwards Clinton's popularity remained strong. In terms of his image, Clinton may not have been trustworthy in his personal life, but he was competent in public affairs, and benevolent ("on our side"). So also, President Bush, despite his inexperience and errors, seemed well intentioned and was well liked ("on our side') by his supporters who were more tolerant of his exaggerations.
Back to Lies & Deceptions
"Thinking About Thinking"
notes
This is my own introductory classroom lecture (ideas derived
from Newman)
spoken to mostly bright young people more eager to spend their time elsewhere,
but who were required to take a composition course.
The lecture opens: "As you analyze ads and compose your own writing,
be more conscious and reflective about your own thinking processes. Be concerned
especially with attention, orientation, and alternation.... After
many words (and appropriate gestures), the lecture closes: To recap:
as you analyze ads or compose your own work, first pay attention (observing
closely). Then, try to be more self-aware of your own mental processes of
orientation (knowing where you are, what you are doing) and alternation
(shifting focus).
Then I add (my frequently-added mantra): "Are ads worth all this attention? No, but your mind is.
"Rent-a-Rhetorician" notes
To publicize the release of the 2nd edition of The Pitch (1991), I wrote this tongue-in-cheek "Press Release" of my "resignation" as an ad critic and my new career as a rhetorician for rent, with advertising space available in my classroom and on me. It was picked up by the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak and subsequently by the Chicago Tribune's nationally-syndicated columnist, Bob Greene. (Photos by Dick Burd.)