The Autocrats Language

[Mme. Defarge]

This is an excerpt from an extraordinary article by Masha Gessen on the New York Review of Books website.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/05/13/the-autocrats-language/

As Hannah Arendt wrote,

We know from experience that no one can adequately grasp the objective world in its full reality all on his own, because the world always shows and reveals itself to him from only one perspective, which corresponds to his standpoint in the world and is determined by it. If someone wants to see and experience the world as it “really” is, he can do so only by understanding it as something that is shared by many people, lies between them, separates and links them, showing itself differently to each and comprehensible only to the extent that many people can talk about it and exchange their opinions and perspectives with one another, over against one another. Only in the freedom of our speaking with one another does the world, as that about which we speak, emerge in its objectivity and visibility from all sides.

“Only in the freedom of our speaking with one another.” To preserve that freedom, we have to become guardians of our language. We have to keep it alive and working. That means being very intentional about using words. That means, for example, calling lies, “lies.” I am talking to you, National Public Radio, home to the word “misstatement,” among others. The NPR argument is that the definition of “lie” involves intent—a lie is a statement made with the intention to deceive—and NPR does not have conclusive information on Trump’s intent. The problem is, the euphemism “misstatement” clearly connotes a lack of intent—as though Trump simply took an accidental wrong step. But words exist in time: the word “misstatement” suggests a singular occurrence, thereby eliding Trump’s history of lying. The word “misstatement,” as applied to Trump, is, actually, a lie—as it is the lie that there are neutral words.

Using words to lie destroys language. Using words to cover up lies, however subtly, destroys language. Validating incomprehensible drivel with polite reaction also destroys language. This isn’t merely a question of the prestige of the writing art or the credibility of the journalistic trade: it is about the basic survival of the public sphere.

[niyad]

1. k and r

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Thank you!

I posted this yesterday before DU went down, then posted it again today to make sure this insightful piece got some good exposure.

[ProudLib72]

3. So, through "misstatements" tRump and his minions

attempt to alter objective reality? I think that's why we all respond to his drivel with laughter. It's so obviously false and yet spoken with such sincerity that it sounds half-way between a four year old's reasoning skills and an insane person's ramble.

I do, however, agree that ALL news should use the word "lie". I think that using nicer terms devalues reporting and turns it into farce.