Politicians, reporters, and the word “issue”

I’ve discussed the misuse of the word issue in previous posts (example here). Evasive people love the catchall word issue because they can use it to (1) downplay a problem or (2) pretend to be saying something when they are in fact saying nothing.

As you surely know, politicians are big users of evasive language. So are many reporters who mimic the speech patterns of politicians.*

Here, as just one small example, is a recent article in the New Hampshire Union Leader about a temporary local oil shortage. The reporters quote seven people: four are politicians and three are businesspeople. One politician and the reporters call the shortage an issue (instead of a problem, which is what it is).** None of the businesspeople (as quoted) use the word issue.

I’m not citing this one example as proof; it is merely a hot story from my local paper. Every week, the press contains thousands of examples of politicians and their reporters using evasive language.

The Takeaway: The word issue is almost always used evasively. Before you speak or write this word, ask yourself what you mean. Are you using it appropriately (Example: “Don’t dodge the issue.”) or evasively (Example: as a euphemism for problem)?

See disclaimer.

*The main reason many reporters mimic the speech patterns of politicians is that all humans tend to mimic the speech patterns of the group they most want to be accepted by, and many reporters most want to be accepted by politicians. You see, politicians usually supply the bulk of a reporter’s predigested news, making the reporter’s job much easier. This is why most of the articles on the front page of a newspaper are about government.

**And one of the politicians calls the shortage “an emergency situation.” This is another type of evasion popular with politicians: Soften a bold noun such as emergency by changing it into an adjective and using the adjective to modify a wimpy noun such as situation.

Quotations on thinking, speaking and writing (24)

“When we hate our enemies, we are giving them power over us: power over our sleep, our appetites, our blood pressure, our health, and our happiness. Our enemies would dance with joy if only they knew how they were worrying us, lacerating us, and getting even with us!”
~Dale Carnegie

“In the time of your life, live – so that in that wondrous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite variety and mystery of it.”
~William Saroyan

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
~Voltaire

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’ ”
~Isaac Asimov*

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
~Richard Feynman

“Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.”
~Ludwig Wittgenstein (pictured)

“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.”
~Tennyson

The Takeaway: Keep an open mind.

See disclaimer.

*Because Asimov was not a native speaker of English, we should overlook the comical mixed metaphor of the nurtured thread that is also a strain and a cult. And thanks to Paul G. Henning for pointing out this bold quotation.

Objectivity and The New York Times – an editorial

Economic historian Gary North (pictured), a tireless champion of clear writing and clear speaking, analyzes some evasive language that The New York Times recently used in order to simultaneously display and obfuscate its position on “gun laws.” Dr. North writes, in part:

The New York Times adds this: “Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist.” Let me translate: “We’re liberal. We like gun control laws, so we have decided to announce that anti-gun control sheriffs are in the minority. We will hold to this story until statistics exist to the contrary. We may decide to hold to it even after statistics to the contrary are available. It’s our call. It’s our newspaper. We get to do what we want.”

The Takeaway: Every newspaper has a worldview. Every newspaper. So does every writer: columnist, pundit, professor, consultant, blogger or whatever. It cannot be otherwise. But many writers are more honest than The Times on this point. Gary North is. I hope I am, too. For you, as a reader, the takeaway is to beware of writers who pretend to have total objectivity; that’s nothing but a narcissistic delusion. As you read, remember that the writer has a worldview; it may affect his writing heavily or only slightly. But always try to induce it (infer it from particulars) and then factor it into what you read.

See disclaimer.

Random thoughts (1)

I have heard people call a painting by Rembrandt “a Rembrandt,” but I have never heard anyone call a novel by Hemingway “a Hemingway.” Why?

In an office, there’s never enough work surface or ambient light. And there are never enough red pens. By the way, why do people unconsciously steal more red pens than black? Have you noticed that, too?

Peter Yarrow should have been named “Timothy Yarrow.” Two plants.

Some researchers doctor their evidence; maybe that’s why people sometimes call a Ph.D. “Doctor.”

Many a city boasts about the famous people who were born in that city. But those people had absolutely* no choice about where to be born, so their births imparted no honor to the city at all. Seems to me that a city should instead boast about the famous people who died in that city. After all, those people (1) were born there and decided to stay, or (2) decided to move there, or (3) at least decided to visit there. One example of (3) is Nathaniel Hawthorne, who was born in Salem, Massachusetts and died in Plymouth, New Hampshire. He had been lodging in Plymouth during a tour of the White Mountains. His death is commemorated by a plaque (pictured) on the Plymouth common.

When you are having trouble writing a transition, it usually means one of three things: (1) you haven’t clearly thought about the logic and flow of the piece you are writing; or (2) you are bullsh***ing; or (3) you are lying. Never mind how I know this.

Sometimes it seems that a lot of rich Americans want everything immediately – or at the latest, by tomorrow. How do such people obtain highly contested things such as Super Bowl tickets or vacation rentals of Nantucket cottages?

My dry cleaner has a bulletin board covered with tickets for unclaimed orders. One day I joked, “I wonder if any of those are ‘rush’ orders.” In a matter-of-fact tone, he responded, “They all are.” When he noticed my surprise, he explained that some people are always disorganized, and because they are disorganized, they do everything at the last minute. And partly because they do everything at the last minute, they remain disorganized. From this bit of wisdom I inferred that there are also organized people, and because they are organized, they are able to plan well, and so on. It’s better to try to be one of that group.

The Takeaway: Live life. Have a good day.

Due credit: I shamelessly copied the title of this post from my favorite columnist, the incisive Thomas Sowell, who writes a column called “Random Thoughts.”

*I’m not showing off, but I just want to point out that this is an example of a correct use of absolutely. More than 99 percent of the time you hear or read this word, the speaker or writer is using it incorrectly.

See disclaimer.

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (16)

Mixed metaphors can be amusing. However, we writers are usually more interested in informing and persuading our readers than in amusing them. Mixed metaphors may distract our readers and impede information and persuasion. Here are a few examples of mixed metaphors:

“...going over the cliff was not off the table...” (Source)

“I saw no ray of hope.  It looked to me as if the blue bird had thrown in the towel and formally ceased to function.” Wodehouse, of course, mixed metaphors for a living.
~P.G. Wodehouse, in Joy in the Morning

“Changing the culture and political landscape is hard; it takes patience, determination and an Army of Davids to gather steam to change the tide of injustice and prejudice against men that has been brewing now for more than forty years.” Gather steam to change a brewing tide? That’s all wet.
~Helen Smith, Ph.D., in Men on Strike

“When people talk about the rise of great TV, they inevitably credit one show, ‘The Sopranos.’ Even before James Gandolfini’s death, the HBO drama’s mystique was secure: novelistic and cinematic, David Chase’s auteurist masterpiece cracked open the gangster genre like a rib cage, releasing the latent ambition of television, and launching us all into a golden age.” (Source)

“Where do you stand on the moral compass?” My left foot is on north-northwest and my right foot is on north-northeast. My nose is pointed due north. Next question. (Source)

The Takeaway: Mixed metaphors can distract your readers. In some cases, they make your prose impossible to understand. Ideally, you should have someone edit your copy, because it is difficult to spot your own mixed metaphors.

See disclaimer.