- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Don't you just wish you'd thought of this sort of language when you were a teenager???
I never in my life expected to see what has happened to language in the public discourse. Words really can mean their exact antonyms, if the speaker and audience are willing to collude.
Anyone read Frank Luntz? (google "luntz pdf" to find lots of strategy by him)
"Facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them."
"Never say Outsourcing, say Taxation, Regulation, Litigation, Innovation, Education [...] Because it rhymes, it will be remembered.")
"Of course, rhetorical questions work, don't they?"
"Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview of Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq."
"It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush."
(well, that last one is at least honest.)
The media (eat it, Murdoch) is only to happy to use these terms to think in and the viewpoints in the media are so homogenized (sez I) that you can easily find people who are just FULL of phrases right out of the Luntz playbooks.
I bet you could do a dated phrase-count frequency search on USENET and see the bursts immediately after big speeches.
