Opening Our Eyes and Ears to the “Fine Print”

Opening Our Eyes and Ears to the “Fine Print”

Do you think you could go your entire life knowing every piece of media you consume is twisted in some way? Well, now you have to. As George Orwell expressed, “...if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” (“Politics and the English Language”). In other words, with the need for different information outlets to destroy the truth comes the need to deconstruct the language they use in order to create a society of sheep. However, some believe that “journalists’ individual ideological leanings have unexpectedly little effect on the vitally important, but, up to this point, unexplored, early stage of political news generation” (Hassell). However, journalists' persistence in their biases make Americans subjects of their partisan words, so their slight but excessive changes go a longer way than the news thinks. 

Politicians, scientists, and news outlets use loaded language (rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations) in speeches and media to persuade the people to lean a certain way. Whether it be far left, far right, pro-vaccination, or pro-choice, with the increase in polarization and desire for politicians to win the voter tug of war, it is up to them to use language that is the most persuasive and blindly manipulative to encourage people to join their side. It is evident that the language manipulation has to be recognized in order to encourage Americans to listen more thoroughly and educate themselves. This situation is so drastic that, in the United States today, news outlets, media, scientists, and our politicians are actively using manipulation tactics including the changing of language and how stories are communicated in order to grab the attention of Americans and influence public policy. Unfortunately, these people are not the only body to blame. The American people's inability to open their eyes to the language manipulation in their news, and their inexperience with politics due to the faults of America's education system is causing the nation's sweeping polarization and blind following. 

Activists are shortening or changing the political rhetoric to make their side sound more euphemistic. As a consequence of this, Americans are forced to attach themselves to a single side of the debate. In fact, political parties would agree with this statement, yet they are still regressing to “Newspeak”— The dystopian minimized language imposed on the citizens of Orwell’s 1984. Take the nation’s controversial abortion debate as an example. Within the news, the media labels pro-abortion advocates as “pro-choice”, while anti-abortion advocates keyed the term “pro-life”. So what are the consequences of this? As Orwell asserted, “Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.” (Orwell, 300). In this context, extremists narrow down complex, involved issues such as reproductive freedoms and strip the meaning down to two simple words. Beginning with the names themselves, Americans are shoved into the rabbit hole of language manipulation because “a group always seems more appealing if it's portrayed positively, as "pro" (for) something rather than "anti" (against) something” (Duke). Just like that, a deep rooted and layered issue such as abortion rights and the future for women in the country is reduced down to two “simplistic” and “positive” sides to choose from, or so it seems to the naked eye. To radical protestors, using these umbrella terms is an automatic gimme, because the uneducated hear these labels and think what is at stake is drastically mild. After all, what is there a “choice” of in pro-choice? What book to read? What perfume to wear? Watering down the real issue at hand through shortening words makes the decision much more simple to make, and for uneducated Americans that's the best way to form an opinion and give away their votes. 

This language brainwashing doesn't just happen through shortening a word to change its meaning, though. For instance, politicians will opt to completely change words they should use in a situation to words they could use to mold the context of the situation in a positive light, keeping the public more content with drastic policy matters. This phenomenon can be further known as loaded language, or language equipped with the potential to generate strong emotions or feelings. Similarly, the issue connects to another hot dispute within politics: the question of placing strict regulation on guns because of the all-time high number of deaths, or keeping them closer to the people because of self defense. As expressed by Deborah Tannen, the gun debate is hopping on the bandwagon of loaded language, because language generates the potential to “frame the issue in one way that includes some things and excludes others” (“Loaded Language Poisons…”), making it easier for this now popular agenda to shimmy its way into policy. For example, during Obama’s presidency, when announcing an executive order he specifically avoided the word “gun control”. To be more clear, he exclaimed he sought to “reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country” (“Loaded Language Poisons…”). As the land of the free, Obama specifically picked out the word “control” and replaced it with “violence” because Americans do not swallow the word “control” being spoken from the government admirably. In fact, even though the entire purpose of the government is to control and keep the public in check, the American people do not want their decisions to be “controlled”, because their set association with that word leads to thought of corruption. However, once the term “violence” is introduced into the equation, the crowd settles in their seats. Government can work quicker and more efficiently with the people pumping their votes into legislation over gun violence. This is because ultimately, no one can be in favor of gun violence, as that is against most American’s morals to use a gun with savage intent.  Evidently, policy makers greatest interest is to be the “people pleaser”, because then the people can increase the candidates popularity, rushing them to the top of the political hierarchy. 

In addition, activists are corroding the thoughts of the supporters they gather from using these language changes to gain publicity and help spread their agenda. Specifically, politicians whose popularity is beginning to die out. As one author commanded, “I've talked about choice of topics and choice of words. Language is not only what is said, but who says it.” (“From Racket to Reason…”). Take the most recent 2024 election candidate rising to the polls for another race: Donald Trump. Following this, in a recent study the number of Republicans who felt “warmly” about Trump has decreased by 20% since April of 2020, according to the Pew Research Center (Cerda). Unfortunately for Trump, people are not rallying for his cause nearly as much as they were during the peak of the 2016 election. However, this is the exact incentive politicians like Trump need to use big, bold, and colorful language in their statements to the media in order to gather attention again. As a result of this, previous followers whose attention was lost will recognize Trump as a force in the political realm once more, but whether that recognition is positive or negative doesn’t matter to people that are hungry for visibility. To demonstrate, Trump recently wrote on social media platform True Social about the 2020 election that “a Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” (Yen). When diving deeper into a declaration with a tone this stern, it is clear that Trump used phrases like “massive fraud”, and “termination of rules” knowing that he will evoke a strong emotion in his viewers. In this case, using dysphemisms against the 2020 election and Joe Biden is used as a humiliation tactic in order to shift the perspective of Americans who may have lost support. Thereafter, people will get talking and gather millions of clicks, conversations, and articles to reintroduce him to the political cycle and catch people’s eyes. Above all, people that desire public exposure and visibility use language to shape their electorate's views, therefore expediting their agenda and accomplishing greater popularity. However, the issue doesn’t only extend itself to political activists, protesters, and voters. The dark cloud of language manipulation is hovering over the media companies who cover them too. 

In our society today, media is the way that 7 in 10 Americans use to connect with each other and gather information on certain topics. This leaves a lot of weight on the sources that provide this information, and big companies want to make sure those 7 in 10 are only listening to their point of view. Hence why the media has been able to use certain language changes and take advantage of the limits on their power, to fully absorb Americans into their ideals. 

Members of the National Media are typically more liberal-leaning, which works in favor of Democrats because they can then pull at the puppet strings of society and ensure that Americans grow to resent the other side. This phenomenon of the media backing Americans into a party’s corner is only increasing the polarization experienced today, yet it is said that “a dominant majority (78%) of Americans believe that it is never acceptable for a news organization to favor one political party over another when reporting the news” (Hassell). Thus, if such a majority of the public think this, then the media must be listening to their constituents' needs and beliefs right? Wrong. In fact, the bias is not only expressed, but made blatantly obvious today in the language that different outlets use in order to portray the Republican party. As Duke pointed out in his article, “Tongues Twisted Left”, “...the media will characterize conservative entities as "arch-conservative" or "far-right" while treating those correspondingly far to the left as the default” (Duke). So, Americans are pushed into a liberal point of view immediately once tuning into the media, and are blindly pushed into this ideology because of news outlets choosing what words they use to describe Republicans. It is rare that Obama or Clinton were ever labeled as “arch-liberals” incessantly by the news, however Trump and his colleagues were able to rack up a laundry list of headlines that conveyed that message. Ultimately, the media using this rhetoric does so to categorize the opposing side as somewhat unnatural (in this case conservatives), which sways the public to join the side of the antagonizer. In this case, a manipulator who tries to make themselves appear innocent is more dangerous than a manipulator who wears the label loud and proud, because the American people clearly cannot distinguish these secret tactics. 

While the media is mostly at fault for painting these pictures, the federal government plays a strong role behind the scenes, and practically gives companies the legal ability to manipulate stories to agree with their partisan politics. This is thanks to the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine, the jackhammer that could have crumbled the wall separating America’s political parties. This piece of legislation required different partisan news broadcasters to allot a certain amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues through the context of the opposing viewpoint. However, it was abolished in the 80’s because the federal government believed the marketplace could “manage their own ideas”. This is direct proof that the law is now protecting media companies who may spread inaccuracies, malicious slander, and blabber. Unfortunately in America, the people are very easily manipulated, and stories on the news covering the “same issue” seem to be communicating two completely different stories because of the removal of the Fairness Doctrine. Since its withdrawal, opposite media companies have been throwing political jargon at its viewers, covering the same story in two different ways, and degrading the other side causing people to further polarize themselves. Actually, in a recent study done by Joshua Kalla and David Brookman, they found Republicans that mainly watched FOX News “who switched to CNN for four weeks developed different views on a variety of issues, including President Donald Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the racial justice protests that followed the killing of George Floyd” (Cummings). This is surprising, because the COVID-19 pandemic and the issue of civil rights that arose in 2020 was such a polarized dispute between the Democrats and Republicans. So, if Republican Americans can change how they feel about these very strong topics within just a month of watching different news, then obviously companies are communicating information to us in order to tilt the scale towards their beliefs. Had the law that made partisan outlets cover both sides of the debate remained in circulation, then Americans would be able to form their own opinions based on the perspective that appeals to them the most, helping to decrease ideas being taken out of context, lies, and the further divergence of the people. Nonetheless, regardless of how easy it is today for the media to push their agendas on society and manipulate them into believing their diction, the fault does not only fall in the hands of the government that is ruling us or the media that covers them. Afterall, the concern of the news to simply do their job often outweighs the interest to manipulate the people. Most may not even be aware of it, they are simply reading the teleprompter. This is precisely why self-education is so important. In fact, if it weren’t for the ignorance of the Americans, it would be difficult for news they hear to have that much of an impact on what they think. Hence why those uninterested in getting themselves educated about important issues are allowing themselves to be sucked into the language manipulation of the government and media. 

Even though these news companies and politicians are what ultimately enables us to formulate our own opinions on policy and laws that are being passed, it is the fault of schools, entertainment businesses, and the increase of social media as well. In spite of the hundreds of ways to formulate an opinion that is truly our own, Americans revert back to what is easy to take in: A single source that can tell them what to think. It is time to hold people apart from politicians accountable too, and understand that we are allowing the cycle to continue for generations to come. 

Participation in civic life is directly related to the ability of the news to take advantage of the people. Sadly, Americans lack in this realm. In fact, in a study led by Annenberg Public Policy Center, only “a quarter of Americans can name all three branches of government” (Rozansky). In turn, if Americans cannot recognize the most basic concept of our government, how can they come to recognize the language and communication manipulation that is intended for us not to see? To make matters worse, the actively polarized media formed directly from the broken communication causes lackluster participation in elections, especially from young people. So how does this all connect? To sum it up, decreased participation by the average citizen leads the election in the hands of activists, the people who will put up these “far left” and “far right” candidates who are enabling the language manipulation. In order to break this cycle, Rebecca Winthrop suggests that since school is “one of the few social institutions present in virtually every community across America, schools can and should play an important role in catalyzing increased civic engagement” (Winthrop). One example of how young American students can learn in school is AP Government and Politics. In fact, an entire unit is dedicated to help “explain how evolving media conglomerates use increasing bias and narrowcasting to affect citizen and political knowledge” (Course Resources: Unit 5…”). This single unit alone would address the entire premise of how we are being manipulated by the government, opening students' eyes to take a stance against politicians that are guiding their beliefs. However, our education system continues to fail in giving children access to learning the importance of government and civic education, leaving future voters uninterested, unmotivated, and uneducated. It is clear that new civic networks are necessary to begin building in communities, because when the government systems and school systems fail the people, the only ones to look to anymore are themselves. 

Along with the failures of our education comes the failure of Americans to present themselves with more objective news. In fact, Americans are turning to the most biased sources out there: comedic and satirical shows that communicate serious political issues in a humorous, lighthearted way. Take Saturday Night Live or the Colbert Report for example. These shows seek out to use “humor, cynicism about the entertainment element of the news cycle and a pop-culture reference that the audience can take satisfaction in recognizing” (Keane). Notice the stress on the “satisfaction” they want their people to take away from the show. Here, there is no stress on speaking of major stories that influence our lives, but only ones that will grab our attention and give their show a watch. Additionally, these people are not news-anchors, but comedians; the language they use is not informative, nor is it taking deep topics seriously. To put it differently, jokes that are made in order to belittle an officeholder do not present the people with a factual, sourced story. All it does is present some “sugar with our medicine” (Keane). As a consequence of this, these knee-slapping skits delivering news are chipping away at the ability for younger generations to emotionally take in what are sometimes raw, unfortunate, and drastic events covered by real news. Additionally, with humor also comes inputting personal opinions that reflect the views of the politicians being nagged, mocked, or picked apart; “our sources of information are filtered through the comic instincts of teams of writers with particular interests and biases” (Keane). Naturally, when American’s put on their favorite SNL skit that depicts the presidential debate showing Joe Biden not remembering things, they will feel cynical towards him and the Democratic party for putting up an “incompetent” candidate as he was portrayed. Although no real news outlet is perfect either, they at least have experienced reporters, strong data and reporting analysts, as well as multiple revisions to ensure there is accurate information for their viewers to assess. To sum it up, Americans are affiliating mockery, irony, and jokes with “news”, and blurring the lines between what really is objective language and what they want to believe is objective language. 

Finally, with the rapid increase in social media and technology, it is now more than ever that the public has to begin watching real news and learning to gather trustworthy information, because “misinformation has become more professionalized and is now produced on an industrial scale” (“Social Media Manipulation…”). For example, different apps like Tik Tok and Instagram lend viewers the ability to formulate a strong opinion on a layered issue from a single photo, a 15 second video, or a comment from “user2947634”. In addition, Americans who choose to revert to a social media app rather than the ol’ reliable news go “hand in hand with lower levels of knowledge about major current events and politics” (Mitchell). Suddenly, the fog clears. If Americans are fixating on social media to learn about the world rather than traditional news, then they have less knowledge about political candidates and their motivations. In turn, the people’s diminishing knowledge of politicians and their agendas makes it simpler for biased news companies and office holders to convince the public to join their side and align with their ideologies. Above all, it is the people to blame for the continuation of language manipulation by the government and the media. 

The future of the country and the younger generations who will soon be influencing politics is grim. Unfortunately, the backbone that is holding the United States and political parties together is broken, meaning that swaying the public opinion through manipulating tactics is the new way to gather support, rather than through the integrity of a candidate's policy or character. As George Orwell once pronounced, “Political language …is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” (“Politics and the English Language”). Activist protestors want to shorten their rhetoric and make the ambiguity of their statements ring through our ears however we choose to interpret it. Media stations desire using vicious attacks in order to paint the opposing side as the bully. Schools continue to fail their students by refusing to implement simple civic education. While there are many ways for Americans to become educated about this phenomenon, the political vocabulary quiz is an impossible one to ace. 

Work Cited

Cerda, Andy, and Andrew Daniller. “Before Midterms, Trump's Image among Republicans Had Become Less Positive.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 14 Nov. 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/14/before-midterms-trumps-image-among-republicans-had-become-less-positive/. 

“Course Resources: Unit 5, Political Participation.” AP Classroom, 2022, https://apclassroom.collegeboard.org/20/home?unit=5. 

Cummings, Mike. “Partisan Media? Cable Viewers Shift Attitudes after Changing the Channel.” YaleNews, 18 Apr. 2022, https://news.yale.edu/2022/04/13/partisan-media-cable-viewers-shift-attitudes-after-changing-channel. 

Duke, Selwyn. "Tongues Twisted Left." The New American, vol. 30, no. 23, 1 Dec. 2014, pp. 23+. Gale General OneFile, link-gale-w9ba.orc.scoolaid.net/apps/doc/A393350799/ITOF?u=nysl_li_harb&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=e85b57fd. Accessed 15 Dec. 2022.

"From Racket to Reason: Reversing the Corruption of Language and the Corrosion of Thought." Vital Speeches of the Day, vol. 65, no. 20, 1 Aug. 1999, pp. 634+. Gale General OneFile, link-gale-w9ba.orc.scoolaid.net/apps/doc/A55684011/ITOF?u=nysl_li_harb&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=1623a3cf. Accessed 15 Dec. 2022.

Hassell, Hans J.G., et al. “There Is No Liberal Media Bias in Which News Stories ... - Science.” Science Advances, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay9344

Keane, James T. KeaneJames T., et al. “The Varnished Truth: Getting the News from Comedy Central.” America Magazine, 8 Dec. 2012, https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/5144/television/varnished-truth. 

"Loaded Language Poisons Gun Debate." CNN Wire, 31 Jan. 2013, p. NA. Gale General OneFile, link-gale-w9ba.orc.scoolaid.net/apps/doc/A317027119/ITOF?u=nysl_li_harb&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=3f9c30d3. Accessed 13 Dec. 2022.

Mitchell, Amy, et al. “Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable.” Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, Pew Research Center, 27 Aug. 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/. 

Orwell, George. 1984. Penguin Signet Classics, 1977. 

“Politics and the English Language.” The Orwell Foundation, 27 Aug. 2021, https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/. 

Rozansky, Michael. “Americans' Knowledge of the Branches of Government Is Declining.” The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 18 Nov. 2020, https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-knowledge-of-the-branches-of-government-is-declining/. 

“Social Media Manipulation by Political Actors an Industrial Scale.” University of Oxford, 13 Jan. 2021, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-13-social-media-manipulation-political-actors-industrial-scale-problem-oxford-report. 

Winthrop, Rebecca. “The Need for Civic Education in 21st-Century Schools.” Brookings, Brookings, 4 June 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/the-need-for-civic-education-in-21st-century-schools/. 

Yen, Hope. “Trump Rebuked for Call to 'Terminate' Constitution over 2020 Election Results.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 4 Dec. 2022, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-rebuked-for-call-to-terminate-constitution-over-2020-election-results.