DoublespeakPaper

7/30/2019 DoublespeakPaper

1/9

Haupt Page 1

Doublespeak: Misleading Communication by Government to the Public

Government officials are elected or appointed into positions of trust. Often, they are

given the responsibility to act as the gatekeepers of critical information. Sometimes, the trust that

is given to these gatekeepers has, at times, been violated. There are many types of violations that

have occurred, but for the purposes of this paper, we will discuss how representatives of

government have used a type of deceptive language called doublespeak. Government officials

have used doublespeak in communication with the American people, deliberately using

ambiguous language to mislead the public.

In examining how doublespeak is used, it is helpful to first define doublespeak. Tom

Fehey states, Doublespeak is deliberately obscure language intended to mislead ( in Dr.

Jones, 131). Additionally, William Lutz defines doublespeak as the following It is language

that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it (in Dr.

Jones, 243). Dr. Jones also describes examples of doublespeak as, deliberately ambiguous,

pretentious, or deceptive (Dr. Jones, 244). According to John Newman, in his Quarterly Journal

of Speech, the purpose of doublespeak is not to communicate the presence of knowledge,

information, or ideas, but to conceal their presence by masking them with semantic diversions

(Newman, 79). For the purposes of this paper, we can adopt the working definition of

doublespeak as intentionally deceptive language adopted by the speaker in order to disseminate

misinformation. This type of misinformation could be false because it is offers the wrong

information, or misleading because it does not offer enough clarification.


2/9

Haupt Page 2

While doublespeak is often used pejoratively, sometimes it can be arguably justified,

given certain circumstances. For example, in any ongoing criminal investigation, police might

not want to reveal all of the information they have on a suspect to the public. This is especially

true in high profile cases. The suspect might be tipped off, and potentially flee the country. In

this case, it is reasonable to expect that government officials would give vague details about the

situation and any leads.

However, use of this type of ambiguous language doesnt always have the intended

effect, even when the rationale is apparently well-intended. Consider the textbook situation of

ambiguous language backfiring: the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing during the summer

games in Atlanta. Richard Jewell, a security officer at the scene, was the first to alert police

about a suspicious package. His actions saved countless lives. Journalist Shane Harris, with

the Washingtonian, writes about what happens next.

Investigators were under extraordinary pressure to frame a high-profile act of domestic

terrorism around a suspect. They offered up Jewell, and in off-the-record chats with

reporters and through authorized leaks of details in the investigation, spun a story about a

disgruntled, fame-seeking security guard who'd decided to kill innocent people in order to

make himself famous.

None of it was true. (Harris)

Jewells name became associated with guilt in the bombings, and his life went in a tragic

downward spiral. With his reputation ruined, a media frenzy ensued, and Jewell found no

peace (Harris). Jewell died a few months later. His name was publicly cleared, while the actual

perpetrator of the crime wasnt arrested until 2003.


3/9

Haupt Page 3

Here, the FBI used doublespeak to falsely indicate Jewels guilt. In their now infamous

collaboration with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, government officials implicate Jewell with

statements like, FBI agents are reviewing hours of professional and amateur video tape to see if

Jewell is spotted setting down the military-issue backpack that contained the bomb.

Acquaintances have told agents that he owned a similar knapsack (Scruggs, and Ron Martz Pg.

01X). The FBI were also unable to comment if the man indeed saved lives by reporting the

threat, while refusing to rule him out as a suspect even though he was not on their video records

(Scruggs, and Ron Martz Pg. 01X). Overall, the FBI contributed greatly to the tragedy that

destroyed Jewells life with confusing language, brought on by their haste to deliver the person

responsible to the media.

Another excellent example of doublespeak by the United States government can be found

in what is known as The War on Terror. The actual phrase War on Terror is a kind of

doublespeak in itself. It refused to acknowledge an actual threat posed by an identifiable nation

or group of people, and instead claims to be combating Terror, something that can never be

truly defeated. Ambiguous terms here are intended to shroud the war itself, who we were in a

war with, or where we were fighting. This arguably was because government officials wanted

latitude in dealing with the terrorist threat that was posed after the attacks against the World

Trade Center.

One of the ways the United States Government proposed in dealing with the situation was

to establish The Department of Homeland Security. This Department was to be in addition to

the CIA, the FBI, all of our domestic and foreign national security organizations such as ICE,

and most ironically, The Department of Defense. The purpose of the DHS was unclear from the

beginning, but the confusing title was a bonus to lawmakers who were seeking a slice of


4/9

Haupt Page 4

government pork. Timothy Lynch, from the CATO Institute, writes about this situation in his

paper,Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism. According to Lynch, After 9/11 lobbyists and

politicians quickly recognized that the best way to secure legislative approval for a spending

proposal is topackage the idea as a homeland security measure even if the expenditure has

nothing to do with our national defense (Lynch, 2). Lynch goes on to list a number of costly

projects that were passed with the shady justification of national defense.

In addition to the costly and shroud creation of the DHS, the War on Terror has also

inspired a renewed conflict in the area of American civil liberties. One of the most important

battles has been centered on the right to habeas corpus, or the right to a fair trial. This is a

constitutional protection that is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Lynch writes, The most

important legal issue that has arisen since the September 11 terrorist attacks has been President

Bushs claim that he can arrest any person in the world and incarcerate that person indefinitely

(Lynch, 6-7). After 9/11, habeas corpus was challenged by the desire of the government to take

terrorists as prisoners for questioning, without a trial. This is a problem, because the

terrorists were not a part of an enemy countries uniformed service, therefore they retained

certain protections. To evade that snag, President Bush and his administration redefined the

terrorists as enemy combatants. Lynch relates why this distinction was purportedly justified,

Government attorneys argued that even if an enemy combatant could meet with an

attorney and even if a habeas corpuspetition could be filed on the prisoners behalf, the

courts ought to summarily throw such petitions out of court. According to Bushs

lawyers, the courts should not second-guess the presidents battlefield decisions. But

when the government attorneys were pressed about their definition of the term


5/9

Haupt Page 5

battlefield, they said they considered the entire world to be the battlefield, including

every inch of U.S. territory. (Lynch, 7)

By redefining the term battlefield (Lynch, 7), President Bush granted his government

extraordinary powersnamely the power to imprison anyone they suspect of terrorism without a trial,

indefinitely. Ambiguous language in the War on Terror allowed an expansion of government power,

against the supreme law of the United States (the Constitution) to launch a war against unidentified

targets in an unidentified location, for an unidentified period of time. The power of doublespeak can be

clearly seen here, to great effect.

There are many other examples of how doublespeak is used to justify the War on Terror

(including the definition of terrorism itself) but for the purposes of this paper, it is enough to draw a final

conclusion about this sub-topic. Lynch summarizes this conclusion with the following:

Government officials have an incentive to lie and misrepresent their actions so that they can

expand, or at least maintain, their power. When the citizenry is fed false information, it is costly

for skeptics to undertake an investigation of the various issues in order to learn the truth.

Politicians and bureaucrats exploit this disadvantage to the fullest in order to shape political

outcomes to their liking. (Lynch, 11)

This is the fundamental thrust of my own paper. Government officials may often use

doublespeak, instead of the truth to influence public opinion in way that favors their political goals. Much

of this type of doublespeak has occurred after 9/11. It is the responsibility of the government, in times of

crisis, to be honest and forthright with their policies. If President Bush had proposed the vague, decade

long proxy war that has occurred against al-Queda, Taliban, and insurgent groups, chances are that

Congress (and the American public) would have been less likely to finance the War on Terror, as well as

sacrifice their liberties for the sake of that war (namely the Patriot Act, another prime example of

doublespeak).


6/9

Haupt Page 6

Another example of the use of doublespeak by government officials can be found within our

textbook. Dr. Jones included the following statement that a former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig,

made before the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

Id like to suggest to you that some of the investigations would lead one to believe that perhaps

the vehicle the nuns were riding in may have tried to run a roadblock, or may accidently have

been perceived to have been doing so, and thered been an exchange of fire, and then perhaps

those who inflicted the casualties sought to cover it up. And this could have been at a very low

level of both competence and motivation in the context of the issue itself. But the facts on this are

not clear enough for anyone to draw a definitive conclusion. (in Dr. Jones, 244)

This comment was made in response to the rape and murder of four women in El Salvador, by

members of the Salvadoran army (Dr. Jones). This is an example of doublespeak that is used by officials

to imply something, while saying nothing. Haig never directly accuses the nuns of any wrong doing. He

actually seems to imply that it was the nuns might have shared some responsibility for their deaths. But

Haig never directly says that the nuns are to blame. As Dr. Jones observes, He uses vague expressions

such as would leave one to believe and may accidently have been perceived to have been doing so. He

avoids the word kill and instead says inflicted casualties (Dr. Jones). And to conclude, Haig covers

his stern (Dr. Jones, 23) as one naval officer once said.

The motivations for Haig adopting this type of language are unclear. Perhaps he wanted to

mitigate potential damage to diplomatic relations with El Salvador. Perhaps it was an ongoing

investigation, and he did not want to make a definitive statement. The reasons for Secretary Haigs use of

doublespeak do not matter, for the purposes of this paper. The important part here is to remember that

Haig used this type of speech in an irrational defense of rapists and murderers. Government officials have

positions of power, to influence situations such as this case. Their wordscareless and hasty diction

includedhave an impact on the lives of the public.


7/9

Haupt Page 7

The final example of doublespeak is based on another situation presented in the textbook. This

comes from Jesse Moore, an administrator in NASA, in response to an investigation of the Challenger

disaster:

I think our performance in terms of the liftoff performance and in terms of the orbital

performance, we know more about the envelope we were operating under, and we have been

pretty accurately staying in that. And so I would say the performance has not by design

drastically improved. I think we have been able to characterize the performance as a function of

our launch experience as opposed to it improving as a function of time. (in Dr. Jones, 244)

In this example, the NASA representative is again suggesting everything and saying nothing, in a

similar way to Secretary Haigs response. But Moore approaches the challenge of doublespeak from a

different angle. Moore uses a technique called gobbledygook, which is to stack his statements with as

many large words as possible, in an effort to avoid clearly stating the problem. It is difficult to glean any

definitive, clear truth from the paragraph submitted by Moore. Use of phrases like the performance has

not by design drastically improved and characterize the performance as a function of our launch

experience (Dr. Jones) are patently pretentious.

Further damage to the publics trust in government officials occurs when the public wants

answers after tragedies like the Challenger disaster. The explosion of the shuttle and the loss of the brave

astronauts within left a deep impression on the American people. That public was relying on officials like

Moore to explain the situation in a way they can understand. Moore was at worst intentionally concealing

the failures of the shuttle program, and at best grossly incompetent in expressing a clear thought.

Clearly, the government uses deliberately ambiguous, pretentious, or deceptive (Dr. Jones, 244)

language to support its policies. Many times, these policies are a detriment to the people who have to bear

the unfortunate side-effects of governments arguably well-intentioned actions. A responsible and

informed public must be able to identify when the government is using doublespeak to obfuscate a


8/9

Haupt Page 8

situation. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers and prose stylists in the early 20 th

century, warned us about the tendency for government to reach for more power, Every decent man is

ashamed of the government he lives under ("H. L. Mencken Quotes").


9/9

Haupt Page 9

Works Cited

Dr. Jones, Dan. Technical Writing Style. Massachusetts: A Pearson Education Company, 1998. Print.

Newman, John. "Doublespeak, Doubletalk, and the Functions of Language." Quarterly Journal of Speech.62.1 n. page. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Harris, Shane. "In the Frenzy of Investigation, Beware the First Suspect." Washingtonian. 16 04 2013: n.

page. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Scruggs, Kathy, and Ron Martz. "FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb." Atlanta Journal-

Constitution 30 JULY 1996, P.M. Edition Pg. 01X. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Lynch, Timothy. "Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism." www.cato.org. Cato Institute, 06 SEP 2006.Web. 19 Apr 2013.

"H. L. Mencken Quotes." BrainyQuote. BookRags Media Network . Web. 19 Apr 2013.

.

Documents

DoublespeakPaper