Polluted Language for Polluted Journalism

Dear all,

Here is a copy of what I am planning to submit to The Times. I think it reflects a new phenomenon which Orwell didn't experience in the 1940s. By using first names rather than surnames for particular political figures, the Western media creates disrespect for those leaders it wants to turn the public against. Newspapers refer to Saddam Hussein as 'Saddam', while they would never do this with Western leaders.

Read on and tell me if I should change anything before sending it.

David

------------


Sunday, March 06, 2005

To:
The Editor
The Times Online
online.editor@timesonline.co.uk

From:
David Kelly
English Teacher
The United World College of the Adriatic
Criticalkelly@yahoo.co.uk


Subject: Editing discrete bias in reports



Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you to voice my concerns regarding Catherine Philp’s article “Court clears way for trial of Saddam's henchmen” from March 1st 2005. A paper as influential as The Times should set higher standards for impartiality in the language used by its journalists.

I am aware that like other writers, journalists have opinions. Ms. Philp’s views on the events she has been reporting in Iraq are valid and interesting, as she is close to the events and surely involved. However, the way in which her opinions come across – couched in a tone of false impartiality – is unacceptable. Even the title of the article clearly shows her bias against the former Iraqi president, but presents itself as objective reporting.

The use of ‘Saddam’ to refer to a politician is dubious in itself. Why refer to Mr. Hussein by his first name only?

To give you a sense of the bias involved in this style of reporting, here is a passage from Roland Watson’s most recent article from your newspaper which I have translated into the same style used by Ms. Philp

The size of the deficit, and forecasts that show that even if it is trimmed over the next four years it will rocket again after that, have dimmed the appetite among some lawmakers for the further tax cuts George wants.

Cutting healthcare costs before the baby-boom generation starts retiring is another George priority that looks unlikely to win congressional approval.

George has won a minor victory over reining in sky-high damages awards by juries. But a larger battle looms over medical malpractice awards in particular.

US officials have been ordered to adopt a strict “no gloating” stance in public. But George aides believe that the stirrings of democracy in Lebanon and Egypt to be a direct result of the successful elections held by Palestinians and Iraqis, themselves born of American foreign policy.


Taken from “Bush faces domestic strife as reform plan runs into difficulty”, The Times Online, March 01 2005

(My italics)

It would surely be unacceptable to any editor if one of your writers submitted this. It would appear as though the journalist were referring to President Bush as though he were a familiar friend, or a character from a children’s story. At the very least, this would belittle the President’s status, trivialising his influence in the events reported. This is precisely what Philps has done in her article, clearly manipulating her readers into accepting a certain view of the former Iraqi President without stating it openly.

Furthermore, Philp clearly uses biased nouns as a discrete tool for conveying her dislike for former President Hussein. Imagine if an article were entitled “Court clears way for George’s henchmen”, referring Donald Rumsfeld’s legal dealings. The term ‘henchman’ clearly connotes criminal activity. This, along with other expressions such as “round up the suspects” belongs to the language of comic books or detective novels, but not objective reporting.

I am not suggesting that you curtail Ms. Philps’ freedom of expression in any way. Nor do I believe that the actions of a political figure known for murderous crimes should be in some way praised. I do, however, believe that a reporter – not an opinions columnist – owes it to her audience to maintain some impartiality with regard to the events reported. Without falling into a monotonous style, Ms. Philps could have easily chosen a less biased approach.

To conclude, this letter is a call for greater clarity in journalese, which must start with the most highly regarded newspapers. As Orwell mentioned in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.


Although I do not suggest that Ms. Philps is trying to cover up evil intentions, I believe that the danger in today's journalism is greater than in Orwell's day. Newspapers have access to a much wider audience due to online journalism, and therefore have a great responsibility to report events without falling into covert political propaganda. Given that your newspaper is widely read for its impartiality and quality of writing, I strongly urge you to edit out such blatant instances of bias against political leaders, regardless of their actions or political credentials. Indeed, how can we expect political leaders to be more honest if the media is not?




Yours sincerely,



David Kelly
English teacher
The United World College of the Adriatic