reasonable conclusion. Elections are (in Lakoff’s view) the proof that this
model is simply wrong: “The facts alone will not set you free. If the
frames that define common sense contradict the facts, the facts will be
ignored” (ibid.: 251).
The topic of frames will come up again shortly, but in the meantime, it
is good to keep in mind that rational thought or rationalism is often called
upon, but rarely proves useful as a tool to combat the language
subordination process. It can be seen as a type of spin, and thus must be
carefully examined.
Propaganda goes far beyond spin and is generally understood to be the
planned, systematic distribution of disinformation to achieve a particular
end, as in the manufacture of consent, a concept that is central to this
chapter. In matters of language, we can also speak of propaganda, albeit of
a more subconscious and subtle variety. In as much as language about
language is factually incorrect or misleading, it becomes self-referential
propaganda: it serves as both the vehicle of disinformation and its object.
This process is a difficult one to look at closely, for while it is not so hard
to reconstruct the motivations for the media’s positive representation of,
for example, the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, given the
corporate structure and economic dependencies of broadcast and print
journalism, the motivations that underlie the limiting of discourse are
carefully masked.
Among the wealth of material about propaganda in political discourse,
there are two schools of thought which might be familiar to the general
public. The first is George Orwell’s extensive writing on the subversion of
power by means of language manipulation, most particularly by the media
in reporting on politics. The second is the concept of doublespeak (often
falsely attributed to Orwell), which William Lutz describes as deliberate,
calculated misuse of language (Lutz 2004; Orwell 2005). In both cases, the
emphasis is on the use and manipulation of language by individuals
associated with the government, politics, and the media.
As an American, Lutz never denied the importance of freedom of the
press as a basic liberty clearly stated in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall
make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. As a
nation we are proud of the rights established by the first ten amendments
to the Constitution and generally very protective of those rights.” But the
Founders did not define what they meant by “press” or “speech,” nor did
ff
(ff)
#1