George Carlin on Doublespeak and Power Relations a.k.a. UNDERSTANDING THE POLITICS OF PRESS BRIEFINGS [Part IV]

Understanding Power Relations: On the Acquisition, Maintenance & Expression of Power and Distance

Press briefings are regarded as a strategic chess-like match or a poker game. Like the games mentioned, briefings are an event which require diplomacy. It is maintained that politeness has an effect on work being done in press briefings in the sense that it throws light on the way the podium and the press interact. There is the attempt of balancing politeness and active objectives on the part of both sets of participants.

The press briefing is at times informal by nature. This holds true for American and British Circles as in the example given on turn-taking and question-answer forms previously discussed. Scholars such as Fairclough [1992] state that there is a certain ambivalence about contemporary ‘conversalization’ which provided the genuine opening up and democratization of professional domains. This change however provided a strategy for the exercise of power in more subtle and implicit ways. This is a comment that proposes the notion that there will always be the re-concentration of power to some extent. Fowler [1991: 57] somewhat complements Fairclough’s premise, as he contends that conversationalism is for the podium, that there is the implication of a commonly held view of the world, a shared subjective reality that is taken for granted which does not need to be proved. The action tendency to lead audiences and questioners around falls under this critique. However, it must be reminded that the practice of informalism is most of the times invoked as a self-defense mechanism in case an ultra sensitive question is raised. Reminded of Carlin, he did say after all that politician speech has to do with saying something which doesn’t really mean anything.

George Carlin [11:09]: Its particularly interesting to hear Washington talk. Whenever the issue of term limits comes up, I always tell people that the only term limits im interested in is to limit some of the terms used by politicians. They speak of course with great caution because they must take care not to actually say anything. Proof of this, according to their own words that they don't actually say things, they indicate them. 'As I indicated yesterday, and as the President indicated to me..' But sometimes they don't indicate, they suggest. 'Let me suggest, that I indicated yesterday, I haven't determined that yet..' See, they don't decide, they determine. If its a really serious matter, they make a judgment. 'I haven't made a judgment on that yet. When the hearing concluded, I will make a judgment or I might make an assessment.. I'm not sure, I haven't determined that yet. But when I do, I'll advise you' They don't tell, they advise. 'I advised him that I had made a judgment, thus far he hasn't responded.' They don't answer, they respond. 'He hasn't responded to my initiative.' An initiative is an idea that isn't going anywhere. 'When he responds to the intiative, I will review his response, make a position and make a recommendation.' See, they don't read, they review, they don't have opinions but they take positions, they don't give advice, they make recommendations. And at long last, after each has responded to each others responses and each has taken the position, main judgment and offered a recommendation, now they have to do something. But that would be much too direct. So instead they address the problem. 'We are addressing the problem and will soon be proceeding.' Its a big activity here in Washington.. proceeding.. they are always proceeding, moving forward! Alot of that has been going on 'Senator, have you solved the problem?' 'We are moving forward on that.' And when they're not moving forward, they are moving something else forward. Such as the process. 'We are to move the process forward so we could implement the provisions of the initiative, in order to meet these challenges.' No one has problems anymore, but challenges..

This is an example of the play of response on the part of politicians in addressing press questions. The illusion of information is based on their awareness of potential jeopardizes.

As for the refinement on the question of participant roles, the Podium has a multiple set of active objectives that must be secured --- among some is to provide details without divulging too much and to keep the unstated interests of the podium, while the Questioner only has one --- that is mainly to derive information from the podium. Both participants are inclined to their own interests, where achievement of such requires power. The journalist is in perennial demand of information while the podium must supply it along with maintaining complicity of audience in the preservation of his face. This is something difficult to achieve from the press. The moment the interviewee is at the podium, his or her face is vulnerable. Partington [2003] lists seven possible threats which at this point range from the questioner putting the podium on the spot to: (1) state or justify his or her own opinion, (2) admit that the podium was personally wrong, (3) state or justify a client’s opinion or action, (4) state or confirm a client’s course of future action, (5) admit disagreement among different clients, (6) admit something that was said by the client was incorrect, and lastly (7) to admit something that a client had done was wrong.

The questioner is also not exempt from attacks from the podium. Attacks may be posed onto the question where the source of information may be doubted, the relevance of the question to subject in hand is questioned, and lastly scrutinization of the appropriacy of the question to an interview context. These last two are less common to be stated by the podium considering the recognition of the freedom to ask anything. The interviewer on the other hand may be attacked through the undermining of the interviewer’s role and a generalized attack on the interviewer’s institution. A distant third is a personal criticism of the interviewer. However, this does not always occur.

Weasel Wording accounts for part of the power of the podium. It is a technique similar to political correctness being both functional in the semantic and the rhetorical sense. Carlin provides his own definition, being that weasel wording pertains to the addition and modification of words to make things sound more important than they really are.

George Carlin [20:15]: Now, continuing with more of these more general language complaints, forgetting the washington angle for another moment, I like to mention America's love affair with euphemisms and euphemistic languages. I think some Americans who have difficulty dealing with reality have invented the kind of soft language to protect themeselves. And this tendency to 'euphemise' if that's a verb, it seems with every generation.
 

Here's an example: There's a well-known condition in combat where a fighting man's nervous system has been stretched to breaking point and he snapped or he is ready to snap, during the first World War, the condition is called "Shell Shocked" ---simple, honest, direct language with two syllables, shell shocked. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was over 80 years ago. Then an entire generation passed, and in the second World War, the same condition was called "battle fatigue", four syllables now, takes a bit longer to say, doesn't seem to hurt as much. 'Fatigue' is a better word than 'shock'.. Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue.. Then we had Korea 1950, Madison Avenue was riding high, and the very same combat condition was called 'Operational Exhaustion'. We're up to eight syllables now and the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase, it’s absolutely sterile, 'Operational exhaustion'. Sounds like something that might happen to your car. Finally, of course there was Vietnam and even the lies surrounding that war, I guess it is no surprise that that very same condition was called 'Post-traumatic Stress Disorder'. Still eight syllables, we've added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon 'Post-traumatic stress disorder'. I'd be willing to bet that if we still be calling it 'shell shock' some of those Vietnam veterans might've gotten attention needed at the time they needed it. But it didn't happen, and one of the reasons I'm sure of it is because of soft language. The language that takes the life out of life. And it does keep getting worse over time.

In more popular or frequent function, these are used in persuasion, and persuasiveness delivered with rhetorical skills makes for an effective positive face. The Positive Face is a conceptualization of the attitude of wanting to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired by at least some others, presumably by those who are also admired and highly regarded. One important further step in the theory is that this positive face includes the desire to have one’s goals thought of as desirable [Partington: 2003]. Carlin had dedicated a fragment of his C-SPAN speech to discuss the public servant high, a sense of romanticism practiced by government servants:

[14:04]...So I that I could continue my work in government. Of course no politician would admit to such lowly station as 'working in government', 'serving the nation'. Another favorite distortion is 'public service'. I like America, don't you? The food is great, but the public service is terrible! Now, folks, a question for you. Do you think, its possible, that one of these politicians whose judgment is so poor that he honestly thinks of himself as serving the nation might be expected to engage in a little bit of patriotism, huh? What do you think? Well, of course it’s not only possible, it’s inevitable and that's when he's at his very best. That's when he trots out the very good stuff all across this very great land of ours 'the greatest nation on earth', 'the greatest nation in the history of the world' and at times of military crisis you can be sure that someone in a suit in this town will plant himself in front of the camera and carry on a great deal about 'the most powerful nation on the face of the earth'.

The scenario savors of residual Periclean-Athenian political culture, to which Carlin mocks to some degree. To his implied defense, it may be deduced that his view of Washington political figures (which also holds true for general classifications) is that the skills are rhetorically-based, but without strategy.
There is further exemplification of this rhetorical skill illustrating the attempt of reaching out to the public, minorities and subgroups with the use of blossom words:

[22:19] Sometime during my life, toilet paper became bathroom tissue. I was not consulted on this, it just happened. Sneakers became running shoes, loafers became slip-ons, motels became motor lodges, trailers became mobile homes, truck stops became travel plazas, and used cars became previously owned transportation. Manicurists evolved into nail technicians, and about the same time store clerks became product specialists and sales associates. Employees became staff, uniforms became career apparel. Maids became room attendants and room service became guest room dining. Information turned into directory assistance, medicine turned into medication. The dump turned into the landfill, gambling joints turn into gaming resorts, shacking up, living together, re-runs, encore presentations. Monkey bars, pipe-framed exercise units. Wife beating became intermittent explosive disorder, and constipation became occasional irregularity. Rainforests and Wetlands came into existence primarily because the Environmentalists discovered that people were not willing to give money to save swamps.

[24:01] Now, all of this happened in the last thirty years. When I was a young man, when someone was sick, they would go to the doctor. Now, the health maintenance organizations send them to the wellness center where they consult a healthcare delivery professional. Poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantaged occupy substandard housing in the inner cities. And we can't fully discuss euphemisms without mentioning that taboo --- death. Used to be when an old person dies, the undertaker would put him in a coffin, send flowers to the funeral home where they held a wake. Then after the funeral, they drove the dead person in a hearse to the cemetery where the body is buried in the grave. Now, when a senior citizen passes away, the mortician places him in a burial container, and we send floral tributes to the slumber room where the grief coordinator supervises the viewing and after the memorial services, the funeral coach transports the departed to the garden of rememberance where his remains are interred in the final resting place.

[25:00] Some of this language can make you want to throw up. Well, perhaps engage in an involuntary protein spill.

[31:02] Here are some more examples of tortured modern language designed to soften reality. They make people feel good and in general dresses up things a little. Somewhere over the years, the word 'cripple' has been lost. We don't have 'cripples' anymore, turns out we never did, they were physically-challenged citizens. How is this one --- 'differently-abled'. If you insist on using 'differently-abled', you must insist on all of us. Each of us can do things that the other can't. The word 'cripple' is not a dishonorable word there's no shame in it, Jesus healed the 'cripples' he didn't engage in rehabilitation strategy with the physically-disadvantaged.
And we have this continuing problem with the word 'Fat'. We used that term because that's what fat people are, 'fat'. That's why we call them fat people. They are not large, they are not stout, hefty or chunky or plump. And they are not big-boned.. Dinosaurs are big-boned. And they're not necessarily obese. Obese is a medical term, and they are not overweight because overweight implies there is a correct weight, there is no correct weight. Heavy is also an incorrect term, coz an aircraft carrier is heavy, its not fat. Only people are fat, and that's what fat people are. They are not for instance 'gravitationally disadvantaged'... this is simply descriptive language.

Midgets and dwarves are midgets and dwarves --- they are not little people. Infants are little people, leprechauns are little people.. midgets and dwarfs are midgets and dwarfs. They don't get taller by calling them little people.. There are people who like to play with them by calling them 'vertically
challenged'. They are not. The Flying Warlendas are vertically challenged. People who built the empire state building were vertically challenged. No shame in midgets and dwarfs. 

The press generally assumes the right to attack the podium’s positive face while the podium rarely responds in kind. Speeches or deliveries based on emotional value are believed to boost the positive face. Once more, George Carlin lends his ruminations:

[15:09] Normally, during peacetime, the politician will refer to people in the military as 'our young men and women stationed around the world. During wartime, they become 'our brave men and women stationed half way around the world in places whose names they can't pronounce, wondering if they'll ever see their loved ones again. For added emotional impact, 'sons and daughters' can always be substituted for 'men and women'. And so we can sum this up by saying that when the military is concerned, the extent of a politician's insincerity can be measured by how far around the world our soldiers are stationed, and whether or not they can pronounce it. Incidentally, another way of presenting this sentiment is 'we are sending our young men and women to places where the average American can't find on a map.' I've always thought it was kind of funny and out of character for a politician to go out of his way to point out the low level of american intelligence when indeed his very job depends upon it. It would seem to fly into the face of that rhetorical standby of theirs 'The American people are much smarter than they are given credit for.' This is said with a straight face...

This is popularly identifiable as the argument of the Appeal to Emotion, particularly Argumental ad Superbiam. Generally, it is a type of argument which attempts to rouse the emotions of its audience so as to gain the acceptance of its conclusion. There is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought, and the play of emotions in an argument is often fallacious. It is not relevant when it is intended to influence beliefs. At times they are reasonable when they aim to motivate action.
 

Another traditional challenge to the positive face is how a political figure or personality deals with clearing his image regarding a mistake. Once again, from George Carlin’s speech: 

[16:27] But the politicians, God bless 'em, or something like that, they are at their most entertaining when they're in trouble. When they're in trouble, their explanation begins simply with words such as 'miscommunication'. 'What did you do wrong, Senator?' 'Well, it was a miscommunication.' Or 'I was quoted out of context.' Better yet and more ironic, 'They twisted my words.' Such a nice touch --- a person who routinely spends his days torturing the language, complains 'They twisted my words.' Then, as the controversy continues to heat up, he moves to his next level of complaint, 'The whole thing has been blown out of proportions.' It’s always the whole thing. No one's ever claimed that only a small portion of something was blown out of proportions. Has to be the whole thing.. That's because now, he's feeling the heat.

So, as time passes and more evidence comes in, he suddenly changes directions and tells 'We're trying to get to the bottom of this.' Now he is on the side of law and order. It's Jujitsu, really. 'We're trying to get to the bottom of this so we could get the fact out to the American people.' Its always a nice touch, American people. At this point, he may even say, 'I'm willing to trust in the fairness of the American people.' Clearly, he is preparing us for something. And so when finally all the facts come out, and he seems quite guilty, he employs the sublime use of the passive voice of the words 'mistakes were made'.. ('don't look at me, probably someone at my office'). Things are moving faster now, 'mistakes were made' was overtaken by 'there is no evidence, no one has proven anything, eventually I will be exonerated, I have faith in the American judicial system..' and that certain sign that things are closing in, 'Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?'.. And we know that it’s true, because the next thing we hear from him is 'I just want to put this thing behind me, and get on with my life.'

This is an example of the podium being guilty, admitting mistake but through a half-meant apology. It is more suitable to be called ‘guilty with explanation’. A ‘Sorry’ as theoretically simple as it should be, suffices enough. Guilty-with-explanation moves are complemented with a cleaner-effect that is where the figure would attempt to illustrate a step down, that is to own up to responsibility.

[19:49] Let's hope there's a special place in hell for those who have recently decided to take responsibility for their actions. That's the big thing now, taking responsibility for own actions like it’s a recent discovery. 'He's taking responsibility for his actions.' Well, isn't that wonderful? Ask him if he's willing to take responsibility for MY actions, along with my alimony, my car payments, and my gambling debts.

For other instances, Brown & Levinson [1987] contend how Positive Politeness helps save positive face. Positive Politeness involves three steps: (1) Claiming of common ground with the hearer, to imply that their desires and yours coincide; (2) Convey the wish to cooperate with the hearer to fulfill their wishes; (3) Fulfill the hearer’s needs and desires. It has been advised to place emphasis on the first two criteria as the third is not always possible in the podium’s interest. This is a mode on how power can be kept on the part of the podium.