Euphemisms Corrupt

Language evolves in complexity because life is nuanced. The fact that human being are capable of describing their world with such precision is a reflection of the boundless variation we observe within it, as well as the capacity of our brains to both desire and develop ways of speaking about those shades of meaning. I am painfully aware of this as I struggle to express myself clearly in a foreign language, where, for example, I may know the verb "to jump" but not "to leap" or "to hop", so I am forced into using hand gestures and circuitous expressions full of adjectives and adverbs - also in limited supply.

Journalism, which seeks to inform and describe the facts about our world, ought to support the best use of language. We've all witnessed the dumbing-down of language, which is bad enough, and the deliberate use of double-speak and euphemisms by politicians and military spokespersons, which is worse. When the mis-use of language spreads to written journalism - as it has increasingly since the first Gulf War and the Israel-Palestinian conflict - we're on the slippery slope.

A friend of mine who works for a major American newspaper recently received two directives from management . One was to avoid the use of "sidestepping" in reference to John Roberts. The other had to do with the word "refugee" - a controversy which touched most media offices in the U.S. in the wake of Katrina. I liked my friend's terse comment, which avoids dictionary definitions and complicated arguments, and goes right to the main point:

For the record, the paper also has decided not to use "refugee," in part because it has negative connotations. We were told we could apply "refugee" to displaced persons outside America's borders, however.

Now, I disagree with this, violently, but nobody asked me. It seems that we want not to use the word because the idea that Americans might be refugees is outrageous, and it puts Americans, mostly black Americans, in a class with Somalis and Palestinians and citizens of the former Yugoslavia. What I want to know is, how does calling them "evacuees" help them?

I want to acknowledge that there's a difference between describing a group and tagging an individual within a group, but, darn it, to refuse to use an uncomfortable word in a shocking situation is to abdicate our duty to tell the truth clearly.

I got the instruction to ban "refugee" the same day I handled a story about a reservist who was on trial for the death of an Afghan "detainee." It seems he had been administering "peroneal strikes" to the man, who was bound, or maybe suspended by his arms. And it dawned on me that the reservist was torturing a prisoner -- what has become of us that we accept this sort of whitewash without question?

Euphemisms corrupt. Mushy language makes it impossible to hold a genuine debate over our purposes and needs. I can't call 'em refugees, but I believe readers will see through us, and shade our credibility that much more.

Comments

[susurra]

I promise no euphemisms here, only possible spelling errors.
You are a couragaeous, caring, beautiful woman who gifts us the grace of her writing, the depth of her thoughtfulness and friendship, and the joy and pain of her shared myriad experiences.
Today, which is your birthday, I can only turn that beauty back towards you and wish you that which you grant us comes back to you ten fold.
My best wishes today and through the year Beth.

[beth]

Thank you so much, Susan! I can, and would, say the same thing about you.

[Chris Clarke]

"peroneal strikes"

There's a macabre joke about Argentina in there, waiting to be made.