Minding our language

In taking up the mindset behind the federal Liberal council’s vote to privatise the ABC, Mike Seccombe indirectly emphasises the critical need for truly independent journalism ( “Rancorous and file”, June 23–29). Seccombe, and Omar J. Sakr, too, repeatedly point out the debasement of language that now pervades political discourse; everyone knows what is said is not what is meant. This has been furthered by the Institute of Public Affairs, which uses debased language as a tool as it increasingly promulgates right-wing views through its Liberal parliamentary devotees; this despite it being unrepresentative, having a curious charity status, and having no elected mandate. What is omitted from Seccombe’s argument is that these organisations borrow heavily from the United States far-right, which espouses notions of “liberty”, grounded in economic philosophy but who in the past were actually arguing for the “liberty” of white slave owners to support segregation to maintain their own economic advantage. As then, this mushroomed into opposition towards any notions of collectivism that might threaten privileged power. Seen in that light, attacks by the IPA and Liberals on the ABC, or public education or informed dissent, seem all about “othering”, to make sure no one notices that what they truly mean by “choice” and “liberalism” has nothing to do with notions of freedom in a just society, or reduced inequity. In short, we need independent journalism to carefully scrutinise the use of words, to reveal and speak truth to power that might otherwise enslave.