Language can influence how the nation views Russia probes
Let me acknowledge at the outset that I did not vote for President Donald Trump and disagree with most of his policies and actions. Nevertheless, I take seriously the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty — whether the charge is legal or political — and, therefore, all judgments should be based on as complete an unearthing of the facts as is possible.
I also note that my political views notwithstanding, I am a communication scholar who studies rhetoric; my interest is in the impact of language. Research shows that the choice of what to communicate and when, as well as how information is linguistically framed, can make an enormous difference.
Often, the public is not consciously aware of these effects, thus rendering them potentially more insidious.
Consider a timely example: former FBI Director James Comey’s revelations about his meetings with Trump and his recent testimony before Congress.
In describing the emerging information about Trump and Russia — what some call “Russiagate” — writers and political pundits frequently employ the “drip, drip, drip” language and other Watergate metrics to understand what is happening, as well as to offer predictions. I contend that this language may be inaccurate and the Watergate analogy might be misleading and have serious, unintended consequences.
The strong, persistent stream of stories about potential wrongdoing by the Trump administration is better described as an open fire hydrant. Why is this linguistic difference noteworthy? Why might rhetorical choices affect the ultimate outcome of the investigation? Because the onslaught of stories normalizes and renders less salient inappropriate and perhaps illegal behavior.
If every evening there is breaking news — and if consumers of 24/7 cable news programs are inundated with incessant communication about these issues — won’t the public become — if they already aren’t — satiated and viewing accusations against Trump as typical rather than worthy of scrutiny?
Similarly, doesn’t the sheer quantity of news stories at least give the appearance that allegations are primarily if not exclusively political calculations and hence part of a larger effort by those unhappy with the 2016 election outcome to attack and undermine the president?
Though I do not subscribe to the belief that the latter characterization is the political motivation of journalists — whose credentials and track record overall are impeccable — is in fact true, I wonder if we are becoming so inoculated by media coverage — combined with the nation’s existing political polarization, which prevents many from acknowledging the truth — that Trump’s transgressions will be tolerated.
Is it possible, for example, that careful and vigorous efforts by professionally astute journalists to do their job and discover the truth could actually backfire and have an opposite, unintended effect — subverting and hiding rather than exposing and revealing the truth? How ironic that would be! I hope this suggestion is an unfounded worry and that we will remain a country committed to finding the truth — one that allows facts to lead us to appropriate and fitting conclusions.
This commitment, however, requires us to be aware of the effects of communication. Hence, whatever emerges from the Russian investigation, we all must practice good rhetorical criticism, being sensitive to what is communicated and what language choices are made.
Regardless of our political affiliations and initial thoughts about Trump and the possibility of collusion, it is incumbent upon us to stand back and become cognizant of how language — even when we are not immediately or consciously aware of it — makes a difference and could influence important national decisions.
Re: June 7 commentary, “Herman: Gov. Greg Abbott sends lawmakers to summer school” and “Gov. Abbott calls for sweeping special session on conservative goals.”
In the commentary, our governor is quoted as saying, “It’s great to be out of the People’s Republic of Austin ... Once you cross the Travis County line, it starts smelling different. And you know what that fragrance is? Freedom. It’s the smell of freedom that does not exist in Austin, Texas.”
That day’s newspaper also included the governor’s special session 20-item wish list full of “freedom” words: prohibit, ban, limit, prevent, sunset and pre-empt.
Also, teasers of a $1,000 increase for teachers in the face of the Legislature failing to come through on the longstanding promise to fully fund teacher retirement and education in general are confusing.
Are his priorities bashing women’s health organizations and the women they serve? Where are Texans’ basic issues: poverty, hunger, malnutrition, unemployment, homelessness, racism and climate?
Has Brother Abbott adopted the Trump salesman technique, “Say whatever it takes to divide, deal and win?”
Those who make the argument that leaving the Paris accord will assign the U.S. to the backwaters of economic growth are making up “the sky is falling” arguments that have no substance.
The U.S. has been involved in the research, development and manufacture of green energy long before Paris — and there is no reason to think that this will stop for any reason. Also, the U.S. has reduced carbon dioxide emissions for many years long before Paris — and there is no reason to think this will stop, either.
Lastly, there is no correlation between those who pollute and those who create green energy. China is the world’s greatest polluter and the world’s leader in the manufacture of solar panels — probably with energy from a coal-fired plant.
Does anyone seriously think that China and India will do anything, starting in 2030, that hurts them economically?
After decades of GOP leadership in Texas, we have achieved two important milestones:
Texas leads the nation in the number of repeat teen pregnancies. Dallas had a teen pregnancy rate more than 50 percent of the national average, while San Antonio was 40 percent above the average.
Now, Texas is considered a “hot spot” due to the alarming increase in maternal deaths. Texas is not only unrivaled in the United States for its maternal mortality rates, but our figures exceed those of most of the developed world.
That’s what happens when a state bans Planned Parenthood and blindly insists on an “abstinence-only” sex ed policy in our schools. Unfortunately, what the Texas GOP has done to Texas girls and women, Trump will do to the rest of the country. Don’t let that happen. Get involved. Contact your representatives. It’s time to stand up for Texas women and girls.