In a 1946 essay titled “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell pointed to the lack of precise language and use of euphemisms as corroding to political discourse. Orwell suggested that the use of this type of language allowed for an avoidance of moral and ethical considerations. Sadly, what Orwell wrote about is more true today than it was in 1946.
It is the role of editors and publications to fight back against this deterioration of the English language on the topic of politics. The language that editors choose to allow becomes the standard, impacting discourse by shaping the language used colloquially to discuss politics. Style guides that suggest one word be used over another have a massive impact on the vernacular of readers.
Editors and publications throughout the editing process should consider the ways in which different political interests influence language in a way that is biased and inaccurate. Editors and publications throughout the editing process should consider the ways in which different political interests influence language in a way that is biased and inaccurate.
Each political faction has its own language that it prefers, which generally makes them appear more favorable. An obvious example where this is present is the debate about abortion. “Pro-life” is preferred by those in favor of banning abortion, as it sounds almost heroic when compared to the terms “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice.” Conversely, “pro-choice” or a “woman’s right to choose” is preferred because it sounds less abrasive than pro-abortion” or “right to abortion.”
Generally, groups prefer terms that use “pro” when referring to themselves, and “anti” for their opposition. The term “pro” is used to bolster, while “anti” is often used pejoratively.
It becomes incredibly concerning when publications like the New York Post use the term “anti-Israel” instead of “pro-Palestine” to describe a group of protesters.
Use of sensationalized or inflammatory political language is a mistake that is not only biased but also often outright dishonest or confusing.
The discussion of the Parental Rights in Education Act is an example of sensationalized language that led to real-life confusion. The bill was often referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and banned classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender for certain grade levels. The term “Don’t Say Gay” was used as a quippy critique by political opponents, which became the standard language partially because publications such as NPR, NBC News and Time Magazine used the term in their headlines.
The term “Don’t Say Gay” was confusing and led people to think that the bill literally banned the word gay. While the law was centered around banning discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in the classroom, it was never going to ban the use of the word gay. At the Oscars, celebrities like Amy Schumer and Regina Hall challenged the bill by repeatedly saying the word gay, perhaps misinterpreting the bill. If the bill were passed, saying the word gay repeatedly as Schumer did would still be allowed.
While it is incredibly important that this type of language isn’t used in journalism, it is often difficult to recognize and address when there is a conflict with the principles of editing.
For instance, the term climate change has become a sanitized term preferred by copyeditors over global warming, partially due to the standard approach to editing.
Climate change is preferred because it is less specific and more all-encompassing, but the term climate change makes the issue sound more regular and less alarming. Climate change could refer to the regular change in temperature the Earth always goes through, instead of the irregular increase in global temperature due to human activity.
Editors are also taught to use the terms that specific groups prefer to be addressed as. This is incredibly important when dealing with protected classes like races, sexualities and other identity groups who have been victimized by offensive language in the past. This reasoning should not be applied to political issues, as it enables language manipulation. If the language a political group uses to describe itself is misleading, it should not be used.
Political factions – when referring to themselves – often prefer dodgy, euphemistic terms that undercut the more abrasive opinions that these terms refer to. Harsh, biting language is preferred to refer to political opponents. It is up to editors to recognize the way that political discourse is being manipulated by language and correct it so that more honest and objective language is used.
