Does the media shift lexicons to ‘re-educate’ masses?

Such carefully crafted language!

Recently I have seen more bold evidence of news sources and politicians carefully crafting their speaking. Why is this important? I mean words are just words right? I do not believe so. Words have power. Words incite war or peace, and can create happiness and joy. Words are carefully selected, crafted, and broadcast over and over and over and over and over [1] (see what I did there?) to cement them into the collective psyche of a nation. This is done in the same way marketing departments spend obscene amounts of money creating jingles, tag-lines, and mottos to prominently relate what they want you to relate to their products. [2] (Buh du bum ba buh, I’m lovin’…)

Maybe it was a lack of my own personal awareness, but I have stood up to notice that these changes are happening at a more rapid rate. Because my point of reference may be skewed I fully admit that I do not have all the answers, so this is my opinion. Changes were subtle at first but now are what I can only call a desperate increase in fervor and demand from our politicians and then media decrying what our words on important issues should be. The result is that we have a more knee-jerk reaction and swift attempt to change the national dialogue into some unrecognizable nebulous bile that does not resemble the actual core of the problem (I will touch on this again in a bit).

Some notable lexicon changes:

Obamacare = Affordable Care Act
Illegal Immigrants = Undocumented Workers
Global Warming = Climate Change
Political Correctness = Diversity Training
Feminism = Woman’s Lib = Equal Opportunity
Republican = Conservative
Democrat = Liberal
Unborn child = fetus

The most recent that caught my attention:
Abortion = End of life infant care? [3]

Now it can be argued that some of these terms were loosely related (or strongly related) from the start. This is absolutely true. Some of the terminology is closely linked with the predecessor. This does not matter to me much and I will explain after I share perspective on both sides of an argument listed above. This isn’t a debate about climate change to show a change in wording.

Climate change and Global Warming are closely related to one another however, it is difficult for a casual reader to understand how polar vortices shocking a region with artic ice can be attributed to ‘warming’. So the subtle change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ is had in the dialogue. The language IS important. Instigators who have the best intentions in this scenario say it is because the people need to understand that global warming and climate change are intimately related and refer to changes in global climate due to human contribution of greenhouse gasses. It isn’t just a mere fact of the globe getting warming, it’s affecting global climate. I am sure they have the best intentions and sound rationale for the shift in wording, and hope to expand the layman’s knowledge of the issue [4].

Standing on the other side of the spectrum is a completely different argument. These changes are NOT innocent interchangeable uses of language, but instead deliberate obfuscation of a wider conspiracy. Others may not have the best intentions at heart and would change ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ to hop around the issue. They skirt the issue of valid criticisms and questions by pointing that it’s not ‘global warming’ but ‘climate change’ we’re dealing with – making the entire issue a cup and ball game of terminology and phrasing. And honestly, it is difficult to have groups that investigate any potential ‘bad science’ behind global warming, I mean climate change, I mean global climate disruption, I mean carbon pollution…. [5] (you get the idea)

Which is the correct stance to take? Good intention, or vast conspiracy? As I said, it doesn’t matter. Both stances show deliberate manipulation of a societal perspective of a single problem. If it is for the best intentions (to educate and enlighten) or the worst intentions (to obscure and hide) they have actively used wording to sway opinion of a singular issue. It is also highly ineffective. If education was the key, changing the language of the masses is a quick and effective tool to do so. Yet, when the wording refers to the same exact thing the subtleties of the problem you are trying to educate the masses about becomes lost in the change of talking points. Instead of revealing a cause/effect dynamic the uneducated masses simply spout the new phrasing believing the new phrasing is the same exact phenomena. So I tend to lean that this change from ‘global warming’ (even if it were done with the best intentions) is wrong.

I’ve had friends argue with me about the specific issue of global-warming to climate-change, to carbon pollution (ad nauseam) was because critics have hijacked the issue of global warming. That somehow the term was tarnished by these critics and therefore needed a ‘brand shift’ with the terminology… which only proves my point.

But the dialogue between global warming and climate change was a gradual one that took near a decade to shift. This gradual shift can often times be excused on how language always changes and morphs into one thing or another. So, I wished to look at a more recent and knee-jerk reaction you can see unfold in record time is in regards to the word “Obamacare”.

I am not here to debate the merits or folly of Obamacare.

I am here to point out the scramble for a shift of wording from Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We can see this morph occur in less than TWO MONTHS. Now please note that Obamacare and the ACA refer to the exact same thing. There are no subtle differences and educational points to be made as one could argue with global-warming and climate-change. Obamacare was a term coined by opponents to personify the legislation. In doing so they were able to link the legislation to the individual in the hopes that any failures would be attributed directly to the person who shares the name of the law (in this case Obama). The other side may have banked on the opposite public reaction which was any success that this legislation had would also be attributed to the man who shares this law’s nickname. No one (prior to the bad press that accompanied the rollout of the website) thought that Obamacare was a horrible, bad, and evil moniker [6].

(Cont)

edit on 2 24 14 by KaDeCo because: Grammarly

When the law became unfavorable, the news stations that were closely aligned with the proponents of the law (Democrats) then started claiming (outlandishly) that the use of the word “Obamacare” was as racist [7] and demeaning. They ranked the word “Obamacare” alongside long-used racial slurs that most decent human beings would never think to call another human being. Invoking a visceral reaction in the viewers that saying “Obamacare” was on the same level of words I, as author, refuse to repeat in this writing. That association with that level of hatred then pressured them to change the dialogue. Along with senators who outrightly correcting reporters about “Obamacare” and asserting the proper term “Affordable Care Act” before they would deign to continue the conversation [8].

When laymen on the street were then asked what they preferred Obamacare (which has been torn down by the news media as a failure for the most part) or the Affordable Care Act (the shift in name and wording) most said they would much rather have the ACA than Obamacare [9]. This relates directly to something I mentioned before: swift attempt to change the national dialogue into some unrecognizable nebulous bile that does not resemble the actual core of the problem. I shall finally explain.

Once I really started paying attention to these shifts I started to notice them everywhere. I do not believe all are nefarious, but I believe good or bad, all have an ulterior motive for trying to change the speaking points. This makes the core of the topic very difficult to debate. And though I am an independent conservative, the political right is just as guilty as the political left of this. I understand that I have given more examples of terminology being changed by the political left, and invite progressives and liberals to state their own examples too! They’re happening everywhere, deliberately, and it makes it very difficult for anyone to rally the forces to stand up for what they do believe in and what they don’t believe in. Frankly, I don’t think they want you to stand up for it.

Once the waters have been ‘muddied’ on a certain term or ideological phrase, shifting the phrase allows legislators and proponents of the ideal to continue to move full force (having instigated the literary shift), and leaves those who are in opposition scratching their heads and having to regroup and reassess their defense against these changes. Effort spent on fighting semantics is a waste of time and resources, but now necessary for the dissenting voice to remain valid in the conversation.

I don’t think people are stupid. I think most people are fatigued in an information overloaded media-world that forces the same value of a movie star’s hair cut on the same level as revolts crying for human rights. I do not think that it is that the public wants to eat, but it is what it’s being fed. It eats what it is being fed because it is too fatigued, miserable, and stressed to seek out other sustenance. That is not laziness either, but it takes considerable time to link things to one another and uncover truth yourself. I don’t think the average person does not have the time (ability) to do this.

How do we stop this from happening? I really don’t know. I have realized this problem and have taken an active stance at uncovering things I care about and closely monitoring any changes in language, but I know closely monitoring every word the media spins isn’t a realistic option for everyone. I ask you all, is it always a bad thing? I don’t know, but it seems to me that it’s being purposefully done and to manipulate mass-think. I think it’s another subtle tool of those in power trying to align the masses under their control. I would very much love to hear the opinions of everyone here on this topic, and possible solutions.

End-of-life infant care?

Source please.

Google returns about five results... Where have you seen that term used?

reply to post by KaDeCo


This has been going on since one human tried to convince another of their particular viewpoint. I don't see anything inherently wrong with it as long as we are perceptive enough to see through the words to the message. A lot of times regardless of the words spoken people will see this through their own perspective and beliefs.

From your examples as I see them:

Obamacare = Affordable Care Act = Giant insurance scam
Illegal Immigrants = Undocumented Workers = People breaking the law
Global Warming = Climate Change = Giant carbon credit ponzi scheme
Political Correctness = Diversity Training = Thin skinned whiners
Feminism = Woman’s Lib = Equal Opportunity = Equality
Republican = Conservative = Lobbyist purchased rightwing carpetbagger
Democrat = Liberal = Lobbyist purchased leftwing carpetbagger
Unborn child = fetus = Possible human life
Abortion = End of life infant care? = Extremely difficult personal life choice

Guess my point is we choose to be defined either by our own perspectives and beliefs or through sheer lack of effort or apathy let others define the world around us. To paraphrase the words of Yoda "Think or think not." Everyone's choice.

reply to post by KaDeCo


Another fine example; "Youths" = Thugs

They're trying to find terms that doesn't have too much of an impact against one side of the fence. For example, illegal immigrants. It might slip under the radar for many should they hear "undocumented workers" and not cause a "stir". Once a word has too many negative implications, just change the word to something else. Still means the same thing, just a different way of saying it.

Pseudonaut
End-of-life infant care?

Source please.

Google returns about five results... Where have you seen that term used?

I've seen it around a lot of far right conservative sites, it was first brought to my attention through other means. I am not sure if this is the actual leaning, but the most recent example I have seen. Thus I tried to indicate this with a question mark (I tend to be verbose if you can't tell!)

The most 'reliable' was this article which if you look at the html link of the article it states: abortion_as_end_of_life_care. I am not sure if this is where the talking point will swing. Since the term 'abortion' has such a emotional reaction from both sides it wouldn't surprise me if the media will try to paint it one way or another (both sides could also, mind you) to change the national dialogue.

reply to post by KaDeCo


A former prime minister of ours changed the concept of unemplyment benefits to unemployment allowance, first changing the name of the goverment department that issued it and they changing the name of the payment from benefit to "allowence." See, the goverment 'allows' you have financial stustance

reply to post by KaDeCo

All this was outlined in Orwell's 1984 ("Newspeak"), but a couple of your examples puzzle me.

You list Republican=Conservative. But there's nothing particularly denigrating about "Conservative". I've been a Conservative all my life. The time to worry is when they start calling you "Tories".

The other example is Obamacare=Affordable Care Act.
This does not count as a genuine change because Affordable Care is the original name of the Act.
In fact the lexicon change is actually in the opposite direction- Affordable Care = Obamacare. It's an example of people giving a disparaging nickname to something they don't like. In Britain this has been mainly a left-wing practice, with nicknames like "poll tax", "bedroom tax", "granny tax", being fastened on financial arrangements with the intent of fostering their unpopularity.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Thanks so much for replying.

My examples aren't all 'bad' or 'good', just examples. The conservative and republican (same with liberal and democrat) could be concerning for certain individuals who may think or believe in one ideology (conservatism and liberalism) yet not the parties that have adopted them. There can be liberal Republicans and there can be conservative Democrats.

The Obamacare and ACA shift in lexicon was a dramatic shift, though both speak about the same exact thing. The example was meant to highlight a sudden shift in speaking points. And though the ACA and Obamacare are the exact same thing, average people on the street have no clue and are ignorant they are the exact same thing. There are several instances of video out there where people are asked what they think of "Obamacare" and they go "Oh it's awful." then they ask their opinion of the ACA and they go "Oh that would be much better because it's affordable.

The populace has already cemented in their group-speak 'Obamacare' is the ACA and by the mere act of calling it by the original name (only when it is unfavorable) forces a shift in dialogue and confuses the 'every-man'. I believe it is done very much on purpose, and to confuse, obscure, and hide the core of the problems with that particular law so people cannot rally together to protest, and of course in this exact example to distance itself with 'Obama'.

IDuring the lead-up to the whole Obamacare "debate", health insurance becme healthcare. Suddenly people with no insurance had no "healthcare" and seemed more vulnerable. When, in fact they still have the exact same access to healthcare as people with insurance plans.

reply to post by KaDeCo


Language is magick, the words and letters/ numbers are sigils.

They are manipulating this without a doubt.