Orwell Today
Written by Barry Beck
George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four has always been one of my favorite novels and was very influential in the way I see government, the ways words are used, and the subtle forms of propaganda. Terms such as Orwellian, Big Brother is Watching, thought police, double-think, and group-think derive from this book.An important theme in the book is a portrayal of how words and conceptions take on different, misleading, and often opposite meanings and connotations. In 1984, "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength." This is comparable to terms that are in common usage today such as fiscal responsibility, tax relief, tort reform, the healthy forest initiative, no child left behind, the Patriot Act, death tax, free trade, Social Security reform, partial birth abortion, in discussions attempting to elicit support for laws that would enact the opposite of what seems to be the cause, or convince the listener of something which has little meaning at all, or has nothing to do with the assumed concept.
In 1984, the major government agencies are called the Ministry of Peace (which conducts war), the Ministry of Love (which tortures people), the Ministry of Plenty (which keeps the population in a state of bare subsistence), and the Ministry of Truth (which alters the description of events to conform with changing needs until they become outright lies.)
In 1984, Oceania is at war with Eurasia one day and the next day East Asia is the enemy and the people are not supposed to realize the change. They are encouraged to believe the ally was always Eurasia and the enemy has always been East Asia. This is reminiscent of a situation where the cause of an attack was Al Qaida, whereas we are led to believe that Iraq is purported to be the cause of the attack and should become the reason for our anger.
In the communication employed in 1984, terminology is twisted into its opposite meaning to conform to an ideology. Language is simplified to make original or complex thinking difficult and to make unpatriotic, rebellious, or heretical ideas impossible to conceptualize or express. An endless war, the continuous adjustment of history, or conflicting versions and explanations of events and statistics... all these forms of cognitive dissidence are no longer noticed. The ability to hold two contradictory thoughts simultaneously while accepting and reconciling the contradiction of both becomes the hallmark of a loyal patriot, as long as he can accomplish this unconsciously.
George Lakoff is a linguist who contends that conservatives have taken control of public discourse by framing language their way. Think tanks and focus groups' survey reactions to phrases have produced terminology such as welfare reform, clear skies initiative, culture of life, free trade, and tort reform (an interesting euphemism for ending consumer, worker, and class action rights of recourse to the courts.) So ideas that seem familiar to us have often been organized, rehearsed, and re-framed in words and terminology which presupposes that there is any valid sense or truth to them. It is a purposeful use of language designed to mollify people who should oppose what is really behind the phrase.
This is a use of language (like in Orwell's 1984) that means the opposite of what it says. Liberal and progressive reaction will often be that today's conservatives are iniquitous, deceptive, or obtuse people who need our explanations; or that if they just had the facts we had, it would become instantly apparent to them how fraudulently their beliefs are being used against them and how people are voting against their own best interests. But the issues are much more complex. People tend to vote their identity and their values, which need not coincide with their self-interest. You cannot convince people just by stating facts and trying to prove that the facts contradict their claims. A person's framework or world view trumps facts. In debates and public statements, President Bush often used words like healthy, clean, evildoers, freedom, safe, or phrases such as from the heart, we fight them there so we won't have to fight them here, oceans no longer protect us, we'll stay the course, we won't cut and run, they hate us for our freedom... over and over (at least until he understood they were no longer having resonance) and an assumption was that he has a poor vocabulary or a limited grasp of ideas, or that these were sound-bites that don't stand up to analysis. However, these terms were tested by focus groups and he was very purposely advised to use words and phrases in this particular manner.
Lakoff believes the person who first frames the issue controls how that issue is debated. It takes a lot more effort, time, and money to reframe an issue than it does to be the first to frame it.
Read the first chapter of Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and the first two chapters of Thinking Points.
The author (who was an an advisor to Howard Dean) helped establish the Rockridge Institute, a think tank dedicated to the study of linguistics and psychology.
Orwell References and Resources:Falsification of the Past
Orwell Today from many perspectives
Newspeak in the 21st Century
Summary and analysis by chapter
Orwellian Study Guide
Cliff Notes
Orwell Resources
Orwell Journalistic Guide
Learning to love Big Brother - Bush channels Orwell
Orwell - a Life
Other resources:Why the Media Can Legally Lie
When Corporations Rule the World - David C. Korten
Republican Gomorrah - Max Blumenthal
Summaries, Analyses, and Downloads
- - through FreeBookNotes - suggested by Carole Fegan:1984
Animal Farm
Homage to Catalonia
Conservatives were at an all time low in 1964 after the defeat of Goldwater. It was followed by ten years of very progressive legislation. As a response, several conservative think tanks, magazines, mail order, and media outlets were founded and funded by Richard Viguerie, Grover Norquist, and the Coors family. Read more about the influence of conservative think tanks and former Senator Bill Bradley's summary of the phenomenon.
In the 1980s, the Fairness Doctrine was revoked and media companies were deregulated and merged into five or six major companies (for example, GE (NBC), Disney (ABC), NewsCorp (Fox), Viacom (CBS), AOL/Time Warner (CNN.) If we include two more major corporate groups, we have virtually every major movie studio, broadcast or cable company, record producer, internet outlet, magazine, and telephone company. (In other words, most sources of communication to the public.)
Regarding media sources, consider that forty years ago there were three TV networks with a half hour of news each day. Today we have hundreds of TV channels, three major all-news networks, and the Internet where anyone with a modicum of technical aptitude can give information and make their views known. One would think that would make us better informed.
Yet the opposite is true. These are some possible reasons:
- The FCC's Fairness Doctrine (which encouraged greater social and political responsibility on the part of media) was ended.
- There are now five corporate conglomerates that control 80% of TV, radio, movies, computers, telecommunications/telephones, print media, cable, and Internet. Thirty years ago, over 500 companies owned 80% of the media.
- Just as everyone can choose a radio station that plays the music they like, everyone can now choose the TV station that reflects their own interests and opinions. So we no longer have a common experience in what we are hearing or how we are taking in information.
In part, due to the above, news networks are not driven to present the news based on what people need to know. They are under enormous pressure to present what will grab immediate interest (since people can just flip the channel if they get a little bored.) News now is geared to offend the least amount of people. Companies don't want to offend the government and Congress who are making important decisions on mergers and additional properties that the parent company of news organizations want approval to buy. So we have the "O.J. phenomenon." The news getting the highest ratings are what we get. We get the latest breaking news on Michael Jackson, Jennifer-Brad breakups, the British royals, Jon-Benet Ramsey, Scott Peterson, car chases, and Superbowl wardrobe malfunctions. If it involves dramatic moving pictures, sex, sports, race, murder, it's considered important national news. The so-called "reality" shows are what we are taking for reality, for real life, and for information that we need to know.
Aside from the mainstream media, we need to be aware that the internet is a totally horizontal electronic publication medium. But quality will vary widely, and hierarchical control over content is extremely minimal. So there is a greater responsibility for selecting what we hear and read and accept. Broadcasters and publishers are responsible for providing content. Hopefully, they will seek to provide balanced and accurate content and abide by general ethical standards. However, there are no guarantees, and the whole thing depends on a pair responsibilities: those of the receiver and of the sender or information. Our best defense is choice, awareness and critical thinking and judgment. Maintaining standards of quality and credibility is everyone's responsibility.
Media Giants - Report from Frontline - PBS
