Thursday, February 22, 2007
Orwell Speaks, Terry Moran Listens
[ via Denis Dutton @ aldaily.com ]
George Orwell's article of sixty years ago still resonates. The braying in the bleachers has come center stage again, drowning out any chance of real exchange.
The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse…
Sloppiness in language can lead to bigotry as it overflows into a generalized disparagement of a group; a nuanced argument, any chance of real thinking about an issue, finds itself met with in-your-face sloganeering.
The above was generated by the recent flare-up related to a blogger's resignation from the Edward's campaign. If you haven't read about it Terry Moran of Nightline posted this entry on his blog about this woman's writings. This received enormous response, some saying it is free speech — “oh, it's just blogging” — some supporting Moran's doubts.
Here Moran replies to those who commented. You have to give this guy credit. Moran isn't cynically writing about this subject to enhance his credibility with web-niks, he is really trying to engage an issue that can be slippery for corporate media elites:
First, it seems to me that trashing the sacred beliefs of another person in sexually explicit or scatological terms for the purpose of wounding and delegitimizing the other person could fairly be construed as hateful. The gutter is always the comfortable resort of haters. That's why white supremacists use the word “n*****” and slander all black men by portraying them as sexually predatory beasts; that's why antisemites repeat the blood libel…
There are all kinds of ways to dispute what another person says or believes. Sometimes, giving offense is a great way to make a point, to get heard, to break through the unspoken oppression of certain views. But to seek to obliterate the legitimacy of another person's faith or other allegiances—and wound them in the process with the vilest terminology—isn't debate. It's rhetorical gangsterism.