What’s the Mood Like There On the Ground?

I don’t want to go political on you but there are some current trends that I find irritating if not out and out disturbing. I don’t know if the media is Liberal or Conservative (when I listen to Rush’s uninterrupted daily 3 hour rant though I tend to think it might lean a little to the right since I can’t think of a Liberal voice with a similar platform), but I know one thing that crosses party and ideological lines and bugs the hell out of me, and that is the lock step fashion in which the media adopt the buzz words and jargon of the organizations and agencies they cover.

Why the hell do all reporters, anchors, and talking head pundits feel it necessary to clarify that inspectors, or troops or law enforcement, or whoever the subject of a story in a particular location happen to be are there “on the ground”. Inspectors aren’t just “in Iraq” they are inevitably “on the ground in Iraq”. Why? Was it possible we thought they were “in the water,” or “underground,” or “hovering just above sea level” in Iraq? No, of course not. If they are “in Iraq” then they are de facto “on the ground in Iraq”. If they are “in the air” in a plane en route too Iraq then they aren’t in Iraq. They are “on the way” not “on the ground”. Until they are on the ground no normal person would say they had arrived in Iraq. So why the knee-jerk use of the phrase?

Remember last summer before the mass distraction of potential war had drawn our attention from corporate corruption, and the Bush Administration was making a few show arrests of corporate CEO’s and the key photo op was the “perp walk”, when the evil white male captain of commerce was led off in handcuffs so that the media could indulge in their accustomed frenzy. I must have heard that phrase “perp walk” several hundred times in the space of a few weeks. I remember one talking head cable news show where the various pundits were throwing the phrase “perp walk” around like a bunch of 4th grade boys who had just learned a new cuss word. Remember “hanging-chads”? How quickly jargon becomes overkill.

Or think about sportscasters. Every season (especially football) sports announcers seems to latch onto some new piece of coaching jargon and use it like they were collecting royalties on it. I remember a time when no one talking sports said, “hang time” or “fully-extended”, when we didn’t “take it to the next level”, when the “Jim Thomes and the Omar Vizquels” were singular not plural, and the “point of attack” was just the line of scrimmage.

So why does any of this matter? Because language matters. Language is thought and language controls thought. Think Benjamin Whorf. Think Orwell.

Now I realize that in the case of sports coverage it is probably a good thing that fans feel more immersed in the action when the announcers give them a little of the technicalities that coaches and players use to talk about the game. As long as it doesn’t become too off-putting to the casual fan or neophyte. And as long as sportscasters don’t start talking so much like the players that they sign off by saying “A lot of people didn’t think we could make this broadcast. We proved the naysayers wrong. I’d like to thank my Lord and savior Jesus Christ and give a shout out to my homeys. Hi Mom.”

But if crime reporters start to talk and think too much like cops, or if war correspondents are seduced by the Tom Clancyesque military-techno babble of the generals, then I think it becomes increasingly difficult for them to stay objective and (I hate to say it) to think outside the box.

And “on the ground” sounds to me like the sort of overly precise redundancy that you hear at military briefings. And so reporters like the sound of it. It sounds a little macho, a little sexy, a little bit “inside baseball”, and the next thing you know they’ll be talking about how many shoppers were “on the ground” at the Mall the day after Thanksgiving, and how the mood was “irrationally exuberant”.

But “Really,” I hear you say “so what. Isn’t this just a matter of style and not substance?” I’ll admit that it is the style that I mostly find irritating, but I’ll give you an example of where the terminology has driven the debate, or at least given a “course correction” in favor of the administration.

“Weapons of Mass Destruction” is the operative phrase, put into play by the administration to describe the potential threat from Saddam Hussein. He has them, or at least he can get them, and he has shown that he will use them. After all he gassed his own people (back when he was our pal with gas we helped provide, but that’s beside my point). Weapons of Mass Destruction is a phrase that has a focus group tested feel to it that seems calculated to strike fear and conjure up visions of the World Trade Center crumbling and smoldering. And Hussein has these weapons, and he has used them. But hold on there Mr. President. What is a “weapon of mass destruction.”? I think we can agree that “mass destruction” is buildings falling, fires raging, smoke rising, people dying. You know “The Big One!" Nuclear Weapons, or maybe box cutters. Is that what Hussein has? Is that what he has used in the past? Is that what Gas, or Chemical, or Biological weapons or Neutron Bombs for that matter do? No. They kill people, but they don’t destroy stuff. They are strictly speaking “weapons of mass death.”

Now, I’m not here to defend weapons of mass death. Let me go on record as saying death is bad destruction is bad and weapons are bad. But if we are having a debate about engaging in a war of mass death and destruction let’s try to keep it as rational and precise and truthful as possible and let’s choose our language carefully.

I, of course, believe the Bush Administration chose very carefully for maximum effect. Why do you think these wars all have names like cheesy action movie? Desert Storm. Infinite Justice. Enduring Freedom. Because as corny as it all sounds in our media savvy post-ironic culture it apparently works. Part of the effect of the repetition of the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in connection with Iraq is that by implication and connotation we tie Iraq to the "destruction" and conjure up visions of teh World Trade Center without actually stating it, and thus making the connection really hard to refute. We certainly haven't seen or heard any proof of a connection. It is tricky bringing these sorts of unstated assumptions and connotative language to the forefront. This isn't normally the stuff of political debate. It is the stuff of literary criticism and English class. I suppose it would be hard to engage in a decontruction of the imagery and diction of a poltitical speech on a Cable News show. But, hey, isn't language supposed to be the stock in trade of the talking head pundit and print media sweat shops?

So, what does the liberal media do with this loaded language? They pick it up and run with it. They swallow it hook, line, and sinker and regurgitate it with regularity. They beat it to death with a little stick. It sounds scary. It sells papers and keeps people glued to Cable TV News watching “Countdown to War” or “Showdown in Iraq” or whatever.

I’m no policy wonk. I don’t have the answers for World Peace or the Middle East Crisis or World Hunger. I can barely formulate the questions. I will admit that the distinction I make is subtle and hardly earth-shaking, but the language of “mass destruction” has gotten inside people’s heads, and I think it is stirring passions that would be better shaken not stirred. Shaken by the enormity of the possibility of war and not stirred by the inflammatory language used to incite it.

My example may betray my liberal bias (No, really, do you think so?), but my point is not to criticize the Bush Administration. They have their agenda, and I guess it is their responsibility to pursue it. After all we elected them (sort of...Oh!...It still Hurts). I'm sure the Limbaugh loving conservatives out there could point out numerous example of loaded lefty rhetoric. My point is that language is the tool of the news media, whether TV anchor or a print reporter. Shouldn't we expect a little more care in their choice of tools than we would from the average Joe. If a plumber comes to your house to fix your sink and instead of using his own specialized tools he took your sink apart with a butter knife you had lying on the kitchen counter you might start to worry. If I fix my exhaust system with a coke can, black electrical tape and a wire coat hangar that may get the job done temporarily, but I want Midas to use real pipes and hangers and weld the damn thing. So, should the chattering classes just pick up any old phrase that the newsmakers leave lying around for them, or should we expect more sophistication about their choice of language? Jargon might sound wonky, sexy, and cool, and using it might make you sound like a press secretary, or a tank commander, or whatever, but if you are a reporter maybe you shouldn't sound and speak just like the people you are reporting on.