Monday 9 March 2009

Living in a Bilingual World (The One About Politicians and Language)

Back when I was a teenager and still in secondary school my then English teacher insisted that we use the correct words everytime we came across questions starting with what/who/where/when/why/how. Failure to comply with her instructions meant a lower mark in our final exam.

- What happened? A car crash.
- Why did it happen? Because one of the drivers was drunk.
- How did it happen? One of the cars drove through a red light.
- Where was the accident? Just down the road.
- When did it happen? Just a few minutes ago.
- Who was involved? Two young drivers.
- Did you see it? No, I didn't.

If the same was applied to British politics nowadays, most politicians would walk away having flunked this most elementary of tests. How many times have I been listening to or watching those two Cancerberi of British radio and television, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman respectively asking a politician a 'yes' or 'no' question only for the latter to begin his/her answer with the words: 'The issue, John/Jeremy, is...'. Or how about the old well-worn phrase: 'With all due respect, I think that we're missing the wider picture here...'?



Jeremy Paxman famously asked the then Home Secretary Michael Howard the same question fourteen times on Newsnight back in the nineties without the Tory politician providing a straight and satisfactory answer in any way. It's one of those youtube moments that you have to watch to believe.


Nowadays, interviewees eschew the responsibility of answering questions by not answering them at all. A few days ago Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, turned up on Radio Four to discuss the current economic situation in the UK. He might as well have discussed the recent dismissal of Luiz Felipe Scolari from Chelsea for all I cared. One by one, the questions Darling was being asked by John Humphreys fell into a void into which we, listeners, were imaginarily sucked as the government representative's perennial patronising and condescending tone reminded us that in its almost twelve years in power New Labour had a splendid track record in social, economic and political issues. OK, Al, mate, just don't mention Iraq.


There are three elements I blame for this reticence in linguistics when it comes to politics. The first one is the art of spin. Spin doctors have become skillful masters of deceit and deception. For a classic example, look at Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former advisor, number 10's number 2 and one of the main architects of the ill-fated invasion to Iraq in 2003. The second factor is a cynical public. We are discontent with the status quo but even when a politician steps forward and gives us a straight answer (a very rare phenomenon these days as I explained before) we still pillory them. Question Time has become a Roman arena where the audience's thumbs remain pointing to the ground no matter whether the member of parliament addressing the question/issue provides a viable offer or not. The what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg predicament (are we cynical because politicians are a bunch of demagogues or are politicians so passive because we're never satisfied?) is another subject into which I will stray another time, but it's worth mentioning that this dilemma cuts both ways. The third element is a media desperate to satisty its audience's short attention span. I think that the UK has some of the better newspapers, radio stations and television channels in the world. Despite the many scandals that have besieged it recently, the BBC is still good value for money and I pay my TV licence with gusto. But when the media pummel politician after politician unfairly for raising serious issues it is doing us neither a service nor justice to those who represent the government. When snarling at politicians masquerades as earnest commentary then we need to call the media's bluff.


This is not to excuse politicians' laissez-faire attitude when it comes to reporting to the people who matter: us, the electorare. And of course, it is not a phenomenon that occurs only in the British Isles. Last year when Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, president of Cuba's National Assembly, was challenged by a university student as to why he was not allowed to visit Che's memorial in Bolivia, the spot where he was killed, with his family, the Cuban dignitary huffed and puffed through the answer but did not begin his reply with the most important word: 'Because...'


In the commercial world, meanwhile, the correct use of the adverbs and pronouns mentioned at the beginning of this feature has served companies like L'Oreal very well. The French cosmetics giant struck lucky with its 'Because you're worth it' campaign a few years back despite the fact that, on second thoughts, it might not have suited everyone. Can you imagine if the question had been: 'Why am I all wrinkled up like a prune, abandoned by my partner, left with four mouths to feed and unemployed'? Yes, you 're right, sometimes a 'With all due respect...' reply is a much better option.


Copyright 2009

26 comments:

  1. Want to know what's really funny?! After eight years of listening to former President Bush, I thought Mr. Howard seemed rather articulate and straight-forward in his responses.

    I guess everything is a matter of expectation and comparison. : )

    Can you imagine our joy at hearing President Obama speak?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Curioso il post cuban ;)

    peró sempre diverso da come é usanza da noi in Sicilia. Li vale il linguaggio delle tre scimmie:

    -non vedo
    -non sento
    -non PARLO

    Quale linguaggio é meglio? dipende da dove si vive!

    ;)

    un saluto da Colonia,
    Salva :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, cecile, you're quite right! In fact there's a very funny clip (amongst hundreds) where Bush not only refuses to answer the question but also ignores the journalist altogether and tries to move forward on to the next question. All the time displaying his trademark stupidity.

    Salva, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Totalmente de acuerdo.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bonjour a Paris! I agree with you. People are so tired of being lied to, they no longer want to listen or believe anything they hear. It's fascinating to watch the government try to spin its own role in the current financial crisis (considering Gordon Brown's previous job). Alastair Darling has the unfortunate problem of appearing condescending every time he opens his mouth in a public forum.

    Sometimes, listening to these politicians, I think they must have spent some time in the Middle East, as drawing a conversation out for ages without getting to the point is a particular aspect of the Arab culture. Having spent years living and traveling in the Middle East, I know it's always a mistake to ask a direct question and expect a straight answer. One must go through the dance of protocol, which can be quite frustrating if you're in a hurry.

    All too often, I think the politicians simply don't have the answers, but are ashamed to admit it. So they try to draw out their responses in a flurry of words, hoping no one else will grasp that they don't really know the answers or won't accept responsibility for their actions.

    The whole issue of government accountability needs to be revisited in the UK (and the US), in my humble opinion. I suspect my British husband agrees.

    And I'm with you about the BBC. Despite their flaws (and the curious refusal to air an appeal for Gaza), in general they do a good job.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Many thanks, paris, for your lovely comment.

    Ah, the Gaza appeal, don't even get me started on that. And dishing out millions of pounds of MY money to Jonathan Ross, well, nobody's perfect, are they? Not even Auntie.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One has to be very good a reading or listening between the lines.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Liza, for your kind comment.

    Greetings from London

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actors on a stage..people enter into certain professions because their ego (sometimes intellect) demands it. Pundits and politicians can't just say yes or no. Any question becomes either a star turn for a pundit, or a patriotic platform for these bloviators.
    Maybe my favorite TV show appeared several years ago on BBC..."House of Cards". Amazing!
    Lyn

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many thanks, Lyn, for your valuable contribution. Have not heard of that show, funny enough. Will have to ask around.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Articulate and well written I enjoyed this. I find it hard to watch politicians on TV as they are completely uncontrollable, in terms of where their points are going. A politicians job hangs on what they say, as they are elected on words and promises. Its rare to find one who will happily take a mauling, running down the clock with waffle makes for good damage limitation. Especially when faced with Jeremy Paxman.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ...intersting perhaps you can understand why politicians in UK get green custard thrown on them.

    They are not listening, they do not represent the people and more and more it's looking like the lunatics have taken over the asylum!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Politicians, I find generally have their own set of realities which feed into their support base. They often seem to avoid the hard and fast rules of normal logic- leaving us all more cynical and yearning for the naive truths! I agree with Tara from Paris Parfait that people are done with the lies, when they no longer support the house of cards built on their collaborative delusions and their scams! Some people in the USA blame Obama for disclosing the truth, a truth they would rather forget than deal with!! I admire his focus and fortitude ! He is a rare leader much needed today for the world ,not just the USA!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Agree with the green custard business, Peter deserved it. I've never liked him, personally speaking. I think he epitomises what's wrong with politics today. Read his recent outing in The Guardian in regards to the attempt to half-privatise the postal service in the UK and you'll see what I mean.

    Dancing, I agree with you wholeheartedly on Obama. I think he is pragmatic, which in my book has earned him a few kudos. Disagreed with the decision to bomb Pakistan so soon into his mandate, but this is the type of situation we will have to get used to, I guess.

    Many thanks for your comments.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What a fascinating post! Your observations on language are spot on as always. I’m especially interested in this topic because my husband is writing a book on media and politics in the US, UK and Japan. I’ll have to show this post and YouTube clip (classic!) to him. Paxman’s interview sounds like a comic skit parody. It would be more funny if it weren’t true.

    I do like the BBC news and have it on my browser’s homepage, but on newspapers I prefer The New York Times for less slanted coverage. I did enjoy reading The Guardian in England and Private Eye especially. Ironically the US’s comic Daily Show with John Stewart does the best job of holding politicians accountable by playing back news clips of their own words. Sometimes Stewart gets in the real newspapers/TV news for his coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Though most American politicians continue to spin, rather than respond to questions, our president actually answers questions.

    Obama would have scored very high in your high school English class. It still blows my mind every time I listen to him. I understand what he's talking about! Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks, Sara, I am a New York Times suscriber myself, and also I am into the Huffington Post.

    Reya, you're quite right. What has impressed me about Obama the most so far is that he talks to people instead down to them.

    Many thanks for your comments.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is all in the small art of words.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Quite right, yoli. Many thanks.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ahh, politicians and their evasion tactics. Listening to, or watching, those exchanges, my mind tends to wander in an effort not to go apoplectic with rage. I look at their various facial ticks or warts or untamed nose hairs or brushed over bald patches. I ruminate about how their wives/husbands could possibly put up with them, or whether they look like a pug dog or a piranha …or maybe a mix of both……

    Another beautifully written, erudite and illuminating post, Cuban. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Many thanks, tessa, for your kind comment.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  21. :-) Chico, es que los políticos aprenden "diferente" el idioma. He oído que hasta tienen cursos de cómo responder o no en entrevistas...
    Tú siempre con buenos temas, Cuban!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cierto es, agu. Muchas gracias.

    Saludos desde Londres.

    ReplyDelete
  23. so true. here in the states it's no better. i think you're right on point with your 3 elements.

    the last part has me laughing, but it's another good point!


    great post.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks, fly, for your kind comment.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I too, get frustrated while listening to politicians. Just answer the question!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Welcome to the club, diva! Many thanks.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...