If I were emperor for a day (or merely the FCC chairman), I would be tempted to ban the word “unbelievable” from live sports broadcasts. The word shows up in nearly every game. A clutch home run or a tough putt, and the announcer tells us the play is beyond belief.
As emperor (or FCC chairman), I might allow the word if a player flies like Superman or Elvis strolls into the broadcast booth. Otherwise, “unbelievable” is out.
Remember the most famous call in sports? The U.S. men’s hockey team defeated the Soviet Union in the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics.
As the game ended, ABC play-by-play man Al Michaels bellowed, “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!”
Sitting next to Michaels was his broadcast partner Ken Dryden, the NHL hall of famer.
Dryden offered a single word: “Unbelievable,” he said.
No, Ken, no! We just agreed that we do believe!
I know this is a silly pet peeve. Out of respect for free speech, I won’t ban the word. But I’ll still complain when I hear it.
Verbal exaggeration is harmless in sports. In politics, it’s dangerous. Intentionally or not, politicians adopt words and phrases to make policy ideas more palatable. In his inaugural address as mayor of New York City, socialist Zohran Mamdani praised “the warmth of collectivism.”
You’ve heard the words politicians use to nudge public opinion. Here are several:
When politicians take your money, they use neutral phrases: “revenue enhancement,” “closing loopholes” and “dedicated funding.”
Words like “historic” and “landmark” inflate the importance of an idea. It’s not just reform, it’s “transformational” reform. The word “crisis” adds urgency to a policy change. Labels such as “sustainable” or “equity” sound good, but their definitions are squishy. And then there are the chilling euphemisms: “collateral damage,” “neutralize the target” and “enhanced interrogation.”
These linguistic techniques are not new. George Orwell — that prophet of political manipulation — warned us decades ago in his dystopian novel “1984.” Big Brother’s slogans inverted reality: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”
Three years before he published “1984,” Orwell wrote an essay in which he lamented the debasement of language. Orwell warned of meaningless words and overused metaphors. “The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism,” he wrote.
Orwell was especially wary of how politics can twist language. “Political language,” he wrote, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity,” said Orwell. Clear language requires clear thinking. When you wrestle with ideas, it helps you persuade with sincerity.
Too often, political leaders use language that sells but does not inform. They rely on advisors, polling and focus groups to spin ideas for voters. They emphasize the benefits and ignore the costs of a policy. Message trumps substance.
Enough of that, please. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Trust that the voters are smart enough to understand. Speak plainly and with integrity.
Unbelievable? Nope.
I believe in miracles.
Michael J. Reitz is executive vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Politics needs less messaging and more meaning | Reitz
Reporting by Michael Reitz / The Detroit News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
