SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (16708)1/3/2006 3:24:43 PM
From: Sully-   of 35834
 
    Now why would [the New York Times] overlook such a 
    critical piece of information even when reporting on the 
    opening of a criminal investigation of the leaks?

Timesspeak: Specialists at work

Power Line

In 1984 George Orwell portrays the importance of language in controlling thought. The totalitarian regime depicted in the novel had developed its own language -- Newspeak -- to meet the ideological needs of Oceania. In the novel's appendix on the language, Orwell explains:

In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles of the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist.
Orwell adds: 
    The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium 
    of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper 
    to the devotees of IngSoc [the regime's ideology], but to 
    make all other modes of thought impossible.
And so today, in the furor created by the New York Times stories by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, the Times and its media allies seek to impose the yoke of their thought on readers in order to stifle if not control the debate -- "to make all other modes of thought impossible." Let's call the lingo "Timesspeak" in honor of Orwell.

Here are two critical examples of Timesspeak in action:

1. References to the NSA eavesdropping program as "domestic spying." See, for example, the Times story on the investigation of the leaks underlying the story:

<< "Justice Dept. Inquiry into leak of domestic spying." >>

Contrary to the language used by the Times, the program is one of foreign intelligence surveillance; it is not a domestic spying program. Like the authorities in Oceania, the Times seeks to dictate the politically correct attitude to the subject.

2. Implications that the "nearly a dozen current and former government officials" who leaked the highly classified information on which the Risen/Lichtblau stories are based are "whistle-blowers." The linked Times story quotes Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project:

<<< "The whole reason we have whistle-blower laws is so that government workers can act as the public's eyes and ears to expose illegality or abuse of power." >>>

Yet no whistle-blower law authorizes government employees to report allegedly illegal conduct to the New York Times.

On the contrary, federal law (18 U.S.C § 798) precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information in which the Times articles on the NSA program trade. The Times articles themselves involve an epidemic of lawbreaking among current and former government officials -- a fact the Times conceals from its readers by failing to disclose the applicable law. Now why would it overlook such a critical piece of information even when reporting on the opening of a criminal investigation of the leaks?

powerlineblog.com

newspeakdictionary.com

nytimes.com

www4.law.cornell.edu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News