Britain through the looking glass

Herbert Thornton

I think that The Alice in Wonderland quote - "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less." - hardly does justice to the situation.

When this government issues statements, their meaning tends to vary between meaning very little and meaning nothing at all.

Robin

This is exactly why politicians in general and this Government in particular do not connect with the rest of us.

Worri'd, Win'sor

The noble Telegraph has also been banging on about apostrophes of late. But, then again, maybe they're onto something...

t'errorism - a jaunty colloquial, Northern take on the word

or, terr'rism - no, too Irish

perhaps, 'errorism - non-judgmental, very New Labour. Definitely the winner.

So, no need for PC; just creative use of that old grammatical stalwart, the apostrophe. Problem solved. Where should I send the invoice?

Frank P

"Now it turns out that blaming I****** terrorism upon its victims and using language designed to obfuscate and invert what is actually happening has merely caused confusion."

Well - furbish my old brown boots. What a surprise!

Dave_G

I feel like I'm living in an 'Orwellian nightmare' when I read stuff like this. God help us all.

Roy

This reminds me of the tricks the spam industry do in order to bypass the anti-spam data put there to protect computer users. They do it by not calling a spade a spade but something more congenial and inviting that allows the invading advertisement through the block. It could be said; is another way of messing about with the truth by renaming its description, which is typical of today’s conforming establishment refraining from any see-able home truth.

Robert

It's high time to call a spade a leveric instrument for turning earth or other soft material, generally beveled at its working edge.

M***** terrorists are quite simply vigorous misunderstanders of the true, naturally peaceful, I****. Get it straight, Melanie.

BBCspeak

... and for suicide bombers now read, "members of the bombing fraternity."

Nick Shelley

The word that springs to my mind is "appeasement"

kiwi

Just another example of PC double speak, otherwise known as 'appeasement creep'. I have no idea who originally penned the following, "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end", but has rather eloquently put into words the current mindset, and direction, of western civilisation. Fits so well, in so many situations, in today’s climate, doesn't it?

jose garcia

my favorite word

"freedom fighters!!!!!"

they're heroes man!!!!!

is all the west fault stupid!!!!

Jeremy

Hi Melanie,

So the first objective of the Left is to take control of the language rather than to address the problem. Perhaps if they take control of the language they can simply disinvent the problem. After all, if you cannot call a terrorist a terrorist....then presumably terrorists cease to exist? Hmmmm....an interesting idea, that. What if we called them "flower sellers" instead? And what if we referred to the people they have killed as not having been killed? As in:

"The government has announced today a significant increase in flower selling. A tremendous number of people have not been killed."

There you go! End of problem!

Stephen

Oh god... people bringing up "appeasement" again. Chaning this term, while a bit daft and pointless, is not appeasement. In fact, even if we negotiated with terrorists, that wouldn't be appeasements. Chamberlain was not wrong to try and negotiate with Germany. The problem was he gave in, giving them what they wanted (and violated the sovereignty of another democratic nation, czecholslovakia, while doing so), without any return. If there had been some deal, like "You can unite the Germans as long as the army is not expanded any further, you stop persecuting the Jews and your political enemies, and have certain things in place which would ensure you do not invade other countries" and it was properly enforced (not that any such agreement would have been at all likely) then there would have been no problem.

Appeasement is not negotiating. Even if you expect nothing to come from negotiation there is no harm trying. It is giving in that is the problem.

Augustus

If we, for the sake of the community, refrain from insulting people and in so doing accept that we are limiting freedom of speech, we are offering up freedom for the sake of peace. But simply anyone can take offence to anything they like, and say, 'I have been insulted'. The person who has committed the 'insult' then has to apologize, and take back his remarks for the good of the community, i.e. appeasement towards the multicultural community. But history is full of examples of people saying things which upset the community. Think of Galileo, or Charles Darwin.

So what is this new left-liberal restricted freedom of thought and expression really all about? They seem to have thought up a principle that freedom is not absolute. To appease the multicultural community they seek to limit freedom with their own thought up restrictions, thereby putting freedom itself in the hands of those interested groups who shout the loudest in society. They are in effect chosing social subjectivism (what is good, or what is bad, is determined by one particular group. e.g. Greenpeace etc.) and they call it things like 'a communications strategy'. It's about time the Government abandons such crooked paths and concentrates on the fundamentals of liberalism.

Andrew Adams

I suppose that an example of the government "blaming I****** terrorism upon its victims" would be too much to ask for.

DG

Well if what you say is right Ms. Phillips, then we perhaps stop dressing up illegal Israeli atrocities as 'defence' and use the correct description of terrorism. Or would your anti-PC stance not allow this?

Austin Barry

It hardly matters what the Government chooses to call "I******" terrorism. It is talking to itself. Everyone else knows precisely what is happening.

sauce and sources

This is a gross distortion of a Telegraph report that is itself a distortion of the Audit Commission/HMIC report.

Melanie writes: “A report for the Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government has concluded that the government’s counter-terrorism communications strategy has not been communicating that well.”

This is false. The report doesn't conclude this at all. If it did it would be in the Executive Summary, but it isn't. The Telegraph article Melanie links to reports some observations made among several others in paragraphs 132 and 135 (out of 189). They do not represent in any way the reports conclusions.

Melanie then writes: “As the Telegraph reminds us, the government’s brilliant idea is to refuse to call Islamic extremism Islamic extremism, or indeed to use the I or M words in association with ‘extremism’, ‘terrorism’ or any other word with a negative association, and instead to take their cue from the Home Secretary and, as she herself did, call I****** terrorism ‘anti-Islamic activity’.

This is also false. By saying ”the Telegraph reminds” she attributes what follows to the Telegraph article. But the Telegraph doesn't say anything of the kind. They are her thoughts not the Telegraph's.

One gets the sense that the reasons Melanie is so angry about this is that what she really wants is to inflame passions and divide. Language that doesn't do that has to be fought hard.

And I guess any distortion will do.

Paul

With leadership like this is it any wonder the pound has lost 25% of its value against the dollar since July. Its only a shame that their salaries cant be reduced by the same amount every time they come out with these corkers. In my 57 years I have never known a more useless and vomit inducing Government than this shower and I had to endure Wilson and his ilk !!!!
This country is crying out for some strong common sense leadership. As the great Orwell said to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.

Ronnie

Sauce and Sources, this is not the first time that Melanie's methodology has been brought up.

I find it interesting that she continually quotes sources inaccurately in order to reinforce whatever point she wishes to drive home.

Now, why quote sources inaccurately when she knows that they can be checked? And, in some cases, why bother with these quotes at all, rather than just making her point? In this case she manipulated the Telegraph instead of simply using the government report.

Does Melanie lack confidence in her ability to make her point, or in the point itself?

Joe Strummer

This latest Government lunacy is on a par with searching indigenous white OAPs at airports in their desired hope that one, just one of them maybe an Is****c t*rr***t.

sauce and sources

Ronnie

I have the impression the methodology may be the key. I suspect you couldn't get to where she does without it. There's actually a kind of process., and it can only work if it has various stages.

I'm only an occasional visitor here but I first noticed it in one of her Obama pieces a while back – Obama and the Great Blogosphere Conspiracy, June 12. The original source was a blogger based in Indonesia who seemed wildly unreliable, but he had been taken up by Daniel Pipes. It was clear that Pipes had exaggerated what that blogger said and Melanie then exaggerated Pipes.

I noticed it again in a piece on the International Criminal Court – Utopia deferred, 15 Sept. Her source on this occasion was her husband Joshua Rosenberg who it seemed had himself been conducting a bit of a campaign against the prosescutor. You could read Rosenberg however and see how she spun him to lead her readers to conclusions that Rosenberg's piece did not bear out. I posted as “mainlining” on that thread, making this point.

The same approach is in evidence on “Freedom now stands alone” from last week in the way she uses Gaffney.

She picks often unreliable sources and then misuses them. And it's done with a purpose which is generally to fuel prejudice and hatred.

So it's dishonest and it's nasty. But if you look at the sources you can at least see her doing it.

Barry larking

This is not sensitivity nor even community relations. (What 'community'?)

It is grovelling.

Barry Larking

"... and for suicide bombers now read, "members of the bombing fraternity.""

This is hoplessly extreme. "People with issues around bombing" if you please.

Doge

Classic example of tabloid journalism, from the archetypal tabloid journalist.

Hysteria

ronnie and Sauce - interesting debate and commentary.

Any rabid pro-Melanie types liek to comment. ??

James Hodson

Dear Melanie,

[ahem] I possibly may have mentioned to you recently that I have just reread Anthony Browne's The Retreat Of Reason?

Those who haven't read this pamphlet really ought to.

Worried, Windsor

You critics had better watch out - or you'll be deleted.

I used to be deleted when I included the word 'smear' but I learned my lesson and now I never do.

Oops, silly me.

Twinky Winky Pony Palin

Interesting, don't you think, that while Melanie is restricted to quick posts while travelling, that Verity is also mysteriously absent?

Ronnie

sauce and sources, the methodology is a function of a number of things.

1 Being really smart and committed to understanding whats really going on in the world.

2 Despite 1, a tendancy to see things only in black and white.

3 A firm belief that those who undertsnd the many shades of the human experience are stupid and don't see the obvious truths that Melanie does.

4 A strange need to exagerate everything in case people fail to 'get it'. While at the same time not realising that her exageration actually weakens her case.

5 Related to 4, the bending of 'facts' to fit the instinctive position already taken.

Light blue touch paper and retire.

John C.

Terrorism

Islam

Muslim

Islamic

Why does everyone keep using asterisks instead of spelling them out?

Or is it being done automatically by a filter?

I'm in the USA and this is not a usual thing to see.

Caddyshack

‘This is a gross distortion of a Telegraph report that is itself a distortion of the Audit Commission/HMIC report,’ says Source and Sources.

No, it isn’t.

‘a Telegraph report that is itself a distortion’

So the Telegraph’s in the firing line too!

‘Melanie writes: “A report for the Home Office and Department for Communities and Local Government has concluded that the government’s counter-terrorism communications strategy has not been communicating that well.”’

Yes, that’s right.

‘This is false. The report doesn't conclude this at all. If it did it would be in the Executive Summary, but it isn't.’

Either these judgements are in the report, or they’re not. Who says they have to appear in the executive summary?

You. Who gave you this authority? Do let us know.

‘The Telegraph article Melanie links to reports some observations made among several others in paragraphs 132 and 135 (out of 189). They do not represent in any way the reports conclusions.’

These comments represent the conclusions of officials who have seen the effects of this lunatic government’s approach to fight I******* terror.

The officials witnessed the lunacy, drew their conclusions and these were incorporated into the report's findings.

Here it is:

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/prevent/

And the Telegraph reported this:

‘It quoted an unnamed council director as saying: "Switching language from 'extremism' to 'community resilience' causes confusion.

‘"The key thing is about who the words come from – if they come from a respected religious or community member they will have more impact than if it comes from a government minister."

‘A council chief executive interviewed in the report said: "People are worried about saying the wrong thing and being labelled as racist."‘

If these conclusions had no validity. Why were they either not included in the report or rejected in the report?

‘Melanie then writes: “As the Telegraph reminds us, the government’s brilliant idea is to refuse to call Islamic extremism Islamic extremism, or indeed to use the I or M words in association with ‘extremism’, ‘terrorism’ or any other word with a negative association, and instead to take their cue from the Home Secretary and, as she herself did, call I****** terrorism ‘anti-Islamic activity’.’

So far so good.

‘This is also false.’

Why is false?

‘By saying ”the Telegraph reminds” she attributes what follows to the Telegraph article.’

No, this is a simple lack of comprehension on your part. This latest Telegraph report is but one of a series of incidents in which this government’s attempts to refuse to call Islamic extremism Islamic extremism have led to it looking foolish. The Telegraph report merely sparks our memory to remember all the other incidents when it has been mande to look foolish because of this. That’s why it ‘reminds’ us.

And in comes Ronnie: ‘I find it interesting that she continually quotes sources inaccurately in order to reinforce whatever point she wishes to drive home.’

Oh? And where’s the evidence for this? You haven’t got any.

‘Now, why quote sources inaccurately when she knows that they can be checked?’ Quite, Ronnie. No reason at all, which is why she hasn’t done it.

‘In this case she manipulated the Telegraph instead of simply using the government report.’ No, she didn’t manipulate the Telegraph report at all.

And then ‘sources’ turns up again. Turns out ‘sauces‘ doesn‘t just have a grievance against Melanie Phillips, but a whole host of writers and publications. Melanie Phillips, The Daily Telegraph, Frank Gaffney, The Washington Times, an Indonesian blogger, Daniel Pipes, Joshua Rozenberg. It seems that anyone who dares to point out something that Source and Sources doesn’t like is ‘unreliable‘.

Sources says: ‘She picks often unreliable sources and then misuses them.’ So, quite unlike ‘source and sources‘, all these people are able to making a living out of journalism, but they’re all wrong and then Melanie’s wrong too for ’misusing’ them. And the evidence for this is? Oh, again, there isn’t any. It’s just Source and Sources’ opinion.

‘And it's done with a purpose which is generally to fuel prejudice and hatred.’ As ever, a spiteful opinion with not a shred of evidence to back it up.

Frank P

James Hodson

Thanks for the heads up on the Browne Pamphlet. Have neglected the Civitas website recently and missed it. Excellent piece.

Anon

John C: Why does everyone keep using asterisks? Because they're in PC-what-used-to-be-Britain. Only now the place is full of m----ms and illegal i--------s of i-----c ilk who screech continually about being unwelcome and discriminated against by racist people who just happen to have had the bad luck to live in Britain for several thousand more years than they have and why do indigens have to imagine that m's are the only t--------s etc.

You probably still call it reverse discrimination.

Lee laurie

Ref.Appeasement........
just a thought but if Chamberlain hadn't been so keen on 'appeasement' the Battle of Britain would have been fought out between the Luftwaffe and their Me109s and the RAF and their Gloster Gladiators.
Now you don't have to be an 'Anorak' to know that would have been a bit unfair,so let's hear it for Neville now and again.

Dave

That's our, Mel. Factose Intolerant

Ronnie

John C, its irony. We are making fun of the politically correct BBC.

John C.

"We are making fun of the politically correct BBC."

Oh OK. I'm sorry if I seemed ignorant. I was just afraid that perhaps it had actually become quasi-illegal in Britain to use the words Islamic or Muslim and the word terrorism in close proximity to one another.

logdon

We are in the opening stages of a Global Jihad intent on nothing less than world domination. This is apparent both in Europe and the US where these words are banned in some head in sand crazy scheme by our leaders whilst Muslim groups are quite sanguine about their intentions. CAIR which is the seemingly foremost prong of this movement in the US makes no bones about this with head, Ibrahim Hooper stating that he wouldn't want to give the impression that he wouldn't want an Islamic USA at some point in the future. His method is by constant lobbying using US civil rights law and also the massive funding from Saudi which is quite openly inserting wahabbi teaching into schools, universities and public institutions. Bush with his tentacles in Saudi oil is not exactly defending America in this respect, remember the only flights out of the US the day after 9/11 contained panicking members of the Bin Laden family being shipped back to the safety of Saudi. So the cover up continues apace with Europe gleefully following in his footsteps and Euromed alliances being forged as we read. Brown has just gone, cap in hand to the oil rich nation talking of them sharing out some of the money into our struggling economies. Thus the net of Marxist indoctrination finds an unlikely ally in global economy and together this tangled web forges a seemingly unassailable spearhead. Add in this total inversion of our public language and we witness the greatest threat to our freedoms in world history. If in any doubt scan the Al Qaeda Reader which is a compendium of Bin Laden and his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahari's proclamations. They certainly aren't afflicted by our niceties of political correctness and you'll find the word jihad splattered throughout. The term asymmetric warfare is bandied about, another few words, 'hands tied behind backs', would be more appropriate.

logdon

If anyone is in any doubt as to how this virus of pc has spread and actually where it came from here's a cautionary tale from the good old US who are in the vanguard of defending the values of the free world. All except it's own judging by the imbecelic antics shown here. Seemingly the lawyer contesting this madness has no qualms about approaching the truth of language.

"Vietnam veteran denied right to visit grave of sailor son who was killed in U.S.S. Cole bombing for displaying bumper stickers deemed "offensive" to Islam
To which one of his lawyers observes: “Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians, and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”

"Lawsuit filed in defence of Marine vet’s anti-Islam decals," from the Catholic News Agency, November 13 (thanks to Kyros):

Ann Arbor, Nov 13, 2008 / 06:56 am (CNA).- A Marine veteran whose anti-terrorist and anti-Islam vehicle decals hindered him in visiting the grave of his fallen son at Arlington National Cemetery has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the military order which rebuked his display of the decals.
Jesse Nieto, a 25-year Marine veteran, served two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, was one of the seventeen sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000.

Since 1994 Nieto has been a civilian employee at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. In 2001 he began displaying various decals on his vehicle expressing sentiments such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam=Terrorism” and “We Died, They Rejoiced.”

On July 31, 2008, two military police officers ticketed Nieto for displaying “offensive material.”

After Nieto refused to remove all allegedly offending decals from his vehicle, the Base Magistrate issued a written order ordering Nieto to remove his vehicle from the base until all decals were removed. The order banned his vehicle from all other federal installations, and reportedly prevented him from driving onto the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

The Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center filed a federal civil rights lawsuit this week on Nieto’s behalf against the Camp Lejeune Commanding Officer and the Base Magistrate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit claims that the military’s ban on Nieto’s vehicle decals violates his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law.

“The banning of these decals is political correctness run amuck in the military,” charged Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians, and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”

Thompson speculated that the Marine command would have to eliminate the Marine’s Hymn because “the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.”...

Frank P

logdon

Two excellent compilations; excellent work; keep up the barrage. Thank you.

Verity

Twinky Winky Pony Palin
November 13th, 2008 7:33pm:
"Interesting, don't you think, that while Melanie is restricted to quick posts while travelling, that Verity is also mysteriously absent?"

I'm very flattered indeed. Doubtless, Melanie less so. I've been present and voluble on other threads, though.

sauce and sources

Caddyshack

You attempt to defend Melanie's account of the report's conclusion and include three quotes drawn from the Telegraph in support. Let's look at them.

Helpfully you include a link to the report, but you don't appear to have followed it yourself. If you had you would have seen that not only are they not taken from the Executive Summary, but they are not even part of the main text of the report itself. They are in text boxes and they are examples of comments the compilers of the report received in the course of doing so. To paint them as the conclusion of the report is simply false.

And interestingly only one of them lends any support at all to Melanie's position.

Let's go over the distortions in a bit more detail. They're cumulative.

The starting point is the report. Although you wouldn't guess it from Melanie or the Telegraph's headline, this is quite mindful of the need to use language sensitively. It reports a variety of views, concerns and practices. In the particular section which the Telegraph picks on the conclusion seems to be that, “It would be helpful if the government could take the views of local partnerships into account when determining the best way to communicate Prevent policies.”

Then we have the Telegraph article. The report is first mentioned in paragraph three, but the key paragraph is the preceeding paragraph two: “But the rebranding has spread confusion and is preventing local authorities and public bodies from talking openly about the radicalisation of young people.”

It is not entirely clear whether the author is representing this as his own conclusion, which the extracts from the report are then designed illustrate or whether he is presenting this as (one of) the conclusions of the report itself.

As the latter they would be very misleading, if pressed I guess he would say the former. This point of view would at least be arguable, and one of the quotes from the text boxes provides some slender evidence for this position. The other quotes interestingly enough do not.

Next we have the Telegraph's headline writer, who takes the conclusion to be one drawn from the report itself - ie that the report concludes by claiming that rebranding has caused confusion. He (or she) also includes an apparently made up quote which makes claims which are not really borne out by the article itself and are certainly not by the report.

The report's headline is “Political correctness 'hampering battle against extremism'.” There is then a subheading, “Attempts to turn people away from Islamic extremism are being hampered by politically correct language, according to a new report.”

Putting the words 'hampering battle against extremism' in quotes suggest these are the words of the report, but (word searches confirm) they are not. They are not to be found in the article either. They appear therefore to be the product of an anti-PC agenda, but in an entirely disreputable way, made up.

They then become Melanie's starting point. If she had engaged her critical faculties she might have noticed that they were not really borne out by the article itself. But she didn't. And presumably she didn't go back to the report itself either.

Instead she takes matters a stage further attributing to the Telegraph an analysis of PC which is entirely her own.

In this regard you suggest a simple lack of comprehension, around Melanie's words, “As the Telegraph reminds us...”. Not so, I think. I comprehend very well.

She hadn't mentioned the Telegraph in any way previously and she's attributing these thoughts to the Telegraph. It's a false authority for what she is saying. I believe anyone reading it would understand that the Telegraph had said something along the lines Melanie then describes. But it hadn't.

So we see a series of interpretations. Some on their own just about defendable interpretations of their sources, but together we end up with a process, rather like Chinese Whispers. A interprets B. C interprets B. D interprets C. And in the end what D says has nothing to do with A.

Send 3/ 4d Melanie is going to a dance.

Mary from Illinois, USA

Stop being politically correct for its own sake! If you are describing someone with accuracy then do it. If someone believes Islam should rule the world through any means including violence and terror then that person is an Islamic extremist or a radical Islamist. There is no problem in the USA for whites to be inaccurately called racist when they oppose certain views of the left (such as illegal immigration) Christians are often considered fair game for extreme labels (most often inaccurately applied) All this "correctness" is absurd!

Barry H

Source and sources, I have followed every syllable of the report and there is nothing wrong with Melanie Phillips’ post. Of the conclusions you don’t like, you say: ‘not only are they not taken from the Executive Summary’.

They don’t need to be in the executive summary.

To be officially recognised, all they need to be is included in the official report.

The report does not query these conclusions or disown them. If they’re in an official report, they’re official conclusions.

You bleat on:

‘they are not even part of the main text of the report itself, they are in text boxes’.

Indeed, they are in text boxes, how very observant of you. So what?

The report’s compilers don’t need to repeat its contents over and over again.

Either these conclusions are in the report or they’re not. They are presented for our consumption with not a word said against them within the report.

‘To paint them as the conclusion of the report is simply false.’ It is not false at all.

The people who provided these conclusions did so based upon their observation of how this government’s lunatic policy works in effect. Those conclusions were given official recognition by including them in this official report.

You query this sentence from The Telegraph‘s reporter: “But the rebranding has spread confusion”.

The report (page 40) says: “Switching language from ‘extremism’ to ‘community resilience’ causes confusion.”

You query the rest of the sentence from The Telegraph‘s reporter: “and is preventing local authorities and public bodies from talking openly about the radicalisation of young people.”

The report (page 40) says: “People are worried about saying the wrong thing and being labelled as racist.”

So the Telegraph reporter has done nothing wrong at all.

But you’re not finished yet. You go on: “Next we have the Telegraph's headline writer.”

You say:

‘The report's headline is “Political correctness 'hampering battle against extremism'”’

Yes. You then state:

“Putting the words 'hampering battle against extremism' in quotes suggest these are the words of the report, but (word searches confirm) they are not.”

No. This is the way that newspaper headline writers routinely work when they have limited space in a headline and are unable to include a full-length verbatim quote and/or words such as ‘report says‘, ‘study says‘, ‘so and so’ says and so on.

You say they are “in an entirely disreputable way, made up”. There is nothing disreputable about this at all. It is a perfectly standard form of journalistic abbreviation that is only ever acceptable in a headline. You will see it used in all sorts of publications every day of the week.

Here we see it used in the Manchester Evening News. The headline reads:

“’No tax rise to tackle crisis'“

None of those words put in inverted commas in the headline appear in the body text of the story and indeed those exact words were never said by anyone. The inverted commas are important because they communicate that it is not the Manchester Evening News that is suggesting this, but someone else. In this case, it’s the Chancellor Alastair Darling.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/special_reports/conference/s/1068012_no_tax_rise_to_tackle_crisis

All that the Daily Telegraph has done here is followed that same journalistic convention. Its use of inverted commas in the headline reflects that the paper is reporting the findings of an organisation.

For someone who says “I comprehend very well”, you demonstrably do not. This is a standard journalistic convention used in national and local newspapers almost every day of the week. And you are unfamiliar with what all these newspapers have been up to all this time?

If there is one thing you don’t do, Source and Sources, it is “comprehend very well”, because up until my pointing it out to you here, you haven‘t understood why all the words and phrases you‘ve seen presented in inverted commas in newspaper headlines might not be reproduced like that in the body text of the story.

Your attack on Melanie Phillips goes on, you say of her post “she's attributing these thoughts to the Telegraph”. No, you’ve misunderstood (again).

Melanie Phillips doesn’t say ’The Telegraph says’, or ‘The Telegraph reveals’, she says it ’reminds us’ and then fills in some historic context to this debate.

First, there’s no need for her to reproduce The Telegraph story, there is a hyperlink provided by her. Second, she used the word ’remind’. The Telegraph’s story is not a reminder at all. It is new, that’s why it appears in the news section of that paper.

The word ‘remind‘ is used because the Telegraph’s story reminds us (her and her readership who have been following this development for some time) of the historical roots of this PC confusion. It emanates from the top of this government. That is why she reminds us of what the Home Secretary said.

Given that you struggle to comprehend what you read in everyday newspaper headlines, it’s perhaps no surprise that you struggle understand this.

Verity

Mary from Illinois, USA writes: "Stop being politically correct for its own sake!"

Other than the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, I cannot think of any thread less appropriate for such an admonition.

Have you read the posts here at all?

sauce and sources

Barry H

Your attempts to dispute my earlier comments look pretty desperate, if I may say so. But you seem to have three mains points. Let's look at them.

re “concludes”. You seem to think if X is to be found anywhere in a report you can say the report “concludes” X, even if it is only a third party opinion in a text box. This is absurd. “Concludes” has to mean more than just “says”.

But the report doesn't “say” what Melanie says it “concludes” anyway. It's not really about the “government's counter-terrorism communications strategy”.

You, Melanie and the Telegraph might like to infer something about the government's communications strategy on the basis of one third party opinion quoted in a text box. But it isn't what the report concludes.

Re newspaper headline conventions. I think you are on very weak ground on this one. Tabloids may sometimes operate in the way you describe. But where they do, it's clear it's a kind of shorthand, it tends to be readily identifiable by being in a kind of newspaper-speak, and it's driven by (and maybe forgiven for) the need to get things on a page. None of those things applies here.

First the Telegraph is not a tabloid. We expect a higher standard and above all we expect to be able to rely on it. The Guardian's style guide is available online. On headlines it says, “Also to be avoided are quotation marks, unless essential to signify a quote or for legal reasons.”

Good advice it seems to me, and a standard one would expect the Telegraph to be adhering to too.

Secondly, we are not really in the realm here of a desperate need to save words. The headline itself is only 6 words, but the sub-title is 21. That's 27 all told, by my reckoning.

Re “reminds”. It's the same problem here as with “concludes”. Words convey meanings, and by and large people should be taken to mean what they say. What about “reminds”? How does this word work?

If my wife reminds me that we need carrots and this prompts me to remember that we need potatoes too, my wife has reminded me about the carrots, and I have remembered the potatoes. For me to say that she had reminded about the potatoes would be wrong, unless there was some prior context.

For example I might be talking to my daughter and say: “Mummy said we need carrots, and that reminds me we're short of potatoes too.” But there's no prior context here. Melanie is just saying in effect “Mummy reminds me we need potatoes”. Which isn't true. She hasn't.

By using “reminds” therefore she attributes what follows to the Telegraph. It is a false attribution.

Barry H

Source and Sources, you say:

‘You seem to think if X is to be found anywhere in a report you can say the report “concludes” X, even if it is only a third party opinion in a text box. This is absurd. “Concludes” has to mean more than just “says”.’

No. It is a conclusion of the report because the quotes given comment on the overall effect of these silly ideas: “Switching language from ‘extremism’ to ‘community resilience’ causes confusion.”

And:

“People are worried about saying the wrong thing and being labelled as racist.”

The report makes no effort to distance itself from these findings so how can they not be accepted as conclusions?

“You, Melanie and the Telegraph might like to infer something about the government's communications strategy on the basis of one third party opinion quoted in a text box. But it isn't what the report concludes.”

It is what the report concludes. If it wasn’t, then the quotes from these officials would not have been included.

“Re newspaper headline conventions. I think you are on very weak ground on this one. Tabloids may sometimes operate in the way you describe. But where they do, it's clear it's a kind of shorthand, it tends to be readily identifiable by being in a kind of newspaper-speak, and it's driven by (and maybe forgiven for) the need to get things on a page. None of those things applies here.”

No. All newspapers do, including The Guardian. Here it is doing it today:

“Couple officially married again after 'virginity lie' appeal overturned”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/muslim-couple

The exact words ‘virginity lie’ appear nowhere in the body copy. This is an everyday occurrence in newspapers, whether they are tabloid or upmarket.

You say headlines using this technique are: “driven by (and maybe forgiven for) the need to get things on a page. None of those things applies here.” Rubbish.

You go on:

‘First the Telegraph is not a tabloid. We expect a higher standard and above all we expect to be able to rely on it. The Guardian's style guide is available online. On headlines it says, “Also to be avoided are quotation marks, unless essential to signify a quote or for legal reasons.”

“Good advice it seems to me, and a standard one would expect the Telegraph to be adhering to too.”

But as we’ve just seen, The Guardian does just the same thing. You quote The Guardian’s style guide. But it is just that - a guide. Or is this another word you struggle with? It is not a rule book. Like all other headline writers, Guardian headline writers will often be constricted by space and have no choice but to resort to this method of headline writing.

“Secondly, we are not really in the realm here of a desperate need to save words. The headline itself is only 6 words, but the sub-title is 21. That's 27 all told, by my reckoning.”

Just how thick are you? That is because the main headline in a hard print newspaper appears in a huge point size. Because the paper is then reproduced online where point sizes are standardised, the online version it isn’t going to reflect that.

The headlines are kept the same in online versions so that if people want to dig up something from the online archive they don’t have to see a different headline in the online search results than they would have seen in huge characters in a hard print copy. So that’s another fact of life you’ve failed to comprehend.

And you’re still struggling with the word ‘reminds’.

“If my wife reminds me that we need carrots and this prompts me to remember that we need potatoes too, my wife has reminded me about the carrots, and I have remembered the potatoes.”

Yes. That’s a normal scenario. And what do people say in scenarios like that: “Oh, that reminds me”, which is why you use the phrase “and this prompts me”. How else did you come to think of the potatoes?

All that Melanie Phillips is done is read a story about how state officials have found that
“switching language from ‘extremism’ to ‘community resilience’ causes confusion” and been reminded of how this idea started: with our wretched government.

‘For example I might be talking to my daughter and say: “Mummy said we need carrots, and that reminds me we're short of potatoes too.”’

That’s right. You’re talking about a vegetable and that reminds you of something related.

‘But there's no prior context here.’ Yes. There is a prior context here. There’s a reference to this new report and a hyperlink to The Telegraph. If you don’t get the gist, all you have to do is click on the hyperlink. Why bother mentioning the report and providing the hyperlink if it doesn’t provide a prior context to what comes next?

This latest story reminds Melanie Phillips of why this stupid idea has been tried in practice by state officials. It is related to the stupid utterances of the Home Secretary.

‘Melanie is just saying in effect “Mummy reminds me we need potatoes”. Which isn't true. She hasn't.’

No. She is not. She is saying, this news story reminds us of the government‘s idea to try to avoid calling Islamic extremism what it is: Islamic extremism. The news story illustrates it in practice and Melanie is reminded of what has provided them impetus behind this madness. The two are related.

‘By using “reminds” therefore she attributes what follows to the Telegraph. It is a false attribution.’

It’s not an attribution at all. It is her reminding us all of where this stupid idea has taken root.

Jackie

It’s no wonder Source and Sources can’t cope with the English language.

He is a Walter Mitty character who if you read his posts thinks he has destroyed the reputations of I’ve lost count of how many journalists, headline writers and publications over these last few threads.

It’s in your warped head, Source and Sources.

It’s very different out here in the real world.

That’s why all these people earn a living out of journalism and you don’t, Source and Sources.

Hellooo. Is there anyone in there, Source and Sources?

Or does it just echo around?

sauce and sources

Barry H

Oh dear I am being harangued again for taking quotation marks to indicate... er, quotes.

Well done for apparently finding an example of the Guardian breaking its own rules. I don't want to defend the Guarding but there's an important difference though in that 'virginity lie' is obvious newspaper-speak, whereas “hampering battle against extremism” is not. No one is going to take 'virginity lie' as anything but newspaper shorthand, but, naïve and trusting as I may be, I doubt I am the only person who took 'hampering battle against extremism' to be a real quote.

It seems to me if newspapers are going to do this kind of thing the onus has to be on them to ensure readers are not misled. In my view they failed to ensure that in this instance.

But the bigger problem is that it's not true. The report doesn't say what the headline claims.

You and others have quoted the words in the text box on p40 of the report many times. You insist that despite not being in the report itself they represent its conclusions. But look at them on the page. They sit directly alongside para 32. It's the only paragraph on that page. Lets quote it verbatim:

“132 We found a wide range of sensitivities and differences of views between elected members, police officers, council staff and community groups about the language used when addressing preventing violent extremism. In one interview the term ‘violent extremism’ itself upset a member of the community. In some places, senior partnership managers expressed concern about the impact that language could have on the community. In other places, there was a preference for plain speaking so that issues could be dealt with openly rather than being avoided or disguised as something else.”

Isn't the point here that the words you are so fond of are not conclusions, but actually there in order to illustrate the “wide range of sensitivities and difference() of view()” which AC/HMIC found and is reporting? Surely it is.

So what is the conclusion which the report draws from this? The conclusion comes a couple of pages later on p42. It's in bold and it's headed “Key Learning” and it's this:

“Great care is needed with the language used when engaging with local communities on Prevent issues. The effective use of language can be a bridging mechanism, helping build greater trust and understanding. But language can also be a barrier to success. Local partners need to understand what sort of language is most likely to secure progress on the Prevent agenda.”

So the conclusion contrary to the Telegraph's headline is not that PC is hampering the battle against extremism – with the implication that it should be abandoned – but that “great care is needed with the language used”. In other words that we need to use language sensitively. This it seems to me has to be considered a broad endorsement of what gets called PC, rather than the reverse.

Doubtless the Telegraphs headline writer isn't aware of this. However in two quick moves the meaning of the report has been completely turned on its head.

The article cherry-picked and the headline writer then drew his/her conclusions about the report. But the conclusions are wrong.

I suspect however that I am completely wasting my time on this.

Verity

Sauce And Sources writes: "I suspect however that I am completely wasting my time on this."

Well, at least you got one thing right.

Pat Viliors

Dave, your knee-jerk contradiction of everything Melanie says is getting rather tiresome. Why don't you take your knarled lefty grudges somewhere more fitting, like the pages of the Guardian.

I'm guessing by your silly pun that you think that Melanie's assertion is wrong, therefore, and that 'anti-Islamic activity' is a suitable moniker for suicide bombings and the like. Yes Dave?

Barry H

Source and Sources:

“Oh dear I am being harangued again for taking quotation marks to indicate... er, quotes.”

No, because you can’t understand this most simple of newspaper conventions, I have had to keep spelling it out for you.

“Well done for apparently finding an example of the Guardian breaking its own rules.”

But they’re not rules, are they?

They’re guidelines.

That’s why it’s called a style guide.

Your struggle with the English language goes on.

And why did we have to dig up an example of The Guardian using quotation marks in a headline that don’t represent a quote in the body text? Because you implied this was something almost exclusively limited to downmarket tabloids. That’s why you wrote this:

“First the Telegraph is not a tabloid. We expect a higher standard and above all we expect to be able to rely on it.”

And then you set The Guardian (a newspaper sick enough to pay a huge sum of money for the words ‘Madeleine McCann’ as a Google search term to help raise its numbers of web page hits to impress advertisers, among others) on a pedestal above everybody else.

You wrote: ‘The Guardian's style guide is available online. On headlines it says, “Also to be avoided are quotation marks, unless essential to signify a quote or for legal reasons.”
Good advice it seems to me, and a standard one would expect the Telegraph to be adhering to too.’

Which is why it is worth pointing out that The Guardian is regularly not able to stick to this guideline.

Like every other paper in the land, your child kidnap-exploiting Guardian clearly has to do the same as everyone else when headline space is tight.

You say, Source and Sources:

“It seems to me if newspapers are going to do this kind of thing the onus has to be on them to ensure readers are not misled.”

The readers’ weren’t misled, because the form of words used in the headline never appeared in the body copy.

If you want to find out precisely words in inverted commas in the headline are about, you simply read the story and all becomes clear.

If they’re not in the body copy, then you can be sure those precise words were never used by anyone. It’s the same principle with any story that uses quotation marks in a headline.

You say: “In my view they failed to ensure that in this instance.”

In your warped view, yes. But the world is not designed around you and your peculiar brand of ignorance.

You have that warped view first because you didn’t understand this most common of newspaper conventions and second, because you didn’t like what was in the report and have set out to destroy the reputations of a significant number of people who have reported on it.

This may come as another shock to you, but you are not the judge and jury over what all these people have and haven’t done wrong.

Like all journalists, they operate under a professional code. You have no shred of evidence in this instance of any of them breaking that code.

You say: “But the bigger problem is that it's not true. The report doesn't say what the headline claims.”

It is true. The headline reflects exactly what’s in the report.

The Telegraph’s headline was:

Political correctness ‘hampering battle against extremism’

These two quotes from officials in that report demonstrate this:

“Switching language from ‘extremism’ to ‘community resilience’ causes confusion.”

“People are worried about saying the wrong thing and being labelled as racist.”

You move on to quote this part of the report:

“132 We found a wide range of sensitivities and differences of views between elected members, police officers, council staff and community groups about the language used when addressing preventing violent extremism. In one interview the term ‘violent extremism’ itself upset a member of the community. In some
places, senior partnership managers expressed concern about the impact that language could have on the community. In other places, there was a preference for plain speaking so that issues could be dealt with openly rather than being avoided or disguised as something else.”

You then say:

‘Isn't the point here that the words you are so fond of are not
conclusions, but actually there in order to illustrate the “wide range of
sensitivities and difference() of view()” which AC/HMIC found and is
reporting? Surely it is.’

What are you on about?

The range of ‘sensitivities’ is a separate issue from what actually works in practice in fighting Islamic extremism.

One thing that plainly does not work in fighting Islamic extremism is going out of your way in a ludicrous manner not to call it what it is.

The report does talk about ‘sensitivities’, but it is primarily concerned with what works in Preventing Violent Extremism, which is its title.

You quote all this from the report:

“Great care is needed with the language used when engaging with local communities on Prevent issues.”

Right.

“The effective use of language can be a bridging mechanism, helping build greater trust and understanding.”

Right.

“But language can also be a barrier to success. Local partners need to understand what sort of language is most likely to secure progress on the Prevent agenda.”

Yes. And? Your point is?

None of what is quoted from the report there undermines these two conclusions:

“Switching language from ‘extremism’ to ‘community resilience’ causes confusion.”

“People are worried about saying the wrong thing and being labelled as racist.”

Neither does it undermine this headline:

Political correctness ‘hampering battle against extremism’

You say: ‘So the conclusion contrary to the Telegraph's headline [no] is not that PC is hampering the battle against extremism – with the implication that it should be abandoned – but that “great care is needed with the language used”.’

The report does indeed say: “great care is needed with the language used”.

It also says: “But language can also be a barrier to success. Local partners need to understand what sort of language is most likely to secure progress on the Prevent agenda.”

This is evinced by these two conclusions (the ones you keep running away from):

“Switching language from ‘extremism’ to ‘community resilience’ causes confusion.”

“People are worried about saying the wrong thing and being labelled as racist.”

So rather than being “most likely to secure progress”, this language has hampered it.

The Telegraph’s headline writer has it spot on.