READING RESPONSE PAGES 177-199

Page 187
#1
What, according to Lutz, is double-speak? What are its essential characterics?
William Lutz describes double-speak as a blanket term for language which pretends to communicate
but doesnt, language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant attractive, or
at least tolerable. He says double-speak are words that avoid responsibility, deny real meaning, and shift
importance. It references similar words but doesnt necessarily express what the real situation is. Lutz tells us
that lots of people use double-speak to mislead, distort, deceive, inflate, circumvent, and obfuscate honestly I
think he puts that one in to show us what he means, because all those words mean relatively the same thing, but
they get more elaborate and more difficult to understand the further you read them. He goes on to give many
examples of this type of language. One is how stores now-a-days say program to reduce inventory shrinkage
instead of just explaining they dont want you to steal. Which one gets the point across? Someone who isnt
very well educated might think that because the store doesnt have any dont steal signs that it might be okay
to steal something from this store. If the company would just come right out and say it costumers might feel like
the store is less pretentious and better than them so to speak. Lutz also tells us about some of the essential
characteristics of double-speak. To most people it could be explained as plain-old gobbledygook, but to go
further into its make-up, more complex words are required. It is a euphemism in the evil sense of the world. A
euphemism is an inoffensive or positive word or phrase designed to avoid harsh, unpleasant or distasteful
reality. He uses the example of saying passed away instead of saying died, that type of euphemism is not
harmful, it is in fact helpful. It uses a different way of saying things in order to avoid harming someones
feelings. But when a euphemism is used to not tell the public the truth about a political event, then it becomes
harmful because we are left in the dark about things that apply to our wellbeing. I think this also applies in
business, if someone is buying a house and the seller does not inform the buy of some underlying property
damage, then they are keeping them away from crucial information for their own benefit. And that is essentially
what the motive behind using double-speak is all about, avoiding the easier said truth for personal gain.
Whether the gain be money or not losing your job over something you did and you werent supposed to do, it all
is the same in the eyes of someone who believed you for what you said when they find out that you indirectly
lied to them. In the end, Lutz says our future is that of 1984 if we keep letting others think we are okay with this
form language invading our society, and this is probably very true. Eventually no one will understand what
anyone is talking about but we will all agree with it because it sounds better than simpler terms.

Page 187
#4
Why, according to Lutz, does doublespeak continue to spread as the official language of public disclosure?
In your own opinion, is doublespeak as widespread today as when Lutz wrote this article? What examples can
you provide to back up your opinion?
According to William Lutz, double-speak continues to spread as the official language of public
discourse for many reasons. One being that it allows coworkers to converse with each other in a quicker, more
efficient way, because using jargon-like terms makes everyone feel like they belong to an elite group within in
company and are not left out. Public speakers use it overwhelm the audience into agreeing with them instead of
being able to breakdown what is being said to them. It is also used to make others feel more important and less
undervalued. For example, Lutz says fiscal underachievers is used to describe the slums and ghettos to make
them feel like they arent as bad as they really are. In my opinion I think double-speak is the same today as it
was William Lutz wrote this article. But I think now, we expect it. When someone in the public eye speaks in an
everyday way, we tend to see them as less educated, that they are using small, known words because they arent
familiar with more complex ones. Either that or they are talking down to us because they think we wouldnt
understand their big words. Right now as I think about this fact, Im starting to worry about that. I wonder how
it got to this point, where not being able to understand someone makes them smarter than you. That means we
will trust the people who double-speak because we believe them to be far more developed linguistically than
people who come right out and tell us the plain truth. We listen to politicians who we cant understand, but
because of their higher intelligence level that is revealed by their higher grammatical value, we vote for them
as the right candidate for the job. In the workplace, we see others who can present themselves better in meetings
and professional exhibitions as more adept at their jobs, even if they double-speak. This type of language will
probably progress into the future and continue to worsen and fill our lives with tons of things we cant
understand.


Page 198
#5 & #7
According to Bok, what role does trust ply in the workings of democracy? What happens when public trust
turns to distrust? Explain. Bok believes that when charges of deceit have been levelled it is important for us not
to rush to judgment, to give opponents the benefit of the doubt. For false accusations of lying and cheating can
add to the burden of deceit in a society as well, and to the loss of trust, as can claims that critics lack patriotism
and the general free-for-alls about lying that I have qualified as shouting-matches. In what ways do false
accusations and claims add to the burden of deceit?
When public trust turns to distrust, there could be mass chaos. People might start riots, even
threaten to harm or kill the leaders who deceived them. No one likes to know they were not worth the truth, but
when the no one is everyone, they tend to band together and fight for their right to know what is going on their
own world, country, state, or city. Some choose to peacefully boycott by holding rallies or calling for many
people to avoid a certain person or place. A democracy will work with lies, but it shouldnt. The persons who
are operating under that society need the truth, even if everything doesnt come out in their best interest. It is
better to have an honest failing government than a deceitful working one. At least no one will have to feel like
they are being lied to about the conditions of the workforce, the army, the housing market, the city council and
so much more. Why would anyone want a lying leader? No one does, unless they dont know they are being
lied to, because then the leader tells them everything is working smoothly when under the surface, nothing is
working at all. But the people who dont see the problems, cant help to fix them, maybe if they had a chance
they could come up with the best solution possible for the situation. They wont know because they wont get a
chance if they are constantly being forced to distrust their own government. False accusations and fake claims
add to this burden because not only is the society being lied to, but then the media on top of that is creating
more problems for them to deal with. Dont the people have enough to face without more lies about the lies
being thrown at them? For example, say our government was completely failing, but the politicians are saying
its not happening even though we can all see it is. We are trying to cope with no money, no jobs, no houses,
basically no structure of government at all, while the governors and president are telling us not to worry, and
then the tabloids tell us it was all so-and-sos fault. We dont even have time to blink before that person is on
trial or is being killed by our neighbors, and in the end it comes out as not true at all. And during that whole
time, someone focused on that aspect of the news could have been trying to figure out how to correct our failing
government. It is as Bok suggests, we shouldnt rush to judge any accusations as they could just as well come
out false. And what would be the point of believing a fake claim for so long a time that affects our ability to
care for the first lie we were told? It takes our focus away from real problems at hand for no reason at all. The
lies are enough of a distraction we dont need more on top of that.