It’s remarkable the degree to which language can paint a picture of something being good or bad, or someone being trustworthy or unreliable, without actually making any factual claims. The more aware of this you become, the more you start seeing it all over the place. Language is often not neutral and objective even when it professes to be. We all know that language can have positive or negative connotations without actually claiming anything specific, but I think it’s easy to underestimate how often this occurs when we think we’re receiving pretty neutral information.
For instance, two journalists may report on the same undisputed facts, while one makes those facts seem negative, and the other makes them seem positive, without either of them saying anything that’s actually untrue. Word choice does the hard work. Afterward, it’s easy to hide behind this lack of untruths, claiming neutrality, even though language choice strongly implied a particular conclusion.
But of course, if you are purposely making something seem bad or good (independently of the facts), you have an opinion, and you are potentially altering the reader’s perceptions of the facts. The facts, as a reader perceives them, are not divorced from context and implication.
Of course, it’s sometimes good to express an opinion, to call something out as bad or good. But when it’s done on purpose via word choice alone, it can be a sneak attack that hits us below our conscious awareness. It can determine our opinions about the facts without us even realizing it. And when done with sufficient skill and subtly, we may come away falsely assuming that the author had a neutral point of view, that they just plainly told us the facts.
Consider how many different ways there are to express the facts about these specific situations:
Situation A
(1) It is known that revenues will be the same as last month.
(2) Haiden explained that revenues would be the same as last month.
(3) Haiden said revenues would be the same as last month.
(4) According to Haiden, revenues will be the same as last month.
(5) Haiden admitted revenues would be the same as last month.
(6) Haiden could not deny that revenues will be the same as last month.
(7) Haiden confessed that revenues would be the same as last month.
(8) Haiden had no choice but to admit that revenues would be the same as last month.
Situation B
(1) An insider close to the situation explained that the action was premeditated.
(2) The action was premeditated, as Remy later informed us.
(3) Remy filled us in that the action was premeditated.
(4) Remy said the action was premeditated.
(5) Remy told us the action was premeditated.
(6) Remy claimed the action was premeditated.
(7) Remy was going around saying that the action was premeditated.
(8) If you believe Remy, the action could have been premeditated.
(9) Remy made the claim that the action was premeditated.
(10) Remy tried to claim that the action was premeditated.
(11) Remy wanted people to believe that the action was premeditated.
Situation C
(1) We learned that the allegations against Pat are entirely false.
(2) Pat explained that the allegations were entirely false.
(3) Pat said the allegations are false.
(4) Pat denied the allegations.
(5) Pat claimed the allegations were false.
(6) Pat would not admit to the allegations.
(7) Pat refused to admit the allegations.
(8) Pat is playing the part of the victim and telling people the allegations are false.
(9) Pat is still claiming the allegations are false yet hasn’t given us a shred of hard evidence.
Situation D
(1) Santana is sexually liberated.
(2) Santana has a preference for having multiple sexual relationships.
(3) Santana enjoys having sex with different partners.
(4) Santana has a variety of sexual partners.
(5) Santana is not choosy about sexual partners the way most people are.
(6) Santana is promiscuous.
(7) Santana is a slut.
Situation E
(1) We learned additional useful information about the story by talking to Peyton again.
(2) Peyton later added additional information that helped us better understand the story.
(3) Peyton told us more information about the story.
(4) Peyton’s original story wasn’t complete.
(5) Peyton had omitted information in the original telling of the story.
(6) Peyton had prevented us from fully understanding the story by leaving out information.
(7) Peyton did not tell us the whole story.
(8) Peyton left out important parts of the story.
(9) Because Peyton left out important parts of the story, we were misled about what had really taken place.
(10) Peyton misled us about the story.
This essay was first written on October 19, 2018, and first appeared on this site on October 29, 2021.
Comments