So They Say

[Quasiblogo]

It seems that spokespersons for the current U.S. Administration have introduced a whole new template of
canned words and phrases to structure responses and dialogue. But, the phenomenon is not isolated to
one branch of government, political party or media outlet. Do you recognize any of these below?

"Look" - this can be a subtle projection of assumed authority and accuracy or an oratorical stiff arm.

"So" - as if what will subsequently be said is irrefutably, logically connected to what was previously said

"As you know" - a statement that requires/begs the listeners to at least passively admit that what follows is true

"I'm not going to discuss that" - I can neither confirm nor deny nor acknowledge that I have to divulge anything further about that

"We are focused" - Asserts that what one focuses on is necessarily the correct course of action. Throw in "laser-focused" and who could dare doubt the sincerity?

"We are working every day" - as if doing one's duty should be applauded upfront. With that in mind, "How could the results not also be approved of" - so hopes the speaker"?

Are there other such words, phrases, etc. that have cropped up lately that cause you to immediately think "bureaucrat!"?

 

[JacksBratt]

I know that in Canadian politics... when someone starts a statement with "let me be perfectly clear".. it is followed with pure lies.

 

[Quasiblogo]

I know that in Canadian politics... when someone starts a statement with "let me be perfectly clear".. it is followed with pure lies.

So true, JacksBratt. Ditto down south. And its variant, “To be clear”. That especially sounds fake when the speaker is using a teleprompter or cue cards.

 

[Quasiblogo]

“To be crystal clear” - Really now. I suppose this originally meant “So that you are clear about what I’m saying”. Yet, the tone in which usually delivered smacks of “Just so your thinking is in line with what I’m saying.” To the contrary, it is incumbent on the interlocutor to provide self-explanatory and convincing statements up front.

 

[Quasiblogo]

“As you know”. Please excuse. There is no de facto meeting of the minds. State your position.

 

[Quasiblogo]

“We will choose to respond at a day and time if our own choosing” = feigned pro activity and unwarranted braggadocio. A declared option to act does not excuse past failure to competently act.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I like this reflection on how we communicate. I will keep an ear open.

 

[Quasiblogo]

"The next 'tranche'...": It's okay to use a nicely nuanced word. The first time I heard "tranche" was in a business finance class--something to do with mortgages. Now, bureaucrats, mainly at press conferences and in interviews, will slip in this fancy-sounding word to refer to the next installment or occurrence of something. But watch out for the logical argument fallacy of the fancy word. It just seems that "tranche" is sometimes used to wow and impress, as if the context in which used is self-explanatory or justifying.

Now, for my next tranche--er, post....

 

[Quasiblogo]

“Right?” Today, a spokesperson made several statements of fact and some debatable assertions, each followed by the rhetorical question of “Right?” that substitutes as a “What is it about my airtight explanation that you could possibly refute?”

Well, I don’t always know if this person is “right”, which means it’s incumbent on them to enlighten, not attempt an en masse inculcation. Right?

“Am I getting my point across?” would be more genuine, allowing for give and take, not to mention accountability.

A talking points culture sure has its drawbacks.