Doublespeak vs Doublespeak: An Inconvenient Truth and Policy Peril

      No matter which direction you approach the topic of global warming from, you will always be met with strong feelings and heated arguments. And why wouldn't you, such a universal and troubling issue is bound to generate opposition and controversy. But when examining the issue in a documentary, one would assume that a producer would strive to emphasize the facts above their own agenda. But as the liberal "Inconvenient Truth" and conservative "Policy Peril" demonstrate, facts can be easily manipulated to match the opinions of their intended audiences. They achieve this maneuver through the cunning use of doublespeak, a form of language or imagery intended to misinform or mislead someone into believing a specific opinion or idea. They both claim to be the absolute truth, but both are riddled with distorted facts, deceiving figures, and misrepresented data.

     The 1960 presidential debate was the first in history to be broadcast on both television and radio. Those who listened on the radio thought Nixon clearly won the debate, but those watching on television believed the handsome and charismatic Kennedy had.  It was the first time our nation ever witnessed the power images have in controlling the psyche. Despite the fact that people might have believed what Nixon was saying more, his disheveled and nervous appearance led them to put their faith in his more attractive opponent. Marketers jumped on the phenomenon, and the age of image driven propaganda was born. The producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Policy Peril" understood this, and harnessed the power of misleading images to win minds for their respective causes. 

     In "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore explains that glaciers are receding at an alarming rate. To demonstrate, he shows two pictures of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and in Glacier National Park. One photo is from decades ago and the other is a more recent photo that shows a greatly reduced mass of ice. It convincingly proves his point that the ice is melting at a faster rate than ever before. Or does it? What the former Vice President fails to mention is what time of year the pictures were taken. It is a normal planetary cycle for glaciers to recede during warmer months, but Mr. Gore intentionally leaves the dates out to make the audience believe the ice was receding faster than it really was. 

       In "Policy Peril", the little known minority enunciates its legitimacy by showing a number of expert witnesses they have in their court. But in the rapid succession of flashing pictures, the audience doesn't notice that many witnesses' images are shown more than one time, making the number of experts appear greater than it actually is. In one instance, their key expert, who speaks for about 75% of the film, actually changes location and costume to make him look like he is another witness entirely. The average audience member might miss the likeness and mistake him for another expert, making them believe that the global warming opposition has one more expert on their side than they really do. 

      But in both films, the most unapologetic form of visual manipulation comes in confusing and poorly labeled data. In "An Inconvenient Truth" I counted six times that graphs were shown with unlabeled axes. In some cases, the graphs didn't even have axes at all. In "Policy Peril", I counted another four instances where graphs were either mislabeled or not labeled at all.  By not providing values for their axes, they are able to misrepresent the data as much as they want. A simple change in units can make a set of numbers go from looking like they increase gradually to appearing as though they increase exponentially in a very short time frame. They intentionally left out labels to  misinform, so that people would only notice the dramatic slopes of the lines and not the values they represent. If that information were present, it might bring one to a different conclusion. You can imagine how this would be dangerous when discussing an event with such global impact. 

     Regardless of the way they go about presenting them, what their arguments ultimately come down to are a set of values that differ between the two sides. The central theme of "An Inconvenient Truth" lies around nature, and how it should be valued above almost everything else. Their message is "we must save the planet in order to save ourselves." All of their information centers around nature as the most important thing in the world, and how the health of nature is directly linked to the future of mankind. The makers of "Policy Peril" feel that mankind itself is more important than anything else. Their message lies in the future of mankind's prosperity, valuing human life and economic progress over planetary conditions. Sort of the "as long as we can adapt to a warming world, we shouldn't worry about fixing it" argument. They are two equally valid points that both parties justifiably believe to be the absolute truth. 

         This difference in value structure is a vital part of human nature. It lies at the core of the essence of what makes us individuals. And it is necessary in a world governed by half-truths and misconceptions. So despite the inherent fallacies  and doublespeak in their arguments, no matter how much we personally disagree with them, we must respect their point of view. What we can criticize is the convoluted way they dupe their audiences and present their opinions as facts. 

Doublespeak vs Doublespeak: An Inconvenient Truth and Policy Peril (Very Rough Draft)

      No matter which direction you approach the topic of global warming from, you will always be met with strong feelings and heated arguments. And why wouldn't you, such a universal and troubling issue is bound to generate opposition and controversy. But when examining the issue in a documentary, one would think that a producer would strive to emphasize facts above their own agenda. But as the liberal "Inconvenient Truth" and conservative "Policy Peril" demonstrate, facts can be easily manipulated to match the opinions of their intended audiences. They achieve this maneuver through the cunning use of doublespeak, a form of language or imagery intended to misinform or mislead someone into believing a specific opinion or idea. They both claim to be the absolute truth, but both are riddled with distorted facts, deceiving figures, and and misrepresented data.

     The 1960 presidential debate was the first in history to be broadcast on both television and radio. Those who listened on the radio thought Nixon clearly won the debate, but those watching on television believed the handsome and charismatic Kennedy had.  It was the first time our nation ever witnessed the power images have in controlling the psyche. Despite the fact that people might have believed what Nixon was saying more, his disheveled and nervous appearance led them to put their faith in his more attractive opponent. Marketers jumped on the phenomenon, and the age of image driven propaganda was born. The producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Policy Peril" understood this, and harnessed the power of misleading images to win minds for their respective causes. 

     In "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore explains that glaciers are receding at an alarming rate. He shows two pictures from glaciers around the world, one from decades ago, and then another more recent photo that shows a greatly reduced mass of ice. It convincingly proves his point that the ice is melting at a faster rate than ever before. Or does it? What the former Vice President fails to mention is what time of year the pictures were taken. It is a normal planetary cycle for glaciers to recede during warmer months, but Mr. Gore intentionally leaves the dates out to make the audience believe the ice was receding faster than it was in reality. 

       In "Policy Peril", the little known cause gives legitimacy to its case by showing a number of expert witnesses in their court. But in the rapid succession of flashing pictures, the audience doesn't notice that many witnesses' images are shown more than one time, making the number of experts appear greater than it actually is. In one instance, their key expert, who speaks for about 75% of the film, actually changes location and costume to make him look like he is another witness entirely. The average audience member might miss the likeness and mistake him for another expert, making them believe they have one more expert on their side than they really do. Pretty sneaky. 

      But in both films, the most unapologetic form of visual manipulation comes in confusing and poorly labeled data. In "An Inconvenient Truth" I counted six times that graphs were shown with unlabeled axes. In some cases, the graphs didn't even have axes at all. In "Policy Peril", I counted a further four instances where graphs were either mislabeled or not labeled at all.  By not providing values for their axes, they are able to misrepresent the data as much as they wanted. A simple change in units can make a set of numbers go from looking like they increase gradually to appearing as though they increase exponentially in a very short time frame. They left out the labels to intentionally misinform, so that people only notice the dramatic slopes of the lines and not the values they represent. If that information were present, it might bring one to a different conclusion. You can imagine how this would be dangerous when discussing an event with a global impact. 

     Whatever the way they go about presenting them, what their arguments ultimately come down to are a set of values that differ between the two sides. The central theme of "An Inconvenient Truth" lies around nature, and how it should be valued above almost everything else. Their message is "we must save the planet in order to save ourselves." Their information all centers around nature as the most important thing in the world, and how the health of nature is directly linked to the future of mankind. The makers of "Policy Peril" feel that mankind itself is more important than anything else. Their message lies in the future of mankind's prosperity, valuing human life and economic progress over planetary conditions. Sort of the "as long as we can adapt to a warming world, we shouldn't worry about fixing it" argument. They are two equally valid points that both parties justifiably believe to be the absolute truth. A difference in value structure is a vital part of human nature. It is at the core of the essence of what makes us individuals. And it is necessary in a world governed by half-truths and misconceptions. So despite the inherent fallacies  and doublespeak in their arguments, and no matter how much we personally disagree with them, we must respect their point of view. 

My Personal Black Swan Event

      As an eight year old growing up in Vermont, playing in the woods was a way of life. So when I got bit by a tick, I didn't even notice, so much so that I don't even remember it. It wouldn't be until eleven years later huddled in a wheelchair in a doctor's office that I even knew it happened. That was the day I was diagnosed with Lyme disease, a particularly punishing disease that attacks organs, nerves, and fibrous tissues. It had taken eleven years, countless doctors, dozens of trips to the emergency room, one hospitalization, and coming within months of death for someone to finally make the connection between my symptoms and my time on the east coast. It had been five years since that initial bite that I even noticed feeling ill. I didn't think much of it, but that sick feeling that began as a nuisance would soon change my life completely. Those good grades I had always gotten started declining, the sports I'd always loved playing became history, and the faith adults had always had in me flew out the window. Over the course of just a few years I was forced to change high schools three times. I had to alter my plans of becoming a doctor. But more importantly, I was put on a path that would ultimately lead to discovering my abilities onstage and my passion for the performing arts. Coincidentally, my Lyme would also save me from a path that would have jeopardized it all. After high school I went to a conservative university that was kind of chosen for me for a major that was wrong for what I wanted to do with my life. While I was there my illness became progressively harder to ignore until I found myself sleeping twenty two hours a day and unable to keep food down. Concerned for my immediate safety, my parents flew me home. I left everything there and never looked back. After being diagnosed with Lyme, I spent a year at home in intensive recovery. Slowly I moved from a bed to a wheelchair, where I stayed until finally getting on my feet earlier this year. But the time that I had to lie around and think empowered me to do what I really wanted originally: to go to school for musical theatre. And I owe everything, both the heart wrenching pain of defeat and the incredible vindictive accomplishment of success to an insect no bigger than the head of a pin. Which just goes to show, one tiny thing can change the world entirely.