Archiv der Kategorie: English

Charging words with meaning

In times of populism, words are charged with meaning. The meaning of a word actually arises in the mind of the readers or listeners, who link a message with their thoughts and thus develop their personal understanding. However, this effect can purposefully be distorted by additional information. Notably specialized language jugglers, who suggest to the listener that they know what is meant, produce their own messages. Through these influences, the audience is incapacitated and manipulated according to the conviction of the presenter.

How do they load words with meaning?

  • Assuming falsified intentions
    The direct way to a new meaning is to allege directly that the original speakers or writers have certain intentions. Based on this you quote examples that create the prepared framework, the deliberate manipulation. Whatever was originally said is gone. Example: With the statement „The author wanted to tell us that …“ the commentator defines a new meaning. You should especially look for these assertions, because they could indicate a distortion of meaning.
  • Shifting the context
    Less obvious is the shift of the context. By attributing statements to a particular group or by placing them in a historical context, new possibilities of interpretation arise. Since words are in a constant state of change, one can find a negatively charged time in history. The content receives thereby a new conceptual basis, which falsifies the original statements. Shift of context creates a new meaning. Example: The statement „We are the people“ in the context of the year 1989 produces in Germany a different meaning than related to 2014. It is helpful to be aware of the context!
  • Reinterpreting with ambiguous synonyms
    Words are often ambiguous – e.g. the step through the break of the wall gave him a break for eating a break. Content can be directed in a particular direction by using appropriate synonyms, which in turn have a wide field of interpretation. This can be done with several words simultaneously or successively. Example: The statement „Through transparency of the expectations you have more advantages“ is distorted by using other words „With a clear view on the needs you expand your profits.“ The word choice should always be questioned.
  • Covertly contradict
    It is tricky not to pronounce an interpretation concretely but to contradict socratically with another interpretation. This implies a new meaning, without making it explicit. For example, “Honesty is the foundation for communication” might be contradicted by saying, „The own attitude should never create a disadvantage in mutual interaction.” It is clever not to get distracted by contradiction from what is really objected to.
  • Judging titles
    The assumed impartiality of news reinforces statements by emphasizing individual aspects. Thus, a title prepares the readers for the objective news content. Unfortunately, the unbiased information gets quickly lost. Example: The following title “Violence against journalists at Pegida demonstration” focusses on the demonstrators, whereas „Dozens of arrests at demonstrations in Moscow“ is used to target the police. A look at the involved parties as well as the preferred or accused side is always beneficial.

Bottom line: At the end of the day it is not possible to know what someone originally meant. This makes all comments on articles of others above all an expression of the interpreter. Nevertheless, the impression is created that there is a certain, correct interpretation. In this case allegations, context shifts, reinterpretations with ambiguous synonyms, hidden contradictions of facts and judging titles occur. That way third parties, commentators and critics, charge every message of other people with meaning that does not necessarily correspond to the original intention. Be aware!

Seeing is believing

For good reason have religions the tendency of demonizing pictures. The faith is threatened by information. Figurative representations have the strength to convince people that what they see is the reality. It began with symbols and drawings, which were painted on the wall in the darkest corners of caves, probably by torchlight. It continued with depictions of gods and holy stories, which could only be seen at magic locations. Then the painting entered the private households. Since each picture was an original piece of art, only a few people could afford this luxury. With the printer press and the photography all people could benefit from this new look at the world. Eventually picture and tone became easily receivable for many people with the film and television. In parallel the conviction evolved that what you see actually is – “Seeing is believing”.

The picture is however determined by conditions, which prevent that you really get a look at the reality. The three following aspects play thereby a large role.

  • Image composition
    A photo squeezes the motives from its multisensual world into a two-dimensional frame. Outside of the image margin, on the right or the left, above or below, is no component of the picture and thus invisible. The use of a wide-angle lens tears relationships apart. The telephoto compresses distributed objects and produces the impression of proximity. The film type (black-and-white or color) produces additional tendencies. The appropriate orange hue creates the impression of the seventies. In the end the picture maker does not show the reality, but he produces it with its formal possibilities.
  • Context
    The environment, where the picture is presented, creates additional meaning. The image of a driving tank in an article about the invasion in a country or in a report on liberating a region elicits a corresponding impression. Although it is the same photo, it is evaluated differently. Similar motives are likewise differently interpreted. A group of people, who walk a dirt road with suit-cases and children by the hand, can awaken different feelings – depending on whether they are refugees from Syria or the former GDR.
  • Censorship
    At the end the control bodies of a country or a newspaper determine, what you van see – or not. As soon as a decision is required for a publication, the monitoring begins. The criteria does not matter thereby, since the decision gets removed from the potential viewers – for reasons of picture quality (e.g. awkward perspective or blurring), missing importance of the photo, assumed lack of interest, or to hide undesired facts, like critical points of view, messages, or truths. The censorship is already accepted practice. It starts with the rules for good journalism and certainly does not end with embedded journalists, who report on a military action – nobody is irritated by the influence of the military on the publication.

The changeability of pictures is not an achievement of today’s Photoshop age. Pictures were always falsified. The illustration shows for example, how Stalin dealt with comrades, who were fallen in disgrace. He simply let them retouch from the pictures. The media suggests neutrality, if it speaks of the filter bubble and populist reporting. If you look and listen closer, then you hear the tendentious tone in each newscast. So-called neutral fact checking does not help any more.

Bottom line: What you see in a photo is always the result of filtering one or several aspects. This happens consciously or unconsciously, with the best hidden agenda or bad-willingly, supporting or obstructing the viewer. In any case filters are impacting, which falsify the reality. In changing a well-known saying: One cannot not falsify pictures. An indicator, which can only be checked with difficulty, is the origin of pictures – if you can find it. Thus, there is no reason to believe something, as soon as you see it.