News Talk

http://time.com/4116014/paris-attacks-ben-carson/    

     Although I myself do not mind when people use phrases that aren't their own, even if they are cliché, George Orwell did object to them in his essay "Politics and the English Language". His opinions have now caused me to notice when speakers or writers use most of their effort to say more words than needed so that they sound more convincing and credible, but really they are abusing the use of language and being uncreative. One article I looked at had quite a few of these faults. Carson's article can help anyone understand why Orwell might not like "ready-made phrases" and "mixed metaphors".
    George Orwell probably wouldn't like Ben Carson's anti-Syrian refugee article, not because of what it's arguing for, but how it's arguing. The first metaphor he uses is when he says "[stop viewing Islamic extremism] through the lens of political correctness". What does using the metaphor of a lens do for his writing? Political correctness isn't a lens because it's part of a person's conscience that they don't choose to have, and furthermore just an adjective to describe a persons' opinion. Also, what would Ben Carson do if we told him to stop seeing everything through the lens of his political incorrectness? It just wouldn't work. If he really thought changing one's natural opinions was a choice, an easier way of saying it would be to "take a harsher approach, even if not politically correct." The second faulty saying he uses is "radical Islamists and their lone wolf followers". Not only is 'lone wolf follower' an oxymoron, but the use of the term lone wolf would probably be deemed unnecessary by George Orwell. It just adds extra words that serve as epithets with odd connotations and has been used a thousand times, just not as poorly. Thirdly, Carson also says "Instead of half talk and feel-good promises, the US must defend itself with sound security measures", which is also a saying George Orwell probably wouldn't approve of. The first part of his sentence doesn't really match the second, because the US isn't trying to lie about defenses, they are actually mostly open to refugees (as Carson even SAID earlier in the article), so he's just using this as a way to make the reader think the government is lying when they're really just doing what they planned on doing. The ready-made phrases of 'half talk' and 'feel good promises' is just a way for people to think they can relate to and understand what he's saying when digging deeper reveals it makes barely any sense. Seeing it all stripped down makes it look like Carson is just dodging straight-talk by calling the governments' plan a name that doesn't even match what it really is.
    If it wasn't for Orwell's essay, a lot of these things that used to go unnoticed are now very clear to me. Although I normally don't mind these, seeing them used incorrectly and as a ploy is now something I can't ignore. It really makes me wonder how politics would be if tricky English was never used and it was just straight-talk.