Don Watson’s ‘Death Sentence’ Published July 2004  ‘Death Sentence’ is a thoroughly researched attack on those who, in Watson’s view, are killing public language.  It is recommended reading for anyone who writes or commissions writing. It appears that public language is being corrupted on two levels - one being a deliberate desire to use words to mask meanings and the other being mindless mimicry of marketing jargon.  While many of the examples Watson gives, especially in the political arena, could certainly be interpreted as being deliberately obfuscating, others merely highlight the absurd way in which we are starting to write.  Take these passages for example: “Given the within year and budget time flexibility accorded to the science agencies in the determination of resource allocation from within their global budget, a multi-parameter approach to maintaining the agencies budgets in real terms is not appropriate.” - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Here’s an example of why Watson believes that language is deliberately corrupted so that meaning is totally obscured. “The competition policy reforms further improve the performance of government business enterprises through a program of regulation review, enhanced prices oversight, application of competitive neutrality principles and procedures for structural reform of public monopolies.” - AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT Watson claims that passages such as this are penned in an imitative fashion.  The writer mimicking the ‘in’ words of others in the belief that it will make the piece appear contemporary and believable.  What does the writer mean by enhanced prices oversight and competitive neutrality principles?  Is it just someone trying to sound smart or someone using these phrases to make us believe the government is actually doing something? The sad fact is that he is quite right in much of what he states.  We, as a profession, are writing more and more in this meaningless style.  And the sadder fact is, much of it is getting published. Take a look at the literature you write or your company produces.  Or take a look at the next offer from an insurance company, phone company or government department.  You’re certain to find unnecessary, convoluted and mind-numbing phrases that offer enhancements, forward-looking strategies, empowerment, continuous improvement, positive outcomes and value-added benefits. Watson believes this is plain mimicry.  And he’s probably right.  These are the phrases that we are expected to use by our peers.  Try writing a press release, brochure or web page without them and try and gain approval.  Chances are they’ll be edited back in. - not because they add truth or clarity to the piece, but because without them, the piece won’t seem to be in step with current convention. Words are bullets.  They are designed to hit targets and leave an impression.  Is this true of current public language? Email us your thoughts if you have a strong opinion on this topic.

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: PR Book Review: Don Watson’s ‘Death Sentence’. Information Content: Web site page