God's Week Has 7 Days
What If . . . ?
Nov 28
Every now and then, we hear of companies getting into trouble for stretching the truth in advertising. The ad watchdogs work hard to ensure that we aren't sold a false bill of goods. Producers of mouthwash can't say their product kills cold germs if they can't prove it. Ice-cream look-alikes without any real ice cream have to be called dairy-flavored treats. And reconstituted orange juice can't be called freshly squeezed.
What if truth in advertising were spread a bit further into the world of business? What if, of all things, it extended to doublespeak?
You know about doublespeak. It used to be the private preserve (native tongue?) of bureaucrats. They're the folks who gave us revenue enhancement instead of taxes, and replaced killing with unlawful deprivation of life. A new art form was reached when the Pentagon spent $2,000 for a hexaform rotatable surface compression unit. It turned out to be a 16-cent nut, to fit on a bolt.
When someone is described as motivationally deficient, that means lazy. And if our company goes through a permanent negative adjustment or a fourth-quarter equity retreat, you can bet it's time to update that résumé because a work-force imbalance correction or release of resources may be looming, and we could be vocationally relocated.
Doublespeak is corrupting and manipulative, says Rutgers professor William Lutz, author of a book on the topic. At its worst, it is language designed to limit or even eliminate thought. At its least offensive, it is language that distorts by inflating the
importance of the insignificant or by minimizing the importance of the significant.
What if businesses weren't allowed to use doublespeak? What if they were legally forbidden from using sanitized labels like downsizing and rightsizing and had to say instead, We're dumping employees?
What if the burger chain were forbidden to say (as one did) that it was finally going to reveal the ingredients of its fast-food because of increasing consumer interest? What if it had to admit plainly, We are being pressured by the attorneys general of three different states. . . .
Imagine the church being included in the new truth-telling blitz. Instead of reporting, We are more concerned with quality than quantity, the church might say at its annual business meeting, We had another membership loss last year.
The upwardly mobile pastoral candidate could no longer say, I feel led to accept your invitation to a wider and more fruitful ministry, but would have to acknowledge, I'd love the chance to lead your large and wealthy church.
Such a regulation would put a crimp into some door-to-door visitation programs. Instead of claiming to be conducting a religious survey, a truth in religion doctrine would require door-knockers to say, I'd like to get my foot in the door long enough to plug our church.
Editors' rejection slips would have to be rewritten. Instead of telling the writer (as I have been told), We are temporarily overstocked with this type of material, the rejection slip might have to say, These kinds of articles are a dime a dozen.
Instead of saying, We feel your article does not meet the current needs of our readers, it might have to read, Sorry! We think your article just isn't very good.
What if a Christian commitment to honesty and speaking the truth in love governed all public communications of both business and the church?
What if . . . ?
God's Week | Preface | Forward | About the Author
Print
Email
