Why do people who are apparently critical of misleading language in communications always take the o-so-very-obvious angle of just having a bit of fun poking fun at the phenomenon, by for instance trying to string together as many as possible examples in their mocking descriptions?
In the Irish Times, Frank McNally was writing about John Murray of RTE The Business & Morning Ireland and his new book Now That's What I Call Jargon (New Island). Having avoided any making any serious point about jargon, he ended the piece:
"In the meantime, Now That's What I Call Jargon is being rolled out countrywide with a view to running it up the flagpole and seeing if any revenue-generating units salute it, going forward. Or put it another way, it's available in all good bookshops now."
We need to get more serious in our critiques of the euphemisms, ambiguity and doublespeak of business and politics; and in the first place we need to understand where the urge to opt for all these alternative phrases and expressions comes from, and point to any sinister element in the resulting obscuring of the truth. I look forward to seeing whether or not John Murray tries to do so in his book.