What do you think?
Rate this book
Doublespeak: From Revenue Enhancement to Terminal Living : How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You
Shows how bureaucratic language is deliberately used to mislead, distort, and deceive
290 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1990
92 people are currently reading
363 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 3, 2022
Q:
Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn’t. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it. Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing. (c)
Q:
Doublespeak has become part of the working vocabulary of public discourse. Thousands of people are killed in misdirected drone strikes but we do not speak of dead children or entire wedding parties slaughtered by aerial bombardment. We speak instead of “collateral damage” during an “aerial interdiction mission.” We do not torture but use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the same “techniques” used by German and Japanese soldiers during World War II that resulted in their trials for committing war crimes. People, especially politicians and other public figures, do not lie but merely “misspeak,” or their words are “taken out of context.” (c)
Q:
There are no potholes in the streets of Tucson, Arizona, just “pavement deficiencies.” The Reagan Administration didn’t propose any new taxes, just “revenue enhancement” through new “user’s fees.” Those aren’t bums on the street, just “non-goal oriented members of society.” There are no more poor people, just “fiscal underachievers.” There was no robbery of an automatic teller machine, just an “unauthorized withdrawal.” The patient didn’t die because of medical malpractice, it was just a “diagnostic misadventure of a high magnitude.” The U.S. Army doesn’t kill the enemy anymore, it just “services the target.” And the doublespeak goes on. (c)
Q:
The Pentagon, too, avoids discussing unpleasant realities when it refers to bombs and artillery shells that fall on civilian targets as “incontinent ordnance.” And in 1977 the Pentagon tried to slip funding for the neutron bomb unnoticed into an appropriations bill by calling it a “radiation enhancement device.” (c)
Q:
In Pentagon doublespeak, “pre-emptive counterattack” means that American forces attacked first; “engaged the enemy on all sides” means American troops were ambushed; “backloading of augmentation personnel” means a retreat by American troops. (c)
Q:
In the world of Nazi Germany, nonprofessional prostitutes were called “persons with varied sexual relationships”; “protective custody” was the very opposite of protective; “Winter Relief ’ was a compulsory tax presented as a voluntary charity; and a “straightening of the front” was a retreat, while serious difficulties became “bottlenecks.” (c)
Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn’t. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it. Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing. (c)
Q:
Doublespeak has become part of the working vocabulary of public discourse. Thousands of people are killed in misdirected drone strikes but we do not speak of dead children or entire wedding parties slaughtered by aerial bombardment. We speak instead of “collateral damage” during an “aerial interdiction mission.” We do not torture but use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the same “techniques” used by German and Japanese soldiers during World War II that resulted in their trials for committing war crimes. People, especially politicians and other public figures, do not lie but merely “misspeak,” or their words are “taken out of context.” (c)
Q:
There are no potholes in the streets of Tucson, Arizona, just “pavement deficiencies.” The Reagan Administration didn’t propose any new taxes, just “revenue enhancement” through new “user’s fees.” Those aren’t bums on the street, just “non-goal oriented members of society.” There are no more poor people, just “fiscal underachievers.” There was no robbery of an automatic teller machine, just an “unauthorized withdrawal.” The patient didn’t die because of medical malpractice, it was just a “diagnostic misadventure of a high magnitude.” The U.S. Army doesn’t kill the enemy anymore, it just “services the target.” And the doublespeak goes on. (c)
Q:
The Pentagon, too, avoids discussing unpleasant realities when it refers to bombs and artillery shells that fall on civilian targets as “incontinent ordnance.” And in 1977 the Pentagon tried to slip funding for the neutron bomb unnoticed into an appropriations bill by calling it a “radiation enhancement device.” (c)
Q:
In Pentagon doublespeak, “pre-emptive counterattack” means that American forces attacked first; “engaged the enemy on all sides” means American troops were ambushed; “backloading of augmentation personnel” means a retreat by American troops. (c)
Q:
In the world of Nazi Germany, nonprofessional prostitutes were called “persons with varied sexual relationships”; “protective custody” was the very opposite of protective; “Winter Relief ’ was a compulsory tax presented as a voluntary charity; and a “straightening of the front” was a retreat, while serious difficulties became “bottlenecks.” (c)
February 28, 2017
intereting terms and giggle because of that. unfortunately not so timed.
August 9, 2008
Interesting book with lots of good examples of "doublespeak;" nevertheless, seems to drive the same point home over and over again.
July 8, 2014
It would probably appeal more to general readers who don't already think about this sort of thing all the time.
March 5, 2013
A great explanation of how in the mind of advertisers better is better than best.
August 18, 2025
First few chapters are interesting. After that, you realize that the rest of the book is a continuous sharing of examples with no/few additional insights to offer.
January 10, 2025
a bit too dense for me (or maybe it’s me that’s too dense …)
August 7, 2022
dated but still worthwhile
Dr. Lutz does a good job showing examples of doublespeak even though he wrote in a time that didn’t have cancel culture social justice, identity politics and fake news . Well , he did have fake news , but we didn’t know it. The only thing missing is an estimate of the damage done by doublespeak. Doublespeak that obscures is different than doublespeak that changes meaning or outright lies. I’d love to see an analysis of the way forty years of doublespeak has harmed us all. Today, doublespeak, postmodernism and social justice has us fighting about pronouns, gender, race etc. ai wish we had translators today what is really being said. I understand that it’s impossible. Oh well.
Dr. Lutz does a good job showing examples of doublespeak even though he wrote in a time that didn’t have cancel culture social justice, identity politics and fake news . Well , he did have fake news , but we didn’t know it. The only thing missing is an estimate of the damage done by doublespeak. Doublespeak that obscures is different than doublespeak that changes meaning or outright lies. I’d love to see an analysis of the way forty years of doublespeak has harmed us all. Today, doublespeak, postmodernism and social justice has us fighting about pronouns, gender, race etc. ai wish we had translators today what is really being said. I understand that it’s impossible. Oh well.
March 24, 2017
Somehow I expected a bit more from this book. It feels a bit too much like its just listing endless examples rather than discussing the issues. Some parts were a bit of an eyeopener. The attempts on making some jokes here and there didn't really do it for me. This was written back in 80's, which is fine. I would be more interesting to read a similar book on current events, although this of course is not a critique of this book.
August 10, 2011
One of the best books on the insidious predicament of doublespeak. The majority of the professors and staff I had experience with at The University of Texas at Austin consistently utilized doublespeak.
January 2, 2021
A handy introduction to the ways that professional talkers talk nonsense.
November 21, 2020
A government bureaucrat trying to hustle some more money on top of his cut from the governmental taxes.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews