Sunday, April 06, 2008

Misspoken

The Cons have already done plenty to twist language beyond belief where it suits their political purposes, in particular by extending the definition of "misspeak" to include a false statement of fact which is later exposed.

But Jay Hill's appearance on Question Period (see link to video from here) looks to be taking the redefinition a couple of steps further. As far as the Cons' talking points go, a statement made deliberately and interpreted in precisely the manner intended is also a matter of "misspeaking" when it later proves to be embarrassing.

As a result, it looks like the Cons' definition needs to be rewritten again to include absolutely any statement which hurts their political cause. Which only makes it all the more clear why Hill has been sent out to argue that the proper response is to begin ignoring any "misspoken" statement as quickly as possible - rather than to take a closer look at why the statement was made in the first place.

No comments:

Post a Comment