Citations Needed

Episode 192: How Military Jargon and Cliches Make Mass Death Seem Sterile (Part I)

Nov 8, 2023

This podcast explores how the media's use of military jargon and cliches obscures the true human costs of war. It discusses the sanitization of military aggression through euphemistic language and the need for clearer terms. The podcast also highlights the dehumanization of targeted populations and the unequal valuing of life in war. It examines how terms like 'boots on the ground' and 'precision airstrikes' downplay violence and create distance. It delves into the manipulation of language in reporting on Israel's actions towards Palestinians and the use of military jargon in political speeches to shape public perception of warfare.

54:49

Creator website

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

The deceptive nature of war reporting language obscures the violence and human costs of war.

Terms like 'precision strikes' and 'military footprint' are used to sanitize military aggression and occupation.

Labeling civilians as 'enemy noncombatants' justifies and enables their targeting and killing.

Deep dives

The Language of War: Distorting the Realities of Violence

The podcast episode discusses how language is used to sanitize military aggression worldwide. It highlights the deceptive and pernicious nature of terms like 'boots on the ground' and 'precision strikes,' which are often used to downplay the violence and human costs of war. The episode also addresses the normalization of terms like 'military footprint,' which obscures the aggressive nature of military presence in foreign countries. It emphasizes the importance of accurately describing actions and avoiding misleading language, such as labeling all civilians as 'enemy noncombatants.' The podcast also touches on the use of the term 'genocide' to describe Israel's actions in Gaza, highlighting the need to confront the reality of targeted violence and mass killings. Overall, the episode aims to raise awareness about the power of language in shaping public perception of war and calls for more honest and critical discussions around these issues.

Introduction

2min

The Language of War: Examining Euphemistic Terms in Media and Government

2min

Obscuring Violence: The Language of War

18min

The Unequal Valuing of Life in War

2min

Unmasking the Military Footprint

5min

Analyzing Language Manipulation in Reporting on Israel's Actions Towards Palestinians

8min

The Power and Danger of Military Jargon in Political Speeches

17min

“Israel Called Them ‘Precision’ Strikes. But Civilian Homes Were Hit, Too.,” The New York Times equivocated back in May 2023. “US Military Footprint in Australia Expands to Counter China,” Bloomberg announced in July 2023. “NATO to launch biggest military exercise since Cold War,” the Financial Times reported in September 2023.

Far too often, media accept and parrot the terminology of the Pentagon, never pausing to consider how deceptive and pernicious this language may be. War reportage is regularly littered with euphemisms, metaphors, jargon, and esoteric acronyms that obscure the enormity of the warfare and war crimes waged and backed by the US, warping public perceptions of the violence happening throughout the world in service of US empire.

Some major news outlets, such as the New York Times, have adopted policies not to use terms like “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a Bush-era phrase used to sanitize the committing, sanctioning and outsourcing of literal torture by the US government. More recently, the BBC has said it will no longer use the term “terrorist,” as it is “a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally.” But, troublingly, many loaded, euphemistic words and phrases remain in the vocabulary of leading news media, painting a woefully inaccurate and incomplete picture of both the past and the current state of US-led and US-backed violence around the world.

On this episode, Part I of a two-part series on the language of war, we’ll examine five of the 10 most insidious terms that US media and government officials use to sanitize military aggression worldwide, discussing how journalists, writers, and others in media can use terms that are clearer and more representative of the human stakes of war. Next week, we’ll complete the list of 10 with Part II.

Our guests are Maha Hilal and David Vine.

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts

Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.

Citations Needed

Episode 192: How Military Jargon and Cliches Make Mass Death Seem Sterile (Part I)

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Deep dives

The Language of War: Distorting the Realities of Violence

The Deception of 'Precision Strikes' and 'Military Footprint'

Confronting the Use of 'Enemy Noncombatants'

Examining the Use of 'Terrorism' and 'Genocide'

Challenging Assumptions and Ideologies in War Language

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts