Have new phrases and words been used when turning on the news or going online to take in the events of the day? Language can be worked to transform understanding and the use of ambiguous language in politics has been around since the earliest leaders in the United States. Going back even further, the utilization of framing to shape perception has existed since the first use of language. How much of an individual’s views are truly their own or has language been used to intentionally divert thinking? With this, the information was gathered which pertains to the shaping of meaning and how ambiguous language can be framed to increase support or opposition, to transform understanding and perceptions in matters that relate to political agendas and issues through media communications.
Most feel that a position taken in regards to political candidates or issues is due to a person’s own knowledge and understanding. But how much of this was by each individual or is it attributed to a collective contribution? An abundant amount of literature exists that discusses how meaning is produced and in work done by Stuart Hall it is stated as to how meaning is constantly being produced and is shared when people interact with each other (4). Through this sharing, whether with those who interact together or through media, meanings are produced and in the political sector, there are manipulations of meaning discovered through the use of ambiguous language.
Going beyond the production and alterations of meaning, there are those that feel the impacts from media are viewed incorrectly. David Gauntlett proposes, that challenges exist in how the media effect model views influences of media. Although Gauntlett’s article, ‘Ten things wrong with the “effects model”’ concentrates on violence, the message is how study focus should be on the perceptions and influences to a society, rather than the effects and behavior of an individual (3). Within society, a tremendous amount of information is conveyed to the public with the many forms of media that now exist. Through these means, perception can be further molded of those in politics and their agendas.
Putting the these thoughts together as to how sharing produces meaning and the impacts that media can have on a society, authors Dietram A. Scheufele and David Tewksbury describe the means in which political language can increase the level of significance for an audience through agenda setting, priming and framing. Agenda setting essentially is the production of molding perception. In turn, opinions that a person holds regarding 
politics can be impacted by priming. Framing, which has existed with the first use of language, goes one step beyond opinions to further sway how an audience understands political issues or candidate characterizations (6). With these methods, personal views can be influenced, without any realization that it has occurred in this manner. There are those that intentionally and openly use these strategies within politics or in hopes to help those in political sectors.
When Frank Luntz, known to many as a GOP pollster and strategist, was asked what guidelines are used to remain ethical when rewording a concept, he replied “If it’s accurate, there’s nothing wrong with it…[it] is not just about creating new products and services – it’s about explaining them in innovative ways” (8). Luntz distributed a political message strategy memo to selected congress members which stated “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it” (6). How meaning is framed is one definition of ambiguity and for matters discussed here, the focus is along these lines and the Luntz statements, where meaning has unclear definitions or possesses two or more meanings that are disjointed from one another (9).
Why does the wording of political messaging really matter? The molding of political messaging has been around for quite some time. Ambiguous language was used by the Jeffersonians due to increased diversity of priorities of the citizens in the United States. Politicians had to develop ways to deliver their ideas which would charm the majority of constituents (5). Beyond the attempts to appease the masses, political communications have been used at times to increase public support or opposition, within wartime rhetoric, during scandals and to frame the ‘them versus us’ mentality (5).
Even though most feel they have an understanding of political policies and social issues of today, perception may have been formed with the use of ambiguous language. One 
such example is that during the George W. Bush administration it was decided that the use of ‘climate change’ was essential. This was based upon advice received from public relations to counter the association between ‘global warming’ and of “melting ice flows and weather catastrophe”. It was felt that a label of ‘climate change’ would help to create new meaning which would represent a naturally occurring event which would lessen perceived implications or significance (7).
Issues that encompassed both the medical field and politics also have seen messaging influences. Strategic use of moral language can be observed in stem cell research debates which focused specific word use to incorporate words like ‘sacred’ or ‘suffering’ were meant to initiate emotion (2). Within the discussion surrounding the issue of abortion, the term ‘partial birth’ was invented. The use of this term was tactical, as it was not a medical term, its creation was meant to manipulate belief and support. Due to this, The New York Times refused to use the term of ‘partial birth’ as they viewed it as a “political battle cry” (1). However, do to the continued use of the term ‘partial birth’, the paper did eventually succumb.
With this information, understanding can be increased as to the mechanics and intention behind how and why such terminology is used or modified. These are just a few examples as to how language can be used ambiguously to alter meaning within politics and then further substantiated by media communications. It is key to note that language modifications to influence public opinion have been used across political party lines and not solely by one side (2). Additional related reading as well as the information gained for this case study can be found in more detail within the literature listed below. It is the hope this provides some assistance towards understanding word use and in hearing what is actually being said and why.
Media and Representation – Home
Ambiguous Language in Politics – Home
Works Cited:
(1) Armitage, Hannah. “Political Language, Uses and Abuses: How the Term ‘Partial Birth’ Changed the Abortion Debate in the United States.” Australasian Journal of American Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2010, pp. 15–35. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41054184.
(2) Clifford, Scott, and Jennifer Jerit. “How Words Do the Work of Politics: Moral Foundations Theory and the Debate over Stem Cell Research.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 659–671.
(3) Gauntlett, David. “Ten Things Wrong with the Video Effects Model” in Roger Dickinson, Ramaswani Harindranath & Olga Linné, eds (1998), Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, published by Arnold, London.
(4) Hall, S. (1997). Chapter 1: The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (pp. 13- 74). London: Sage Publications & Open University.
(5) Schlesinger, Arthur. “Politics and the American Language.” The American Scholar, vol. 43, no. 4, 1974, pp. 553–562. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41207241.
(6) Scheufele, Dietram A. and David Tewksbury. “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.” Journal of Communication, vol. 57, no. 1, Mar. 2007, pp. 9-20. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x.
(7) Taylor, Maria. Global Warming and Climate Change: What Australia Knew and Buried…then Framed a New Reality for the Public. ANU Press, 2014. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130h8d6.
(8) Tice, Carol. “New Word Order.” Entrepreneur. n.p. 31 Mar. 2007. Web. 03 Aug. 2017.
(9) Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors, and David Beaver. “The puzzle of ambiguity.” Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe (2005): 265-282.
Additional Reading:
Canning, Doyle. “Framing For Change: How We Tell Our Story Matters.” YES! Magazine. 19 Jan. 2015. Web. 03 Aug. 2017.
Chau, Justin. Political Ambiguity: Political language and its effect on the public. 10 March 2016. Web. 2 August 2017. https://theaggie.org/2016/03/10/political-ambiguity-political-language-and-its-effect-on-the-public/
Lakoff, George. “Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment.” Environmental Communication, vol. 4, no. 1, Mar. 2010, pp. 70-81. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/17524030903529749.
Image sources:
https://aubreyrodgers4551.wordpress.com/tag/agenda-setting/
https://theupturnedmicroscope.com/category/lab/upmic.wordpress.com/category/comics/page/24/
BISMCS 333 SUMMER 2017 