In the space of the last twenty years, the amount of information to which which we are exposed has increased by many orders of magnitude. The `media revolution' is evident everywhere and as a result of our seemingly insatiable appetite for information, new forms of communication - such as satellite TV and the Internet - are flourishing.

One of the less obvious effects of the technological advance in communications is the emergence of an abbreviated language employed by the media, especially in news reporting. The main function of this `media shorthand' is to compress ever greater amounts of information into the available airtime - a factor of central importance to broadcasters competing in the `global market'. However, the desire for concision in the media often results in loss of `context' - a serious consequence for those concerned with interpretation and meaning in news and current affairs. Indeed, the manipulation and mis-use of language by those in power and authority has a history stretching back hundreds of years and is a technique which is used in the creation of what Noam Chomsky has called "necessary illusions". In this process, fashionable words and phrases can come to assume alternative meanings or be employed incorrectly in order to simplify complex ideas and silence dissenting voices. Displaying remarkable prescience, George Orwell, in his novel `1984', describes just such a state of affairs. He writes of a language "designed to diminish the range of thought".

When presented with an argument or opinion which runs counter to `accepted wisdom' it is reasonable to expect some sort of justification and explanation to substantiate the views being put forward. Usually, the elaboration of these novel ideas will require lengthy debate and involved discussion in order to determine their relevance and merit. Unfortunately, this is rarely accomplished or even attempted. Because of the need for concision, controversial ideas tend to be reduced to their simplest terms, resulting in the omission of important details and relevant facts. In presenting unorthodox views on American television, Chomsky has noted that:

"you must be able to make your point between two commercials" and that "the beauty of concision is that [it only allows you] to repeat conventional thought".

The exclusion of extended debate by the media is justified, in part, by practical and economic considerations, but it should be borne in mind that the preservation of `popular truths' can be instrumental in promoting the interests of Government and Big Business to the detriment of `the little guy'. So even though we have, to some extent,overcome the historical problem of information provision by a literate elite, the acceptance of a corrupt terminology can prevent informed opinion from challenging the status quo.

For decades, advertisers have made use of various methods of information compression in order to market products in the most economical and effective way. In terms of coverage, a continuous stream of short, simple messages over a long period of time is highly successful and this explains the popularity of slogans and quotes, which make `good copy' and which lend themselves to repetition by the media. With consumer products, an approach such as this makes sense, but there are limits to the amount of meaning and substance that can be conveyed in, say, a thirty second commercial and so it is questionable whether such brevity is helpful or desirable in areas such as news and political debate.

Technological innovation has facilitated the physical compression of data, and the contextual compression that this permits has given rise to a highly sophisticated and intense mode of expression. Many products are marketed using exclusively visual messages where the product is implied using a heavily stylised and symbolic syntax - Marlboro cigarettes, Guinness and Levi jeans being a few recent examples. It is interesting to note then, that in the 1970's, (unsuccessful) experiments to determine the ability of chimpanzees to `talk' employed a visual language. It is not inconceivable that marketing organisations are employing a similar methodology in advertising campaigns geared towards countries with high levels of illiteracy.

The economic climate of our time explains the adoption of a symbolic marketing language by large corporations. Hence, as stated by a Coca-Cola representative in Latin America:

"[we are aiming at] non-verbal literacy' in third world countries, where a `consumer will simply respond to the image or logo of the product".

Of course, `designer' products symbolise much more than the items themselves and `name brand' marketing relies heavily on the inclusion of a `lifestyle' angle. Perhaps it is the portrayal of beautiful, happy, middle-class people in adverts which explains the appeal of Western products in Third world countries. Again, Coca-Cola have stated: "we're not selling Coca-Cola - we're selling a dream".

A population accustomed to responding to advertising icons will have few complaints when the same methods are employed in the political arena. And whilst a visual language can be helpful in communicating experiences which defy language - as art has done for thousands of years - it can also be an agent of political propaganda. The second world war saw the emergence of radio as a means of generating public support for the war effort. Both Stalin and Hitler recognised the power of propaganda not only as a method of indoctrination and intimidation, but also as a means of creating a `personality cult'. In modern Western societies, political dogma channelled through the media retains the formal elements of commercial advertising in order to `manufacture consent' whilst the enormous expense of effective `PR' ensures the dominance of a few, well-funded parties. By the clever use of language, even harsh media criticism of government can be be deceptively restrained.

The British proclivity for euphemisms is exemplified in the recent (incorrect) use of the term `sleaze' to describe political corruption among high ranking ministers. Media restraint in using critical language against host governments does not, however, extend to foreign governments, especially those of the third world who, we are told, regularly participate in `corrupt practices'.

Public literacy in the simplified terminology is acknowledged by the media, where the slavish repetition of slogans and `sound bites' creates an illusory perception of integrity. Both Bill Clinton and John Major have crusaded for a return to `family values' and `law and order' - catchphrases whose banal simplicity serves to obscure the more complex issues of housing, unemployment and deprivation that are involved. Are we to assume that a return to family values will be achieved by the enforced marriage of `irresponsible' single mothers or `protective custody' for the `unfortunate children' born out of wedlock? Such a conclusion is clearly absurd, but is consistent with the logic of the former sentiments.

A further absurdity is supplied by Tory backbencher Olga Maitland, who called for a debate on `the role of the family in British society' using terminology which may win votes, but whose content is not, and should not, be the concern of government. Even a cursory glance at the history books will tell us that `family values' are evolving as a result of religious and domestic changes as well as many other social developments such as women's liberation and sexual freedom - factors which only have indirect links to government policy. Note also that Ms Maitland is reportedly a member of that obscure sect known as the `moral majority' (a term borrowed from American political propaganda) - the same group who recently blocked a bill aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence.

The introduction of school `league tables' in Britain is a further example of a serious political issue being given a `makeover' with the 'Performance Ratings' mechanism. Performance ratings are a device borrowed from marketing and make sense only in relatively simple analyses of sales trends and the like, but which cannot reflect the complexity of socio-economic variation in local institutions. The `free market' rationale suggested by such campaigns is that parents should go for the best performing `product' - a redundant concept in this instance given that children are not permitted entrance to schools outside the borough in which they live. Through media language, we are presented with a `quick fix', being told that we have `a right to demand the highest standards' from public services (One wonders whether these `rights' extend to the assessing the House Commons or the House of Lords where `performance standards' are effectively unregulated and closed to public scrutiny).

The compression of complex political problems is also discernible in media debates. For example, the massive problem of air pollution caused by vehicle emissions is generally debated in very indirect, abstract terms, where issues such as road building, public transport and `the importance of the car economy' are discussed openly, yet the real problems of consumerism, the oil economy, political corruption and indifference to alternative energy sources etc, are rarely considered.

Similarly, the last five years has seen renewed interest in the drugs debate on TV, where the familiar slogan of `the war on drugs' presupposes an `evil scourge' a view which, at the outset, serves to compromise intelligent debate. In fact, a large proportion of the public are unfamiliar with the facts - medical, legal and social - about most (illegal) drugs and thus are incapable of participating in discussion in a meaningful way. Indeed, any debate in which vital facts are (wilfully or accidentally) omitted, is flawed from the start.

Factual inaccuracy and the failure to present opinions free from bias and sensationalism can have serious consequences which are not immediately apparent. For instance, the damage done by the media's eager adoption of the term `gay plague' necessitated a multi-million dollar campaign to inform the public that the AIDS virus can infect anyone, regardless of gender, race, or sexuality.

Invariably, the format of television debates follows a formula whereby a subject is put forward and the public (or panel) are invited to comment or question (as long as this is done so in a `reasonable' amount of time - usually about 40 seconds). This is the `bounded debate' of which Chomsky speaks and one of its functions is to encourage participation and discussion (within acceptable limits) so that the public appears to play an active role in the democratic process. Without such a mechanism, the actual situation - that power is concentrated in the hands of a privileged elite - would be unacceptably obvious.

News bulletins are a further source of rapid-fire information and illustrate a trend towards a wider range of subject coverage of very fleeting quality. Whilst it is accepted that the impression of `knowing what's going on' is considered important to the viewer, the degree to which information of such density can be utilised is a question which is largely ignored. On a daily basis, news bulletins offer a guided tour of global disasters, during which the viewer develops the satisfying sensation of accumulating important facts. One gets to `do' Bosnia, Somalia, Aids and the Environment, with little context and varying amounts of censorship and bias.

So whilst we appear to have access to more news than ever before, we are not necessarily better informed about world affairs and the activities of government. As one American commentator has observed:

"We see more and more of our leaders, but know less and less about what they are doing".

In relation to the rapidity and decontextualisation of foreign news, Nick Fraser (commissioning editor of `Fine Cut') enquired: `does it do anything for us at all?'. He was later to admit that `context is nearly impossible to provide in the form of running news bulletins', thus answering his earlier question in the negative. Indeed, even after hundreds of hours of television coverage of the Bosnian conflict, Maggie O'Kane of the Guardian felt that: "a lot of people don't know what's happening" thus questioning the utility and effectiveness of television news.

The term `terrorist' is one which is familiar to most of us through the news where it is freely applied to Palestinians, Kurds and numerous Central/South American guerrilla groups, many of whom represent indigenous populations campaigning for self-rule and human rights. Paramilitary organisations such as these might equally and correctly be referred to as `freedom fighters' - the distinction is as much linguistic as factual. On close examination the methods employed by such groups to wrest power from occupying governments are no more brutal (often much less brutal, in terms of casualty numbers, albeit equally as inhumane) than those methods used to invade their countries in the first place. The emphasis placed on the deplorable actions carried out by terrorists helps to divert public attention away from the actual causes being fought for - a fact which is openly recognised by military strategists. Thus, since Turkey and Israel, for example, are `friendly' nations, the atrocities they carry out against ethnic groups are invariably referred to as `retaliatory measures' or `counter attacks' but never `terrorism'.

In America, the term `terrorist' also appears to have become synonymous with `Arab', and many Hollywood films depicting terrorists service a racial bias prompted by media handling of Arabs and Latin Americans. Take note also of the consistent pairing of the words `Muslim' and `extremist' - another linguistic convenience which barely conceals the anti-Arab prejudice demonstrated by the Western media.

The confusion surrounding last year's Oklahoma bombing (arguably the most serious terrorist incident in American history) is understandable then, as the `terrorists' responsible were white Americans with reputed links with one of the many state `militias' who are said to be preparing for a racial war (against non-caucasians). Time magazine remarked that "the courage of the bereaved and the heroism of the rescuers in Oklahoma City are the stuff of true patriotism". A sad irony then, that the bombers were also motivated by `patriotism' (although of a completely different interpretation) - a recurring theme in American indoctrination. (The dangers of patriotic hysteria are tragically apparent in the recent shooting of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish student. Reflecting the opinions of many Jews, the gunman - Yigal Amir - felt betrayed by the government's moves towards peace with the Palestinians. Perhaps this act should come as no surprise then, since within literally a few months, the Jewish population of Israel has had to reverse it's opinion on Palestinian self-rule and welcome peace with an enemy it has been taught to despise).

Western states have fostered public hatred and paranoia towards various foreign powers for decades, but when `the enemy' is transformed into an ally almost overnight (as happened with the Soviet Union), the hatred remains, but is deprived of direction. Endorsing hostility and violence is contemptible at any level of society, but when Governments use their considerable force and influence to support such psychological traits, it is only a matter of time before the aggression turns upon itself.

The ongoing evolution of language is part of the process by which we can re-define existing concepts, or understand new ones, since we are increasingly required to express new or complex ideas both quickly and effectively. Evidence of this process of change is provided by the incorporation of words into our mainstream vocabulary which were previously considered technical jargon (like, say, `computer speak').

Where an authority intervenes to organise communication, there will be a lessening of freedom for the public, since media opinion cannot be extricated from the influence of its sponsors. However, the information revolution has the potential to empower the general public through the free exchange of ideas, and to banish the concept of `received knowledge' from a monopoly source. The Internet provides a model for the process of integrated technology and social function of a higher order than that found in any existing media and could well be an important agent of social change in the coming years.

The theories set forth here suggest that the public needs to become literate in the new language not only in terms of vocabulary, but also in the sense of developing an ability to extrapolate truths from what Orwell called `Newspeak', contributing to Chomsky's proposed "course of intellectual self-defence" for "ordinary people". The subject expands to cover many facets of everyday life, central to which is the healthy functioning of a democratic system. The freedom of thought and action implied by the term `democracy' will be achieved when citizens have a role in forming the decisions of their society as well as choosing the best course of action. It is the understanding of language, in all its forms, which will bring us closer to this goal.

(Article by Alexander Zuckrow, a man whose dress-sense is as striking as his rhetoric)

Links to relevant Net sites as follows:

• For more info on the legendary Chomsky, enter here. Or here even.