51吃瓜

After nearly eight years of loyal service, this is my last entry of 51吃瓜鈥檚 Devil鈥檚 Dictionary. The series ends appropriately with the consideration of an expression that reflects our approach to language: 鈥渃ode for.鈥�

When analyzing any form of public discourse, we need to realize that when something is revealed, something else, possibly more significant, may be concealed. The idea of coding has acquired special importance in the digital age. Only recently, just before the revelation of artificial intelligence, youngsters were told to learn to code if they wanted to get a job.

Language is a code of communication. Coding can be direct and simple. We call that kind of coding 鈥渋nformative.鈥� Apparently, it鈥檚 also possible to code disinformation and misinformation. In the world of public discourse and legacy journalism, politicians, pundits and reporters sometimes twist the valuable information they provide to hide what they, their party leaders or their editors don鈥檛 want us to see.

The summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that took place in Anchorage, Alaska, earlier this month inspired two seasoned journalists to use the expression 鈥渃ode for鈥� (in one case a verb, in the other a noun) to reveal exactly how that process of concealing unwanted meaning works. The first example comes from author Mansur Mirovalev鈥檚 for the news publication Al Jazeera, bearing the title: 鈥溾�楩eeding a narcissist:鈥� Ukraine reflects on Trump-Putin summit.鈥� The author begins by citing what is an undeniable fact:

鈥淧utin said the 鈥榬oot causes鈥� of the war should be addressed before any ceasefire or real steps towards a peace settlement are made.鈥�

It鈥檚 a straightforward fact that shouldn鈥檛 be difficult for Al Jazeera鈥檚 readers to understand. We might even call it common sense. The Russians have repeatedly insisted on returning to the 鈥渞oot causes鈥� or historical context of the conflict. Understanding the motivation of the parties involved is critical to conflict resolution. The website helpfully reminds us with this title of its article on the topic: 鈥淭he First Step in Properly Understanding Conflict: Identifying the Sources.鈥�

But journalists, their editors or employers may feel impelled to do the opposite. Depending on their intent, they may want to present historical reality as an unnecessary distraction. Here is Mirovalev鈥檚 gloss on Russia鈥檚 demand:

鈥溾�楻oot causes鈥� is Putin鈥檚 code for rejecting Ukraine鈥檚 existence outside Moscow鈥檚 political shadow and denying its very sovereignty.鈥�

Now, this is manifestly misleading, if not patently dishonest. His claim that Putin is 鈥渞ejecting Ukraine鈥檚 existence鈥� is unfounded and undocumented; in other words, it is invented. It鈥檚 the journalist who鈥檚 using the ploy of 鈥渃ode for鈥� to reject out of hand the idea that examining root causes has any validity.

Our second example is an by East and Central Europe Bureau Chief Andrew Higgins of The New York Times with the title: 鈥淧utin Sees Ukraine Through a Lens of Grievance Over Lost Glory.鈥� Another example of assuming without evidence what鈥檚 on Putin鈥檚 mind.

鈥淧resident Vladimir V. Putin made clear after his meeting in Alaska with President Trump that his deepest concern is not an end to three and a half years of bloodshed. Rather, it is with what he called the 鈥渟ituation around Ukraine,鈥� code for his standard litany of grievances over Russia鈥檚 lost glory.鈥�

罢辞诲补测鈥檚 Weekly Devil鈥檚 Dictionary definition:

Code for:

A journalistic trope designed to make readers forget what they know about the literal meaning of words and believe a meaning contrary to both the dictionary and common sense. 

Contextual note

Far be it from a Devil鈥檚 Dictionary to insist that people should trust dictionaries to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. At best, dictionaries list the usual denotative sense of words as they have occurred in both the literary and spoken tradition. Because dictionaries avoid speculating on the theoretically infinite number of contexts in which a word can be used, they cannot account for intentional distortion or rhetorical effects, such as sarcasm, that can quite simply invert the meaning of a word.

In the two cases cited above, we are witnessing a journalistic practice common in an era like our own that encourages and even requires exaggerated propaganda. The trick these two jouranlists have used is to mix with the facts they present a fabricated “insight” claimed to be the result of the journalists鈥� inside knowledge or superior intellectual authority. They then call this an act of 鈥渄ecoding鈥� or interpreting for the sake of the ignorant.

Why should I criticize that practice? In some sense, that is precisely what a Devil鈥檚 Dictionary attempts to do. The difference is that when we assume the identity of the devil, we are announcing an act of studied cleverness, or even perversity. We expect no one will take it seriously or believe that it’s the “true” definition.聽

But there is another important difference. A Devil鈥檚 Dictionary definition is a direct invitation to explore context, investigate ambiguity, dig more deeply into an issue than simply accepting either what the initial quote contained or what the devil鈥檚 new definition implies.

Historical note

Ambrose Bierce, the brilliant novelist and journalist who authored the Devil鈥檚 Dictionary, redefined words to satirize the popular political, institutional, social and economic culture of his time. Here is his reflection on the nuclear family in the United States of his era.

鈥�MARRIAGE: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two.鈥�

Although this sounds contrary to common sense because of its contestable arithmetic, its absurdity reveals a perception that many married people might acknowledge: that the state of marriage deprives both the husband and wife of the glorious freedom they enjoyed before marriage. Were he writing in today鈥檚 age of woke, we can imagine that his editor might oblige him to revise the definition in the following cumbersome way:

鈥�MARRIAGE: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress (or two masters and two mistresses), and two slaves, making in all, two.鈥�

After which, his truly woke editor might even tell him to change 鈥渢wo masters and two mistresses鈥� to 鈥渢wo masters and two masteresses鈥� on the grounds that the term mistress is in itself .

Here鈥檚 another of Bierce鈥檚 definitions, this time related to his profession of journalism:

鈥�EDITOR: A person who combines the duties of a censor, a copy-reader, a news-gatherer, and a reporter. To the virtues of all these he adds the vices of none.鈥�

I suspect that both journalists mentioned above 鈥� Mirovalev and Higgens 鈥� might be tempted to agree with Bierce鈥檚 definition of their boss. Bierce鈥檚 irony suggests that an editor, by combining these diverse and contradictory roles, is, to invert the proverb, the master of all trades and a jack of none, ready to compromise in the name of respecting 鈥渟uperior鈥� constraints. Bierce鈥檚 contention that the editor lacks the corresponding vices has the wonderful ironic effect of defining the editor as a soulless, puritanical authority whose business as a censor ensures that the naked truth (God forbid!) will never appear, but rather a carefully sanitized version of it.

Had Mirovalev and Higgens taken seriously their role as journalists, they would at some point have alluded to the importance of understanding 鈥渞oot causes鈥� might have in the context of negotiating the kind of peace treaty Trump and Putin agreed to promote. Rather than claiming to decode it (and change its meaning), they could have done what our Devil鈥檚 Dictionary has systematically done throughout its history since 2017. We examine the use not only in its contemporary context, but also further back in history.

The propaganda machine churning away at the core of our legacy media since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has labored at inventing ways to avoid or exclude historical context. The use of the expression 鈥渃ode for鈥� is just one trivial example. Clearly, the best documented ploy has been the endlessly repetitive insistence on labeling the action Putin termed a 鈥淪pecial Military Operation鈥� an 鈥渦nprovoked full-scale invasion.鈥� That is the official that then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken鈥檚 State Department provided, inviting every editor in the legacy media to repeat the adjective 鈥渦nprovoked鈥� whenever referring to the war in Ukraine. Abolishing history requires a concerted, well-managed effort.

聽As many, including economist Jeffrey Sachs, Scott Horton (author of How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine) and many others have signaled, Blinken鈥檚 State Department categorically refused to discuss Putin鈥檚 formal request to analyze the root causes at a time when the war could have been avoided, in December 2021. Several months later, the Western allies of Ukraine instructed Ukraine to refuse an already negotiated and initial peace deal based on an examination of the root causes.

That would have left Ukraine intact, with the question of Crimea to be decided in an undefined future. But then, as now, our authorities and news services are seeking to uproot the very idea of root causes.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil鈥檚 Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51吃瓜 Devil鈥檚 Dictionary.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.