Introduction
The concept of truth is something that is difficult to define. Every human being has their unique idea of what truth should represent, or in other words, what particular perspective is closer to reality than others and sincerer. Contemporary people know many ways of information transmitting and consciousness influencing, the most widespread of which are political statements and social media posts. Famous writers George Saunders and George Orwell contribute to the controversial issue focused on how the idea of “truth” is represented or disrupted in the media or politics. This essay will compare and contrast two essays written by the mentioned authors to reveal how their approaches’ similarity, which is that the truth is frequently transformed, indicates the cause of the discrepancy in opinions of groups of people being deceived.
Discussion
What are Orwell and Saunders Opinions about How the Idea of “Truth” is Represented
To begin with, it is necessary to outline the initially expressed, by the writers, perspectives toward the representation of truth. Thus, Saunders essay’s title is The Braindead Megaphone (Saunders). It strongly defines the point of view of the writer as the one, stronger criticizing the social media’s approach to the idea of truth, which is confirmed later in the essay. Simultaneously, Orwell puts a more neutral sense in his essay Politics and the English Language title. However, he uses the rhetorical strategy comparison to make his opinion clear from the very beginning by saying, “any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light” (Orwell). The writer also adds, “language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes,” indicating that politicians violate the language for their benefit (Orwell). Therefore, both the writers expressed their disgust that influencers transform truth by deteriorating the clarity of language.
How the Format is Approached
Format, which is a general manner a material is arranged, can play a crucial role when it comes to expressing an idea while claiming it to be pure truth. It is vital for a listener or a reader to perceive information so that it can activate one or another pattern of thinking. As mentioned above, truth is one representation of a particular idea based on arguments and evidence. It is well-known that both reporters and politicians tend to stick to a particular structure or template that enables them to put the context in a convenient, structured, and standardized form. Therefore, the format is of great importance while speaking about the truth.
Both of the mentioned writers use arguments and evidence to indicate how formal is crucial. Orwell uses two rhetorical strategies known as cause and effect and explaining a process in his essay. It is done while revealing how the factors, which are the clarity of the language, agenda, and the time spent on narrative constriction, affect an ability to imagine a point of discussion. Speaking about how the way information is intentionally provided by social media deteriorates the idea of truth, Orwell claims that “Make him too busy, ill-prepared, and distracted to properly assess what the Informant’s shouting at him.” Simultaneously, Saunders provides five examples of passages written by influencers to show how bad English is used to cover up all the contradictions. Criticizing the given pieces of writing, Saunders states that “Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them.” Explaining his point, which is the use of the rhetorical strategy defining, Saunders adds, “the first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision.” Thus, both writers indicated the weak points of the use of language.
With respect to the examples provided above, it is possible to formulate and clarify how the format of pieces have written by representatives of social media and politics disrupts the idea of truth. The writers are united in the belief that neither reporter nor public speakers use a clear and consistent voice to let listeners and readers perceive information correctly and accurately. While having exactly the same opinion, Orwell uses rather formal pieces of actual writing, while Saunders provides an abstract example to reveal how politics and social media approach format to deceive their audiences.
How the Content is Approached
It is possible to manipulate the written or spoken content by representing some argument differently, fabricating evidence, or expressing an idea from another perspective. It is unarguable that participants of a dispute can say pure truth while arguing for opposite claims. It is possible to discuss how the writers Orwell and Saunders describe in their works the way they believe, content, and thus, truth is approached in the media and politics. Thus, Orwell claims that “Political language — and with variations, this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” It directly implies that the writer supports the opinion that the over-formalized language with which politicians speak to their audiences only deteriorates the idea and transforms the truth into something beneficial for a particular group of people.
Simultaneously, Saunders makes the similar to Orwell’s argument claim, stating that language used by social media is used to manipulate the idea of truth. Saunders says that “Mass media’s job is to provide this simulacra of the world, upon which we build our ideas.” In other words, he claims that people are given content to think about, which is the same that to give a particular perspective that is far from revealing the realistic state of affairs. Therefore, both writers one more time expressed the same point of view.
Conclusion
It is possible to find more similarities between the essay of Orwell speaking about politics and the work of Saunders discussing social media. They express the same opinion that the English language is widely used to violate the idea of truth. Their arguments are based on both the format and the content of what has been written and spoken by politicians and reporters. Writers widely utilize rhetorical strategies such as defining and explaining a process while providing evidence to their claims. They claim that what is written is used to deceive readers and shape their perspective. Saunders and Orwell make it evident that language used by influencers is different from the everyday one in a “bad” way because it is less coherent and overcomplicated. The only difference between the authors’ works is the style of writing and the methods of examples outlining and arguments provided. It is possible to draw the conclusion from the two essays that truth is only a matter of someone’s point of view. Politics and social media can manipulate it to benefit certain people and raise conflict between others, if necessary.
Works Cited
Saunders, George. The Braindead Megaphone. Riverhead Books, 2007.
Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. Horizon, 1946.