Enough Said: What's Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics?

by Mark John Thompson

There’s a crisis of trust in politics across the western world. Public anger is rising and faith in conventional political leaders and parties is falling. Anti-politics, and the anti-politicians, have arrived. In Enough Said, President and CEO of The New York Times Company Mark Thompson argues that one of most of significant causes of the crisis is the way our public language has changed.

Enough Said tells the story of how we got from the language of FDR and Churchill to that of Donald Trump. It forensically examines the public language we’ve been left with: compressed, immediate, sometimes brilliantly impactful, but robbed of most of its explanatory power. It studies the rhetoric of western leaders from Reagan and Thatcher to Burlesconi, Blair and today’s political elites on both sides of the Atlantic. And it charts how a changing public language has interacted with real world events – Iraq, the financial crash, immigration – and a mutual breakdown of trust between politicians and journalists, to leave ordinary citizens suspicious, bitter and increasingly unwilling to believe anybody.

Drawing from classical as well as contemporary examples, and ranging across politics, business, science, technology and the arts, Enough Said is a smart and shrewd look at the erosion of language, by an author uniquely placed to measure its consequences.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Language, History, Linguistics, Political Science, Adult

352 pages, Hardcover

First published May 12, 2016

About the author

MARK THOMPSON has been the President and CEO of The New York Times Company since 2012. Previously, he was Director-General of the BBC from 2004-2012, and CEO of Channel 4 Television Corporation from 2002-2004. Born in London, Thompson attended Stonyhurst College and Merton College Oxford. Thompson has three children with his wife, writer Jane Blumberg.

Reviews

[Katia N · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about how the rhetoric affects the quality and the effectiveness of the political and social debate. According to the author, the one of the reasons of the crisis in the mainstream politics is the crisis of public language.

Through the history of the political discourse from the 70s (of the last century) and up to now, he manages to build a convincing argument in favour of this hypothesis. He analyses the changes through looking at the language and attitudes of the politicians, the press and the general public. All his examples are based upon the UK and the US process (however, often they have a global angle as well). He manages to stay politically impartial in the vast majority of cases through the book.

Additionally, he talks about the theory of rhetoric, persuasion and the snippets of the Western Philosophy which impacted the subject. I've never read anything about the rhetoric, so it was really fascinating to find out the meaning of many greek words and their application.

I liked the chapters about the modern language of war, science and the freedom of speech. I do not want to retell here his insights, but they are sufficiently revealing and thought-provoking.

At the end of the book, he provides his views how to regain trust and understanding for the politicians, the journalists and the public. Though some of his recommendations are very theoretical and a bit of a wishful thinking, the fact that he makes an effort is rewarding.

I found the book interesting and informative on many levels.

4.5 stars

[Martin Dubéci · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mark Thompson je ako Vašo Mika, len lepší a s menej selfíčkami. Roky bol šéf celej BBC a teraz vedie vydavateľstvo New York Times. Popri tom napísal knihu o svojej obľúbenej téme, kvalite verejného jazyka.

Hoaxy, silné výrazy, polarizácia, emócie a spin. Thomspon ich príchod do verejnej debaty ilustruje na vlastnej dlhoročnej kariére spravodajského editora na oboch stranách Atlantiku. Od vstupu reklamných agentúr do politickej komunikácie po šialene zrýchlený spravodajský cyklus.

Jazyk je základ komunikácie. Tá je zas predpokladom demokracie, ktorá stojí na verejnej debate a následných rozhodnutiach. Ak chceme zastaviť jej úpadok, musíme byť v jazyku na seba všetci prísnejší. Politici by sa mali vystúpiť zo zviazaných, neuatentických póz, ktoré im vypadli z výskumov verejnej mienky a odvážnejšie komunikovať. Médiá by mali namiesto clickbaitov a emócii nechať priestor rozvinúť obsahovejšiu debatu. Voličov by sme mali pripraviť toto všetko spracovať - a kriticky myslieť. Samo o sebe nič prekvapivé. Čo sa týka riešení kniha ponúka samozrejme znejúce veci.

Asi ani netreba spomínať ako je téma relevantná v našom prostredí. V krajine, kde sú novinári podľa premiéra prostitútky a do bláznov a zlodejov si nádavajú asi všetci, máme v tejto disciplíne veľký problém.

Veľa vecí bude treba nato, aby sme sa pohli dopredu. Jednou z nich bude aj jazyk, pojmy a atmosféra, ktorá upriamí pozornosť na zmysluplnejšie veci ako je tomu dnes.

[David YB Kaufmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought-provoking book.

This is not an "easy read." It is challenging. It requires engagement. And that's a good thing. If you're interested in politics, rhetoric, public discourse, journalism, etc., this belongs at the top of your reading list. It's timely, it provides an impressive historical overview and topical analysis of several interlocking categories of interest. I found myself questioning and "discussing" as I read, saving some quotes, etc. this is part of an important dialogue on rhetoric, persuasion, and politics. Thompson also offers some "what can we do" suggestions, if we have the will. (IMHO it should be read with Jay Heinrichs's Thank You For Argung.)

[Adrian]

A full investigation into how the language of politics soured and what can be done about it. Thompson weaves an intricate history which starts in the 1980s when a post-war consensus breaks down and politics begin to get ugly. News media tries to pin down politicians for answers and in response politicians turn to spin and evasion. While Thompson, a Brit living in the US, has an Anglo-American thrust it's nice to see examples from Italy, France and the Netherlands thrown in. He sees Silvio Berlusconi as a proto-Trump. A politician breaking all the old rules yet still possessing broad appeal. For much of the public a 'truth-telling' politician is preferable to a media that questions everything. The digital revolution occurs narrowing media's financial margins. Cutbacks reduce news coverage. Opinion which is cheaper to produce replaces a lot of newsgathering. The public retreats into a shell listening to only media they agree with and preferring politicians who betray no doubts about their views. As Thompson suggests this is wildly unrealistic when public policy is as complicated now as its ever been. It's great history and the best chapter is on what endangers free speech today-media refusing to hear controversial voices, universities cancelling speakers due to political pressure and anyone so committed to their own views they refuse to listen to anything contrary to it. Typically in books like this the 'what to do about it' parts are a bit weak. Thompson's prescriptions for politicians don't take into account how Trump has blown up the playbook, and his ideas for media reform deny basic economic realities but barring these weaknesses Thompson's book nails a lot of what's wrong about politics today.

[Art · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Public language matters,” writes Mark John Thompson. After tracing the history of public language, he makes the case for restoring rhetoric as the queen of the humanities. Rhetoric happens in a time and place for an audience, an art that depends on context and tactics.

Donald Trump’s rhetoric dominated our election cycle. This thoughtful book can serve as a high-level, long view takedown of Trump style as a carnival barker.

How did we get here? How does a third of the electorate fall for the hyperbole and unsupported assertions among repeated adjectives and adverbs ?

This book argues that language lies at the heart of the problem, a crisis of public language.

WE ARE CHILDREN OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT, taught to dig for the truth. But the crisis in public language, writes Thompson, leaches away substance and coarsens expression, which marks a dumbing down and failure of seriousness.

The urgent compression of news beginning in the early eighties sowed the seeds and set the tone for this book. Thompson witnessed the trend first hand as a news editor.

A shift to informal and nonpolitical language occurred over the past thirty-five years, with Trump as an example “at full industrial strength,” writes Thompson. Trump’s rhetoric rejects the decorum and moderation of traditional political discourse, replacing it with rage, shock, anger and simplification.

Journalism entered its own permanent revolution about twenty years ago. Nuances and qualifications now get cut or pushed down in stories.

Thompson, the president and CEO of The New York Times, makes the case for serious, ambitious and well-funded journalism. We need real investigative journalism, grounded in evidence and presented on merit, he says.

Barack Obama serves as an example of two rhetorics, Thompson writes. Obama campaigned on hope and change then ran a tight-lipped administration with testy managerialism.

Thompson spends an interesting chapter tracing the development of sales and marketing language, which also shapes and colors our public language, as the messages over time became brief, intense and urgent.

Also in recent years, Thompson adds, much of society willfully ignores or argues against science and the facts on such topics as vaccines and climate change. As a branch of knowledge above the fray, science should decide.

“Let’s reject perspectivism, the notion that everything is a point of view,” writes Thompson. There are such things as facts, and journalists need to report them.

THOMPSON MAKES A STRONG CASE, supported by fourteen pages of footnotes. But how do we move forward from the situation he describes?

Among his many ideas, we need to clear out the “frazzled time-servers” who work in the communication departments of government agencies. Replace them with real writers and graphic artists.

Exaggeration is a drug, Thompson admonishes. It can become a trademark that the public comes to expect, reducing such players as Trump to stock roles as performers.

Most politicians stick to their talking points and never concede, becoming stiff, trained and unnatural. Hillary Clinton in private, for example, comes across as open, thoughtful, intelligent and self-deprecating while revealing her humor. But when going on the record, Thompson found, her armor came on and she shifted to her boilerplate self.

Thompson advocates for teaching our children how to parse public language, from marketing-speak to lofty political utterances. Young people should learn from the history of advertising and public rhetoric.

WHAT CAN YOU DO to restore public language of reasonable persuasion?, Thompson writes in his last paragraph. Open your ears, think, speak, laugh and cut through the noise.

A solid five-star book. Smart, current and thoughtful.

Book Review of The New York Times, Sunday, Sep 9, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/boo...

[Gregg · Rating 5 out of 5]

President and CEO of the New York Times Company Mark Thompson analyzes Western language in an effort to explain what happened over the past several decades to get us to this point. If I need to spell out "this point" for you, the book may be a tougher read than he intends, but suffice to say, screaming "fake news" to shut down any kind of dialectic isn't all that new. Nor is distrust of "the experts" and elites. Our discourse isn't helping us as citizens in a democratic republic, Thompson argues, and that's because our public language has been warped and weakened by a variety of factors. His conversation begins with the classics (Plato's famous distrust of rhetoric; Thucydides' ruminations on leadership and oratory during the Peloponnesian War) and weaves through the various scandals and powerhouses of political rhetoric (Reagan, Thatcher, Churchill, etc) to explain how we got here, and give some suggestions about what we can do to fix our deteriorated discourse.

If Thompson's goal is to involve the disinvolved electorate, if his ambition is to get us looking at the way politicians and the elite make their points and parsing them dispassionately, I applaud him. But there's a sort of intellectual disconnect in his book's approach that I'm having a tough time getting. It's odd to see, in a book explaining rhetoric to the layperson, such an apparent blindness to the principles of audience and the commonplace. What reader is out there, ignoring climate science and rational argument, embracing hyperbole and sharing clickbait garbage with gleeful abandon on Facebook, who will see a book with a chapter devoted to a serious discussion of Aristotelian rhetoric throwing terms like "achrieos" or "dialectic," and put the brakes on their own hate-binging long enough to slow down, turn the pages and reassess everything they believe in? It's the sort of thing you see in books like David Denby's Lit Up: you can have a persuasive argument about why nonreaders should read more, but the cognitive dissonance in writing a book about why people should read more books is almost soul-crushing to me at this point.

How to involve the electorate in politics; how to correct misinformation; how to avoid charges of snobbery and elitism in the process--these are questions that desperately need answers. In his ddiscussion of Britain's National Health Servicedebacle over the 49 percent figure, for example, Thompson points out that even when the math is right there, the objective truth can still be shaped and molded by discussion, based upon one's values. But in the discussion, and in a lot of discussions particularly concerning domestic policy in the U.S., qualification is out. Nuance is verboten. You take a position and God help you if you're weak on it or if you change your mind. "What has been lost here," Thompson writes, "is the possibility of uncertainty, of listening to others, of considering the evidence and the political realities and adjusting one's position accordingly. Ideology, values and policy differences are still critical to the story--though even they are more or less inseparable from the public language in which they are couched--but to a significant degree, the radicalization has taken place in the field of rhetoric...Now, it's 100 percent or nothing."

Thompson is convincing overall, like when he argues that to reject the legitimacy of a decision arrived at democratically is absurd (recent "Not My President" hashtags come to mind), or like when he argues that to eschew effective rhetoric is not becoming a de facto snake oil salesman. We need to come back to this kind of thinking today, and badly. But I think he's on weaker ground when he dips his toe into the waters of "anti-PC" ideology and betrays some scorn over those who feel marginalized by lines of thought and speech they find threatening. He argues that "some of those who guide the (anti war protest movements) embrace ideologies that regard Western democracy as a capitalist state and prefer the regimes of some of the world's most vicious dictators," but this observation depends almost entirely upon one or two activists' (Andrew Murray among them) affiliation with Communism. It doesn't take much to tie war ambitions to the more seedy side of capitalism, and calling it what it is isn't the same as embracing the ideology of Kim Jong Il. Plus, I can't stand lines of argument like his that criticize antiwar movements' uninvolvement with wars like the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo because they "are of little or no interest to them because they are less politically promising." That disregards the point of protest: to fight for change you can actually effect. You protest the wars your country fights; what on earth are you to protest concerning the Congo? That's like white columnists and pundits grousing about Black Lives Matter not protesting black-on-black gang violence and having the audacity to hold our nation's law enforcement officers to a higher standard than the Crips and the Bloods.

I found myself struggling, sometimes reluctantly, with his discussion of free speech. He touches upon the familiar watershed moments of state- and society-sponsored censorship, beginning with Khomeni's fatwa against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, running through a discussion of the programs he approved and did not approve for the BBC and wrapping it up with a condemnation of some of the anti-speech measures and laws taken in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacres in 2015. Thompson is an advocate for free speech, pure and simple, and though he does acknowledge the Hobbesian view that "free speech itself is no panacea," he also points out that the measures taken by Britain and other European countries to stifle offensive or potentially disruptive speech are cures that are worse than the disease. The solution to hate speech, he says, is more free speech--don't waste your time trying to ban speech, even if it's patently untrue or deliberately offensive. Combat it with counter-speech and rational argument.

Very true. Still, when he argues that the law should only be used to police speech that "meets the American legal definition of fighting words--words that are intended to provoke immediate actual violence or directly intimidate, or to recruit violent extremists," he falls into a trap of his own logic. When is "intimidation" worthy of condemnation, and when is it a legitimate rhetorical challenge? If a critic of Israel defends the rights of the Palestinians to defend themselves, is he tacitly condoning suicide bombing and therefore subject to prosecution for hate speech? And so on. I don't say Thompson has erred here--I merely point out that the subject is complex enough to remain incomplete and unresolved, even considering the informed and persuasive discussion he gives the topic in the twenty or thirty pages he devotes to it.

In the closing chapter, Thompson summarizes and redelivers prescriptions for passing what he calls "The Trump Test"--getting language to "enable ordinary citizens to distinguish at once between matters of fact and those of opinion, between grown up political discourse and outright nonsense." The media must pursue truth and objectivity while eschewing false equivalences and controversies in the name of ratings and profit. "(Investigative journalism) breaks most of the rules of modern media economics. It is expensive and time-consuming, has a high failure rate, and often involves the kind of intricate detail that contemporary readers are said to have no time for. Do it anyway." The same could be said for politicians (you may lose votes initially by not pandering to us; do it anyway) and the citizenry itself (putting your beliefs aside to look at the world objectively is hard work and may make you feel icky when you realize things about it and yourself in the process; do it anyway). All well and good. But to say, as he does at the end, We need to teach rhetoric to our children, I get frustrated. Such a casual, offhand suggestion reminds me of oh so many education seminars I find myself attending these days, where we have involved if not always rousing discussions about how to get kids writing better, reading more; what their AP and SAT scores tell us that we can use. Ultimately, someone (sometimes me) always points to a root problem: Our kids aren't reading, and they aren't thinking critically. Not because they're kids, but because of demographics, or acculturation, or just the world we live in. What do we do about that? And I'm always told something along the lines of "Teach them how to think." So that takes care of that, I guess.

Nevertheless, the book scratches the surface of several academic and mainstream fields in order to deliver its thesis. It's no definitive text, but it's a great starting point for further study, as Thompson would be the first to point out. So let's start here. Let's have the dialogue and work towards a media and public forum where we work towards truth and effective, civil persuasion. It's no hyperbole to state that the need for this has never been greater.

[Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Watch the referendum debates from 1975 and compare them with 2016 and you are immediately struck by how civilized the conversation was in 1975 compared to the invective used by both sides in the 2016 referendum.

Listen to Trump's campaign and you can only wonder what is happening to the language of politics ? This book is packed with insights and explanations.

This is a fascinating book. Using many quotations from many contemporary politicians to illustrate his points, Mark Thompson explains how and why the language used in our public conversation by politicians and the media has become so distorted and why conversation between opposing players has become so difficult. It is well worth reading this book (though I skipped much of the extended essay about George Orwell which fills one chapter).

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A rather dense, but fascinating collection of essays that focus on the failure of rhetoric in modern-day politics and society in general, published this fall by the CEO of the NY Times. Prescient in the Trump era! A challenging, but worthwhile read!

[ems · Rating 5 out of 5]

haven't ever read anything that connects classical & historical rhetoric and the language of modern politics this well

[Fran Caparrelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book.

[Gianna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I personally have been blaming lack of education as the main cause of the political landscape we have right now in the Philippines. Thompson however, argues that it is the crisis of public language or 'rhetoric' that's causing the divide, especially politically. He did this by going through specific examples across history such as the public debate surrounding Brexit, NHS and immigration, World War II, and the 2016 elections where Trump won.

Some of my most memorable realizations from this book:
1. The power of phrasing and word choice given the limited time or space when received by whoever's listening or reading. It made me reflect on how I consume and use media today.
2. The importance of feeling and connecting with ones' audience to get your message across or get them to do what you need them to think or do (combining 'logos' with 'ethos' and 'pathos').
3. The baseline fact that there is a lack of trust in general -- with politicians, journalism, media and even science! Said lack of trust leads to some form of apathy and/or disillusionment, which makes it easier for non-traditional politicians (like Trump and I would say Duterte) to win and fake news to propagate.
4. The intricacies and danger surrounding freedom of speech or expression and lack thereof. Censorship leads to even more divide, since rather than respectfully hearing out the other side, we completely skew what we hear and there's no discourse.
5. The use of spin, marketing and pretext (hidden motives) and applying oversimplification or exaggeration in politics.

While Thompson focused on Western politics, I found myself reflecting a lot about the last 2022 Philippine elections. All of Thompson's arguments were in motion and I am left to agree that we are indeed, in a crisis of public language.

Regarding the book itself, I've rated it a 3 since I couldn't get over the irony. Thompson argued the need to take into account the reader's understanding to make your message more accessible, yet he himself would use words like pernicious, solipstic, officious, vituperative atavistic, among others. He also would go into long tangents of literature or mythological references that made me disassociate as a reader. I also was not a fan of the outline and pacing, in general.

It is still a worthwhile read, though. He tried giving some suggestions on how we can possibly curb this crisis. Most were theoretical and would actually be difficult to put into practice, but if enough people realize this urgent issue, maybe we can all do something to help in our own ways.

"..we cannot rebuild confidence in democracy and reunite our societies without rediscovering respect for those we currently dismiss and despise. You don't have to agree with the other. But you must let them speak, and you must listen to what they have to say."

"Teach your children how to listen, how to know when someone is trying to manipulate them, how to discriminate between good arguments and bad ones, how to fight their own corner clearly and honestly."

[Joe O'Donnell · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Enough Said” is an erudite and considered analysis of the crisis of political language and the degradation of civil discourse, and how these trends have polluted political life. As CEO of the New York Times and former-Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson is well-placed to examine how political debate has, over the last three or four decades, become so cynical, partisan, angry and debased. It is this degradation of rhetoric and political language, Thompson compellingly argues in “Enough Said”, that has paved the way for demagogues like Donald Trump and for populist/nationalist projects like Brexit to triumph over more consensual, establishment parties. If there is a central question in “Enough Said” it is: “how did we slide from the inspiring, soaring rhetoric of Churchill, FDR, and JFK to the foam-flecked rage of Trump and Farage?”

Thompson doesn’t just confine his analysis to the Anglosphere of the UK and America. He traces the roots of our current populist wave back to the mid-90s ascendancy of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi – a billionaire masquerading as a political outsider and a demagogic “Trump before the fact” – who revelled in “a world of pantomime hypocrisy and colour-saturated excess” long before the current incumbent of the White House took office. The declining standard of our political discourse also, Thompson argues, has its origins in the changing nature of western politics after the end of the cold war. As traditional group identities like social class faded in relevance, political leaders struggled to find ways to hold voter attention, leading to a ramping up of rhetoric in the “struggle for definition and differentiation”. A widening gap between the worldviews of technocratic policy-making elites and the electorate also contributed to this crisis in political language – a crisis which was then turbo-charged by the advent of digital technology.

“Enough Said” is not a light read and, perhaps ironically for a writer on political communication, Mark Thompson’s prose style can often be quite dense. He also occasionally gets stuck in a swamp of analysing the roots of rhetoric and the competing schools of political philosophies in ancient Greece (while mildly interesting, these tangents don’t add a huge deal to Thompson’s central thesis). Nor is it a comforting read; Thompson admits he has no easy answers as to how we – as a civilisation – can claw our way out of this mess. Yet, “Enough Said” is certainly a thought-provoking read, and Mark Thompson provides a scrupulously fair, politically impartial yet impassioned account of how the standards of our political language have been corroded.

[Giuseppe Lombardo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quali sono le metastasi che infettano il nostro dibattito pubblico? Come e perché si è diffuso lo scetticismo anti-vaccini? Quali sono i punti di contrasto fra popolo ed élite? E cosa rappresenta Trump con la sua vis polemica?
Mark Thompson, amministratore delegato del NYT ed ex direttore della Bbc, prova a rispondere a queste domande riflettendo in senso lato sul registro retorico utilizzato dai politici e dai mezzi d’informazione.
Partendo da Platone e Aristotele, passando per Reagan e Clinton, fino ad arrivare a Trump e Sarah Palin, Thompson cerca di cogliere gli elementi che hanno portato all’odierna deriva, laddove ogni verità e ogni fatto diventa confutabile sulle base di astratte opinioni.
L’approccio non è mai quello del cattedratico, nonostante la minuziosa disamina di certe frasi: Thompson sa di essere un attore del sistema, parte in causa, protagonista chiamato a riflettere con spirito autocritico sulla funzione di quelli che Pasolini definiva “intellettuali intermedi”. Convincente nella diagnosi, la tesi dell’autore perde smalto proprio sul finale, quando cerca di tirare le fila del ragionamento per stendere un breviario, un codice di condotta destinato a chi vorrà interpretare un ruolo nell’agorà del futuro. Nel complesso resta una lettura interessante.

[Louise Yarnall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thompson offers a useful and thorough series of essays on the rhetoric of political discussion. He touches on the usual suspects--such as Trump's infuriating but effective bluntness and Sarah Palin's manipulatively reductive but catchy word play. Yet he also critiques those on the left who opine on topics in which they lack requisite expertise (Bill Maher on vaccines), and he despairs about climate scientists who undercut their credibility by resorting to the rhetoric of advocacy. In general, he exposes those who try to limit argument or hide contradictory points in any way, left or right, and calls for renewed emphasis on reporting all points on any issue and letting the audience decide. In short, he usefully unpacks the rhetorical tools in play, explaining how truthful and reasoned communication is breaking down in an era of tweets, sound bites, and managed talking points. For those not interested in British politics, the book lags in those bits, and he strikes a pedantic tone in the final chapter, but I found myself nodding and reading statements aloud to my husband repeatedly as I read this book.

[Carlos · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was surprised to see the book deal more with language than with politics until I learned the author had been at the head of both the BBC and the New York Times. Thompson chronicles his long career in journalism and the front row seat it allowed him to the evolution of political discourse. Staring in the Thatchter and Reagan years until the present time, Thompson highlights the increasing drive by politicians for short memorable lines that while succeeding in becoming widely reported also obscure the actual political topic at hand. Thompson also discusses at length the philosophical underpinnings of political language, from the sacrifices needed to preserve freedom of speech to the much-maligned rhetorical tropes that are an inevitable part of political discourse. Although Thompson shies away from faulting any one aspect in particular (the media, politicians in general, any one political party, the citizenry, etc.), he does examine the role of each in the accelerating trend towards a dysfunctional political discourse as well as the corrections each can take to bring us back from the brink.

[Laila · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-structured and well-written book. This is not a light reading, so put your thinking cap on.
I was skeptical of the impartiality of his analysis as there were many indications that Thompson had left-leaning biases. However, he gradually earned my respect as the book progresses; I agree with his "Trump test," among other things.
I could tell that he had a profound passion for his trade--journalism--advocating impartial reporting, surprisingly a vanguard for freedom of speech and equally the sanctity of public language usage by the politicians, influencers, and marketers, in which public language ought to be used with due diligence that meant to inform/educate/comprehend the public ((notably on policy and political position), not as a conduit to manipulate and divide them. Sadly, in reality, the media and politicians have gone so off the track that it is reasonable to say that the public has little trust in them.

[Federico Riccardi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un libro sicuramente interessante, scritto da un importante giornalista della BBC avendo alle spalle la tradizione del giornalismo imparziale all'anglosassone (che specialmente oggi è in crisi). Molti gli spunti sul giornalismo e il linguaggio politico, in inarrestabile decadenza, aggressivo e fazioso. Non è un libro prettamente di retorica, però, anche se diversi riferimenti ad essa vengono fatti: è un ragionamento ad ampio raggio su politica, giornalismo, linguaggio e società.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the Goodreads blurb:

There’s a crisis of trust in politics across the western world. Public anger is rising and faith in conventional political leaders and parties is falling. Anti-politics, and the anti-politicians, have arrived. In Enough Said, President and CEO of The New York Times Company Mark Thompson argues that one of most of significant causes of the crisis is the way our public language has changed.
***

The twits on Twitter, the Internet, the language of the marketing industry, the collapse of traditional journalism... Thompson turns a spotlight on factors that have contributed to the change. He talks about the inherent difficulties humans have always had in communicating fairly and intelligently. He talks about rhetoric skills and how they have been used in ways that have driven people to suspect dishonesty and craftiness in the words of anyone who tries to use words to frame logical arguments, and to see the blunt and unabashedly stupid language of Trump and Co. and "honest and authentic".

Thompson does offer some suggested "solutions" in the last couple of chapters, but I'm not hopeful...

[Clayton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The study of rhetoric and the forces that have unshaped it since 1945 are compelling and well-said. The later chapters on how the "new" language plays out, especially in the free speech debate, are unlikely to sway anybody to Thompson's side. Read the first half, skim the second.

[James Hawketts · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating read. A most insightful look into the world of rhetoric and politics written by someone who is clearly an expert on the subject. I found it slightly wordy, and it certainly isn't light reading, but that is to be expected on such a subject.

[John Parkinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Engaging, and not without insight, but incomplete and a bit apologist in places (former BBC DG during a very interesting period of political transition - Thompson made the correct decision to allow Nick Griffin onto QT during his tenure).

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to read this for class and, while I can appreciate that the book was clearly well researched and well argued, I am just not really interested in the topic. Also, I already wrote several papers on this and writing any more about it would physically pain me so I'll leave it at that.

[Basil Chong · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. Thompson might be a little too smart, writing this book with references that go over the head of the very readers he is trying to convince.

Maybe there’s a good book in here. I didn’t find it in the first 100 pages.

[Kaitlynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lengthy, but interesting, especially the end part. Overall well thought out, and refreshing to hear this perspective from a BBC person.

[Robert Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why Trump's Lies work!
Must read to see the "Techniques That Work"
Not truth nor loving concern for average folk. .

[Dearbhla O’Regan · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[anvi]

DNF

bro cited wikipedia

[janine ♥ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Because it helped me pass my first 2 years in college.

[Seth · Rating 1 out of 5]

For the most part this book was too scattered and not so much about what has gone wrong with the language of politics today. The only part of the book that was interesting to me was about the need for freedom of expression.

[The Reading Shell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una vez más disfruto de un libro al que sé que volveré varias veces en el futuro. Y coincidentemente lo terminé poco más de 1 semana después del Plebiscito de Salida 2022, donde Chile de manera apabullante decidió rechazar la propuesta de una Nueva Constitución. Días difíciles para quienes decidimos apoyar esa propuesta, sin dejar de lado que muchos de nosotros sabíamos que se necesitarían mejoras y correcciones a la misma.

Es en este libro que se abordan probablemente las principales aristas que llevaron a la derrota de la opción apruebo en nuestro país: la desinformación; la falta de rigurosidad de los grandes medios de comunicación y, en gran manera y de forma más importante, la carencia total de capacidad de lenguaje político de quienes representaron a la ciudadanía en la Convención Constituyente.

Son muchos los factores en torno a los que hoy tenemos el tiempo y la resignación de reflexionar respecto a qué fue lo que pasó en esta última votación, sin jamás disminuir ni devaluar la sabiduría del pueblo. Este es un libro que trae a colación icónicos casos de la política internacional respecto a los cuales la forma de mostrar, defender y explicar las cosas afectó de sobremanera el objetivo que se quería lograr inicialmente, para bien o para mal.

Lo recomiendo para quienes, como yo, reclamamos frente a la pantalla cuando escuchamos los constantes desatinos y deshonestidades de la política que nos rodea.

Finalmente, como periodista me quedo con esto:
"Si la regla de oro para los políticos es no decir una cosa y hacer la contraria, para los periodistas se trata de no mentir. Muy pocos reporteros o editores profesionales perpetran falsedades categóricas de forma intencionada como parte de su trabajo, pero muchos se han acostumbrado a unas prácticas que, en el día a día, generan una multitud de pequeñas mentiras (...)".