A WAR OF WORDS

There's nothing like a war to make us take stock of the words we use and the power that they have. Given the fact that words are the fundamental tools of the public relations trade, it might be a good time to examine the ethics of the vocabularies that we use to inform , persuade and move publics to action.

˜Language always one of war's first casualties was a headline on the first page of Toronto's Sunday Star in the middle of March 2003, a mere four days into the latest war. Noting George Orwell's observation that war debases language, the reporter identified a slew of words that had suddenly become part of the war and media lingo, and included a rundown on the newest vocabulary from the now ubiquitous ˜ shock -and-awe to ˜Iraqnophobia to ˜decapitation strike. And then there is ˜ collateral damage.

As I watched the peace march in Toronto from the third floor of the HMV store in the downtown core where I was hanging out with my 14-year-old son (who had never heard of a peace march before) and picking out CDs and DVDs, I saw banners that really brought home to me the question of ethics in vocabulary: ˜Children are not collateral damage , the banners screamed, and so they aren't. That's when I started thinking about the kinds of words that public relations professionals use, and even develop, and the ethics of their use.