This year's Plain English awards are out (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3256770.stm).
Donald Rumsfeld, a man who's politics I despise, is this year's winner which I find bizarre. This is what he won with:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
As recognised by Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/) this is almost poetry - and whilst repetitious the meaning is quite clear unlike some of the other entries. I have noticed in past years an anti-intellectual bias in these awards and that the organisation seem incapable of distinguishing complex writing from confused.
They seem to wish that everything should be written towards the lowest common denominator rather than treating the audience as if it is literate.
g
Phanerothyme
03-12-2003, 02:43
Originally posted by grep
This year's Plain English awards are out (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3256770.stm).
Donald Rumsfeld, a man who's politics I despise, is this year's winner which I find bizarre. This is what he won with:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
As recognised by Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/) this is almost poetry - and whilst repetitious the meaning is quite clear unlike some of the other entries. I have noticed in past years an anti-intellectual bias in these awards and that the organisation seem incapable of distinguishing complex writing from confused.
They seem to wish that everything should be written towards the lowest common denominator rather than treating the audience as if it is literate.
g
I agree. I am no fan of Donald Rumsfeld either, but when Broadcasting House (Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation Radio Four) featured it on their "Donald Rumsfeld Soundbite of the Week" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml)slot - I was surprised.
It was a frank and very clear explanation of the nature of intelligence, given in response to a journalist's question. Although it did strike me as being unusually lucid, even for Rumsfeld ...
Agent Dan
03-12-2003, 08:03
Do you think he actually wrote it?!
Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I agree. I am no fan of Donald Rumsfeld either, but when Broadcasting House (Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation Radio Four) featured it on their "Donald Rumsfeld Soundbite of the Week" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml)slot - I was surprised.
It was a frank and very clear explanation of the nature of intelligence, given in response to a journalist's question. Although it did strike me as being unusually lucid, even for Rumsfeld ...
I really don't agree with this, any statement made with oodles of alliteration is not in my eyes a clear statement. If you look at the original transcript (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02060708.htm) Rumsfeld himself goes on to say "There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way.". To me that second phrasing is a much clearer and more concise way of saying what he was trying to say.
Remember he is not a poet, he is the Secretary of State for Defence of the US. This means he has a duty to say what he says in as clear and unambiguous a manner is possible, to be understood by all. He is talking about a war, not unrequited love.
I'm pretty sure the Plain English campaign aren't interested in reducing all language to be accessible to the lowest common denominator, just that information which needs to be understood. I'm also fairly sure that they only chose this Rumsfeld quote for the publicity it would earn them, and they seem to have been fairly successful in that regard!
The trouble comes when the thick media dont actually understand what was said in the first place.
What Rumsfeld said actually means alot as inteligence is rated in:
Known Knowns
Known Unknowns
and Unknown Unknowns
if it were up to the PES he'd have just said "we dont really know, good bye"
Phanerothyme
03-12-2003, 18:26
Originally posted by RPG
The trouble comes when the thick media dont actually understand what was said in the first place.
What Rumsfeld said actually means alot as inteligence is rated in:
Known Knowns
Knowns
Unknown Knowns
and Unknown Unknowns
do you mean known unknowns rather than unknown knowns?
Lol, yes ;)
long tiring day ;)