Words And Reality

IT is sheer coincidence that the acronym for the phenomenon on parade today is WAR, but the fact is, oftentimes, when we use language, there is the tendency for the two things that constitute the acronym to be at war, to wit: words and reality. It is indeed a daily war.  For you can subject the assertion to observation anytime.  And if you ask me to, I can suggest a very handy tool that you can use for your observation: Newspapers – the first, and still, the foremost medium of journalism, the profession whose predominant purpose, it could be argued, revolves around covering and commenting on reality.

Examples of this war between words and reality vary from the simple to the complex.  Besides, there are levels to the war, especially, with regard to journalism.  Let us try to quickly explain two of the levels, although, there could be more.

As we all know, you and I – most members of the reading public – are not at the scenes of the events that the breed of journalists known as reporters cover and “re-present” with words for us to read in newspapers everyday. But as we all may NOT know, reporters also are not at the scenes of a great number of the events that they work tirelessly to re-present to us with words in their news stories.

For such events, reporters, have to rely on the words of people who participated in or were present at such events, or people who were told about the events, by the participants or eyewitnesses.  These people are known generally in the profession as sources of information.  So, you see, just as we rely on the words that reporters use to convey many events to us, reporters also rely on the words of sources who re-present reality to these foot soldiers of journalism.

These levels also apply to social life, as a whole, but with regard to journalism, these two levels are of the war between words and reality takes are minimal.  Level 1 of the war is that between reporters’ words and the reality they have observed firsthand; and Level 2 is what we may call the double decker: that between the reporters’ words and the words of the people that are participants in or eyewitnesses to the events, on the one hand, and the reality that is being re-presented by their words, on the other hand, that is to say, the events that reporters were not privy to or were absent from.

Let us quickly illustrate Level 1 of the war between words and reality. In The Nation of November 25, 2011 was this news story with the headline: “Jonathan: Boko Haram will fizzle out.” President Jonathan was said to be speaking in far away France, while declaring open the biennial Honorary International Investors Council Meeting (HIIC). We can safely assume that reporters witnessed the event.  Now, read the exact words of the president, as quoted by the reporter in the news story: “Very shortly, the tide of Boko Haram will be stemmed.”

After reading the line quoting the president, I was forced to ask the question: “What do the words ‘fizzle out’ and ‘stem’ mean?” Does fizzle out not imply that Boko Haram will dissolve, like that product of which melts when put into water?  Does it not mean, then, that Government will just sit down and do nothing and watch Boko Haram go away, just as you sit by and watch FIZZLE, fizzle out? That is it, exactly, because “fizzle out” implies inaction on the part of the president and his government.

Certainly, the words, “fizzle out,” do not re-present to the reader the reality, for the real words of the president, as quoted by the same reporter are, “will be stemmed.”  And the verb, “stem,” means: “to stop something that is flowing from spreading or increasing.”  “To stop” implies action, no matter how vague the president might have been.  And the words, “fizzle out,” are definitely at war with the reality here, that is, the actual words of the president.

Hmm, but is all that not quibbling or hairsplitting? And does the difference not amount to making a mountain out of a molehill? Well, if you place stock on the meaning of words, the answer would be: “Not at all!”  It is not making a mountain out of a molehill.

In the first place, it turns out that the headline is a misrepresentation of what is contained in the reporter’s story.  And headlines should not be discrepant with the essence of their stories, for those members of the reading public who read only the headlines may just run away with what the words, “fizzle out,” means or implies.  Such people are likely to have the perception that the administration has a policy of just waiting out Boko Haram, instead of doing something to stop them.

The point is not whether Boko Haram has fizzled out or the Government has stopped Boko Haram, four months after the president’s declaration.   The point is: the words of the headline did not re-present reality, that is, the actual words of the president.  When journalists do not use accurate words to re-present events that they cover, they fail in their duty of properly employing the most important tool of their trade – language, thereby, detracting from the pursuit of the great ideal of their profession: Truth.

In this case, however, it must noted, that it was not the reporter who was remiss in the use of language, but the headline writer, or the editor.  Regardless of who in any news chain is responsible, it is journalism that suffers, imperceptibly as that may be.

Our second example of the war between words and reality is not a journalistic one, even though it is from the sixth paragraph of the same news story. It is a complex example – perhaps, grave, even. The words are those of the president.  And the task is for you or any reader who is Nigerian to determine whether there is a war between the president’s words and reality.

Here we go: “I am happy to inform you that despite the general shrinking of the global economy by two per cent in year 2010 and a not too favourable outlook for 2011, Nigeria remains a growing economy, achieving an average growth rate of about six per cent in the last three years.  Indeed, the economy recorded an average GDP growth rate of 7.85 per cent in 2010 and 7.72 per cent in the second quarter of 2011.”

If you feel like I do, your immediate reaction would be: “What is the president talking about?  Do Nigerians feel that their economy is not ‘shrinking’?  Is their situation one of an economy that is ‘growing’?  Do the words that the president is using re-present the reality of the Nigerian situation?”

Too bad, I am not an economist and I have never seen the beast, called “GDP,” not to talk of the ogre, called “the (Nigerian) economy.”  And I can bet my last kobo that no economist or speechwriter for the president has seen any of them, too.  That is why, when they use words or figures to re-present these phenomena – and the president stands up to utter them – we do not know how to check their words against the reality we are living in.

All we can do is to look at ourselves and ask questions, like: “Are we really doing well as they claim we are doing?  Could their words be true?”  You had better not ask me, then, whether there is war between those words of President Jonathan’s in far away France and the Nigerian reality, since you can feel them, and feel them everyday!

Be that as it may, what I can tell you is that when a journalist of renown was honoured in Lagos on Thursday, March 22, 2012, a curious dimension of the war between words and reality – call it the WAR phenomenon – reared its head.  That will be the first course in the menu of the language train when it pulls out of its terminus next time.