Choosing the right words can shape a crisis
The Guardian is reframing climate change to refer to it as a “climate emergency”. Indeed, “climate change” was first proposed as a way to make the phenomenon seem less frightening. Then there’s the framing that comes from the fast food industry, or the oil industry, or abortion activists. And as Tony Jaques explains, terminology serves an important strategic role, and has a powerful effect.
Words really do matter – especially when it comes to issue and crisis management. The most recent example is a proposal to change the way we refer to climate change.
The Guardian recently updated its style guide to propose “climate emergency, climate crisis or climate breakdown” instead of “climate change”, and favours innovative “global heating” over conventional “global warming”.
Only time will tell whether it can change the language, but it does have a good example to follow. In a notorious secret memo back in 2002, Republican strategist Frank Luntz proposed to the George W Bush White House to promote the term climate change as being “less frightening” than global warming. That alternative language subsequently became widely accepted.
So you mean like ‘strong economy’ for plunging interest rates, rising unemployment and stagnant wages and a total deficit of $571b.
Thanks for helping point that out.
I’ve often wondered what a “no shit Sherlock” moment was like …