This NYT article talks about how language use is actively being shaped by the COVID-19 (or coronavirus) pandemic. With some words carry new weight and meaning, and entering more mainstream usage. In other areas, some words also rise to prominence over others. The author likens the spread of new words to a kind of linguistic 'contagion' where the most apt/popular words and their meanings are rapidly adopted and spread becoming ingrained in everyday usage. It also talks about how the most vivid uses of language, rather than more dull, though still objectively correct uses, has spread more.

This article first begins by talking about how in times of polarization and partisan conflict people turn to tired slogans, buzzwords, and recycled thoughts. It argues, I think correctly, that when these "second-hand thoughts" take the place of our actual ones, much is lost. Thoughtful debate and discussion becomes a mud-slinging fest where each side launches their own rhetorical salvos and is met with opposing ones in return. Later, the article breaks down the purpose of language into two purposes. The referential function helps describe concrete objects--the article uses an apple as an example. Everyone understands that, literally, an apple is a fruit. The metalingual function helps to describe the meanings behind the metaphors, cultural connotations, and etymology that accompany a word. In this case, apple could hint at the original sin of Eve or the association with teachers and their pupils. It points out that when debate turns metalingual, people have different associations so, in effect, they argue using words that carry different meanings. Thus, the overuse of metalingual language can actually obscure the truth instead of uncovering it.

This is the second part of the article about political mass communication. It mostly deals with things like collocations, fill-ins, and framing. Collocations are words that are often used with others and so carry a particular connotations because of their association. For example, calling someone a rabid feminist vs. calling them a radical feminist would suggest more danger and wildness because of the use of the word rabid. Fill-ins refer to the use of deliberately obfuscating or vague language which encourages the listeners to respond by filling-in the gaps with their own preconceived notions or biases and can be a helpful persuasive tool. For example, saying something like, "they want to control you." The "they" here is vague and thus allows the listener to fill in with whatever they want. The article also touches on doublespeak and the use of euphemisms to refer to unpleasant topics (George W. Bush and enhanced interrogation anyone?). Framing, more broadly refers to the use of these tactics to get listeners to interpret the speech in certain ways favorable to the speaker.

This story takes a look at other papers on JSTOR to outline how politicians can deploy metaphors, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices to frame the debate and sway voters and listeners. This is the first of a two part article. It describes, specifically, the similarities between political rhetoric and advertising techniques deployed by companies. In both instances, those using language are seeking to present a certain image of themselves.