Add Category
Updated
When is an FBI investigation not an "investigation"? When does it simply become a "matter"?
And does the word "hope" stir emotions of optimism, or is it a veiled threat and directive?
At the high stakes Senate Intelligence Committee hearings currently underway in the US, these are some of the questions the key combatants are wrestling with.
And according to language experts and political observers, these little differences can mean a whole lot for former FBI director James Comey and President Donald Trump.
Matter vs Investigation
In what is now widely considered a key point in last year's presidential election, the FBI examined Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
Mrs Clinton later blamed her election loss on this decision.
But how did the bureau present this information to the public? Mr Comey testified to the hearings last week:
We were getting to a place where the Attorney-General [Loretta Lynch] and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about it and I wanted to know was she going to authorise us to confirm we had an investigation.
And she said, "Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter". And I said, "Why would I do that?" And she said, "Just call it a matter".
That concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work, and that's concerning.
While this may seem like splitting hairs, language expert and self-described word nerd David Astle said the differences "matter enormously".
"Because 'investigation' is an active, ongoing quest, if you like, that predicates an outcome, a verdict, a solution. It does imply a problem," he told News Breakfast.
"Investigate comes from 'vestigium', which is a footprint or a trace, so it is looking for that suspect."
On the other hand, he said "matter" was considered more neutral.
Plain English Foundation executive director Neil James agreed.
"Anywhere in government, an 'investigation' is a formal effort directed at a recognised concern," he said.
"A 'matter' could just be something someone has raised."
However, NBC correspondent Sara James said regardless of the way it was presented, the media wasn't buying it.
"When the FBI looks into your emails, it's an investigation. And that's how the media reported the story," she told News Breakfast.
"What arguably had a bigger impact on Hillary Clinton's campaign was how the former FBI director felt about the situation.
"Comey testified to a 'queasy' feeling about his conversation with former Attorney-General Lynch 'capped' by her impromptu tarmac conversation with former president Bill Clinton."
In fact, Mr Comey testified it was ultimately due to this conversation that he broke with standard FBI protocol and publicly scolded Mrs Clinton mid-campaign.
So does this wording make any difference?
According to Mr James, it still does. And it's all about cutting through the noise.
"If euphemisms and doublespeak didn't work, politicians and corporations wouldn't use them," he said.
"Sure, some of us always spot this kind of dissembling, but for many people bombarded daily by the media's wall of words, the use of a softer word like 'matter' will not register as much as 'investigation'."
"Now more than ever, politicians understand that if you can control the language, you can frame the debate."
However, Mr Astle said whatever the motivation for the word swap was, it didn't soften the impact in the end.
"It backfired. In fact, even James Comey himself said, 'Look, we'll call it a matter but in the end we all know it is an investigation', because ultimately that's what the I of FBI stands for."
Can 'hope' have a double meaning too?
Mr Comey also found himself at the centre of a debate around the possible meanings of the word "hope".
In 2008, then presidential hopeful Barack Obama mounted an aspirational campaign and leant heavily on the word "hope" to express the whims of a nation.
Eight years later the mood around the word has shifted considerably.
In his written evidence to the senate hearing, Mr Comey said he felt Mr Trump wanted him to drop an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of the FBI's probe into whether Moscow meddled in the election.
According to Mr Comey, the President said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go". Mr Comey took that as a directive.
Mr Astle said the use of "hope" had a long history in the corporate world.
"There is this tradition of what's called the passive imperative, very much a corporate tactic of plausible deniability," he said.
"If you can say something more in a roundabout way, more wishfully, then the threat is veiled.
"Of course, Mr Comey took it as a directive, but Trump can now sort of pass the accountability downhill, saying, 'I never explicitly ordered that to happen'."
Mr James agreed.
"It almost always implies something more than it says," he said.
Topics: government-and-politics, world-politics, media, united-states
First posted