I sometimes comment on small linguistic details. Some people may say I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but, in reality, these small linguistic points often reveal large realities. Here are two statements, made by a journalist and a UK government Minister, in connection with the current BBC drama. (For those who have not been following; the BBC’s flagship documentary programme Panorama took a Trump speech and spliced two separate parts together to make it look like Trump had called for a violent assault on Congress on the day of the political riots in the US just before the last election. This was broadcast before the election and was the smirking, hubristic BBC journos attempt to influence the election. For some reason people have just noticed this; possibly because of a leaked internal BBC report). Trump has been threatening a lawsuit.
Consider;
This is obviously awkward for the government, not least because the BBC is funded with taxpayers’ money and so any payout to the president would ultimately come from them.
….
Not easy for a minister in a government where any criticism of the president is more or less banned. [Guardian journalist(s)] [1]
I think the president can say what he wants, and he will do. And we know that. [1] British government Minister. [1]
Notice, how both the journalist and the government Minister refer to “the President”, not “the US President”. This is how we talk about our own ‘Prime Minister’. “The Prime Minister” – and we understand that we mean our own. In other words; notice how the media and the political class have both accepted, and seek to promulgate, the notion that we are in effect under the jurisdiction of the US President. This is how Roman provincials would have talked about “the Emperor”. Of course; in foreign policy this is true, and has been for a long time. And, given the level of US equity and power of US corporations in the UK economy, it is also, effectively true in the field of the economy as well. Still; even a year or two ago, it would have been normal to go through the motions, of, at least, feigning independence, and the media and politicians would have referred to “the US President”. A small, linguistic point, but a telling one.
Notes