Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:50:48.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preventing the political manipulation of Covid-19 statistics: The importance of going beyond diplomatic language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2022

Michael Billig Open the ORCID record for Michael Billig [Opens in a new window]  and
Cristina Marinho
Michael Billig*
Affiliation:
Loughborough University, UK
Cristina Marinho
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Michael Billig Department of Media and Communication Loughborough University Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK m.g.billig@lboro.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how the political manipulation of Covid-19 statistics was opposed in 2020. It does this by studying in detail the language used in a public exchange of letters in the UK. The exchange was between the chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA), a statutory body to prevent statistical malpractice, and the Minister of Health, who had been manipulating Covid statistics. The exchange reflects the greater power of the government minister. Initially, the UKSA chair used diplomatic language, marked by paratactic constructions, unspecified arguments, and impersonal structures that did not threaten the minister's face. The minister ignored these and the UKSA chair had to go beyond diplomatic language by re-specifying his arguments and upgrading his critical terminology. Only by catching the press's attention did the chair succeed in making the minister rectify, at least partially, the manipulated statistics. Implications for understanding today's political values are discussed. (Opposing statistical manipulation, manipulating Covid statistics, diplomatic language, parataxis and hypotaxis)

Type
Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , November 2023 , pp. 733 - 755
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aragão, Roberto, & Linsi, Lukas (2020). Many shades of wrong: What governments do when they manipulate statistics. Review of International Political Economy 29(1):88–113. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1769704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, Hannah (1951/1975). The origins of totalitarianism. London: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah (1977). Between past and future. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
BBC (n.d.). How to write a formal letter. Online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zv7fqp3/articles/zkq8hbk.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, & Ciucci, Luca (2012). Parataxis, hypotaxis and para-hypotaxis in the Zamucoan languages. Linguistic Discovery 10:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Joel (2001). Damned lies and statistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Best, Joel (2021). How to lie with coronavirus statistics: Campbell's law and measuring the effects of Covid-19. Numeracy 14(1), article 6. Online: https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.14.1.1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 19:783–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael (2013). Learn to write badly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael (2019). More examples, less theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael (2021). Uses of precise numbers and semi-magical round numbers in political discourse about Covid-19: Examples from the government of the United Kingdom. Discourse & Society 32:542–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael, & Marinho, Cristina (2014). Manipulating information and manipulating people: Examples from the 2004 Portuguese parliamentary celebration of the April Revolution. Critical Discourse Studies 11:158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael, & Marinho, Cristina (2017). The politics and rhetoric of commemoration. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael, & Marinho, Cristina (2019). Literal and metaphorical silences in rhetoric: Examples from the celebration of the 1974 Revolution in the Portuguese parliament. In Murray, Amy Jo & Durrheim, Kevin (eds.), Qualitative studies of silence, 21–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael, & Marinho, Cristina (2022). Using examples to misrepresent the world. In Harris, Randy & Fahnestock, Jeanne (eds.), Routledge handbook of persuasive language. New York: Routledge, to appear.Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack (2019). Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics 150:80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borges-Rey, Eddy (2016). Unravelling data journalism. Journalism Practice 10:833–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruss, Kristine, & Graff, Richard (2005). Style, persuasion, and character in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Advances in the History of Rhetoric 8:39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter (2003). The microanalysis of political communication. London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter (2008). Slipperiness, evasion and ambiguity: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27:324–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, David; Gomes, Mary; Higgins, Dolly; & Lauterbach, Karen (1987). Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:1219–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabrejas-Peñuelas, Ana Belén (2017). Manipulation as an ideological tool in the political genre of Parliamentary discourses. Pragmatics 27:207–34.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul (2005). Manipulation, memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf. In Saussure, Louis de & Schulz, Peter (eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century, 15–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, & Heritage, John (2002). The news interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushion, Stephen; Lewis, Justin; & Callaghan, Robert (2017). Data journalism, impartiality and statistical claims. Journalism Practice 11:1198–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Louis (2013). Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 59B:178–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Louis, & Schulz, Peter (eds.) (2005). Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunton, Jim (2017). Sir David Norgrove interview. Civil Service World, June 17. Online: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/sir-david-norgrove-interview-new-chair-of-uk-statistics-authority-on-elections-the-misuse-of-numbers-and-working-for-margaret-thatcher/.Google Scholar
Dymarsky, Mikhail (2014). Towards the history of two oppositions: Parataxis vs. hypotaxis and coordination vs. subordination. Language and Language Behaviour (Язык и речевая деятельность) 14:67–76.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, & Potter, Jonathan (1992). Discursive psychology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Espeland, Wendy Nelson, & Stevens, Mitchell L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology 24:313–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, Wendy Nelson, & Stevens, Mitchell L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology 49:401–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne (2011). Rhetorical style. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman (1998). Manipulation. In Mey, Jacob & Asher, Ronald (eds.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 537–38. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger; Hodge, Bob; Kress, Gunther; & Trew, Tony (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, Robert, & Seiter, John (2018). Persuasion. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On language and linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Health and Social Care Committee and Science and Technology Committee (2021). Oral evidence: Coronavirus: Lessons learnt, HC 95. House of Commons. Online: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2249/html/.Google Scholar
Herder, Anke; Berenst, Jan; de Glopper, Kees; & Koole, Tom (2020). Conversational functions of ‘I know’, ‘you know’ and ‘we know’ in collaborative writing of primary school children. Classroom Discourse 13(1):1–31. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1814368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, Carl I., & Weiss, Walter (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15:635–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huma, Bogdana; Stokoe, Elizabeth; & Sikveland, Rein Ove (2021). Vocabularies of social influence: Managing the moral accountability of influencing another. British Journal of Social Psychology 60:319–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaposi, David (2008). To judge or not to judge: The clash of perspectives in the Scholem–Arendt exchange. Holocaust Studies 14:93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaposi, David (2009). The unbearable lightness of identity: Membership, tradition and the Jewish anti-Semite in Gershom Scholem's letter to Hannah Arendt. Critical Discourse Studies 6:269–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanham, Richard (2003). Analysing prose. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lawson, Brendan T. (2020). Re-imagining the quantitative-qualitative relationship through colouring and anchoring. Journalism. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920969085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier (2013). Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics 59:190–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier, & Oswald, Steve (2009). Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragmatics 1:348–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier, & Oswald, Steve (2011). Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In Hart, Chistopher (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinho, Cristina, & Billig, Michael (2023). How can governments be prevented from manipulating statistics about Covid-19? An example from UK politics. In Ilie, Cornelia (ed.), Manufacturing dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Masia, Viviana (2021). The manipulative disguise of truth. Amsterdam: John Bemjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews-King, Alex (2018). Health Secretary Matt Hancock deletes ‘1,000 more GPs’ claim after statistics watchdog censure. The Independent, November 28. Online: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/health-secretary-matt-hancock-gps-statisticsuksa-censure-false-facts-a8655961.html.Google Scholar
Mau, Steffen (2019). The metric society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Mihelj, Sabina; Kondor, Katherine; & Štětka, Václav (2021). Audience engagement with Covid-19 news: The impact of lockdown and live coverage, and the role of polarization. Journalism Studies 23(5/6):568–87. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1931410.Google Scholar
Muller, Jerry Z. (2019). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Amy Jo, & Durrheim, Kevin (eds.) (2019). Qualitative studies of silence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Hoa, & Nguyen, An (2020). Covid-19 misinformation and the social (media) amplification of risk: A Vietnamese perspective. Media and Communication 8:444–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oborne, Peter (2021). The assault on truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, and the emergence of a new moral barbarism. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969). The new rhetoric. London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan (2001). Wittgenstein and Austin. In Wetherell, Margaret, Taylor, Stephanie, & Yates, Simeon (eds.), Discourse theory and practice, 39–46. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth (2010). What is political interference in federal statistics? The Annals of American Political and Social Science 631:225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Biljana (2013). Diplomacy and the unsaid. Diplomat Magazine, August 19.Google Scholar
Scott, Biljana (2018). Poetry and diplomacy: Telling it slant. Training Language and Culture 2:51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Susie (2019). The social life of nothing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, & Wilson, Deirdre (1995). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, Dale L. (1993). The ethos of epideictic encounter. Philosophy and Rhetoric 26:113–33.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2018). The Code of Practice for Statistics. Office for Statistics Regulation. Online: https://code.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020a). Appointment of two new non-executive directors to the UK Statistics Authority Board. Online: https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/appointment-of-two-new-non-executive-directors-to-the-uk-statistics-authority-board/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020b). Daisy Cooper MP to Ed Humpherson: Coronavirus testing programme. Online: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/daisy-cooper-mp-to-ed-humpherson-coronavirus-testing-programme/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020c). Response from Sir David Norgrove to Daisy Cooper MP: Coronavirus testing programme. Online: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/response-from-sir-david-norgrove-to-daisy-cooper-mp-coronavirus-testing-programme/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020d). Sir David Norgrove letter to Matt Hancock regarding Covid-19 testing. Online: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-letter-to-matt-hancock-regarding-covid-19-testing/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020e). Sir David Norgrove to Willie Rennie: Care home visiting. Online: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-to-willie-rennie-msp-care-home-visiting/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020f). Response from Matt Hancock to Sir David Norgrove: Covid-19 testing. Online: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/response-from-matt-hancock-to-sir-david-norgrove-covid-19-testing/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020g) Sir David Norgrove response to Matt Hancock regarding the government's Covid-19 testing data. Online: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-response-to-matt-hancock-regarding-the-governments-covid-19-testing-data/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2020h). Matt Hancock response to Sir David Norgrove. Online: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/matt-hancock-response-to-sir-david-norgrove/.Google Scholar
UK Statistics Authority (2021). The Authority's role in making public interventions on the use of statistics. Online: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/policies/our-interventions-policy/.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17:359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. (2012). Discourse studies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Whitfield, Gregory (2020). On the concept of political manipulation. European Journal of Political Theory. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120932253.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth (2009). The discourse of politics in action. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, & Meyer, Michael (eds.) (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: SAGE.Google Scholar