Anyone who reads newspapers regularly can see the way reporters and editors use subtle changes in the language to manipulate what readers think.

Euphemisms instantly come to mind. In newspapers of a few decades past, lifestyles weren't alternative; behavior was deviant; mentally impaired people were retarded; the disadvantaged were poor; the homeless were bums, hoboes and vagabonds. The examples are myriad.

Each new word aims to convey less judgment and more compassion and grace. Of course words aren't the same thing as attitudes, and such tinkering with the language only causes its corruption. Along with creating new words, reporters and editors adopt 50-cent words where a dime word will do.

Instead of "go with," we "accompany" our parents to church. "Consequently" replaces the simpler and more direct "so." "Hasten" is a great word. So why must we "expedite?" I don't want "additional" mashed potatoes with my dinner. I want "more."

"I plan to finish the job soon if I can save enough money" becomes "It is hoped that I can finalize the obligation in the near future in the event that I am able to accumulate sufficient financing."

Of course such an abomination wouldn't appear in this newspaper, but portions of it have crept past editors. A writer's failed attempt at flashiness -- or the more common wordiness and sloppy verbiage that results from a rushed job -- isn't as bad, though, as the measured abuse of the language for ideological reasons.

Paul Johnson said never to trust someone who tries to win an argument at the expense of the language. That he would do so is proof positive that his argument is false and proof presumptive that he knows it.

Writers who want to proselytize their readers must cloak their vision of people and events in compassionate and graceful euphemisms and smear the opposing view as simplistic, immoral and unenlightened.

Thus we read of an anointed victim de jour who is a complicated individual with special circumstances that demand our compassion and understanding. Anyone with an opposing view is a dim-witted and obstinate bigot. In so many words. Compare the way media portray conservatives like Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm and Pat Buchanan with their treatment of Colin Powell.

Which brings me to one of the most annoying phrases in the current political lexicon. The media repeatedly refer to Powell and those who share his politics as fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

What does this mean? I understand a fiscal conservative. He wants to lower taxes, cut government spending and lighten oppressive regulations. But what is a social moderate?

Does a social moderate look at rampant lawlessness, increasing illegitimacy and an expanding welfare state and say, with moderation, things aren't really that bad? If he did, no one would take him seriously. He certainly wouldn't be knighted as the media's golden boy as was Powell before he decided not to run for president.

Social moderatism is the euphemistic label for someone who's mostly conservative, except when it comes to abortion and public acknowledgment of God. It's easier to accept a tender tag like social moderate than to defend the dismembering and killing of unborn children or the censure of God from public life. And the label allows the dishonest media to promote their anointed while demonizing the "fringe radicals" of the "religious right" who hold a different view.

The public sloshing through the swamp of dishonesty can't help but collect its share of sludge. And so, just as we have adopted into our vocabulary such assaults on the language as "utilize," "prioritize" and "necessitate," we gradually accept the equally abusive labels of gay (most are anything but), peacekeepers (who look an awful lot like soldiers) and social moderate.

~Jay Eastlick is the news editor of the Southeast Missourian.