Communication

Aristotle said that the end of all communication is to persuade-or negative-deter use the speaker to get the desired effect by the message source, which could well be the issuer, in the role of interpreter or message encoder decoder, as the primary source of information.

The lack of objectivity and fairness in all human communication are two critical dimensions of product quality information, which subsequently generates false beliefs in the receiving body-or interpersonal models in the receiver-thus resulting emotional damage, physical, finance, among others. This detachment from objectivity might as well be by mistake or fraud, find their difference in the intent of the information source.

Misinformation not only communicate voluntarily misconceptions for a particular purpose of the receiver, but it carries with planning, deliberate and premeditated, semiotic and discursive design aims to transpose the message receiver designed to behavior, then the decoding process post-commonly called "significance" by some interpretative models of communication, in addition to providing positive or negative impact that the message will have on the recipient, taking into account their field of expertise and shared reference, as well as their scale of values, needs , beliefs, etc..

Already some studies report that use of language is given equal treatment disinformation to the transmission of false information, misrepresentation journalism, lies, misinterpretation, misleading or deceptive. It is time to understand that this analysis does not address the wider society gives to the term, much less, to the journalistic message misrepresentation or lies, but rather, seeks to scrutinize the subject-message through the media from a social and individual perspective, appealing to the behavior of power relations (economic, political, ecclesiastical, academic and social) for building a socialized reality that is not tied to collective interests, but molded in order to maintain control and constrain the individual to its own self and identity.

An example the language used to prepare the ground for the recent invasion of Iraq, as well as to describe its different stages, has been aimed primarily at influencing public opinion, so that what has been an outright military occupation, planned for years, to look like the inevitable consequence of a process generated by "evil" (the Other) of that "good" (ours) just defends. This elemental and primitive Manichaeism has characterized associated propagandaism invasion and occupation, and has been associated with sacralized fundamentalism which, while accusing the "enemy" of the worst handling, using their own resources only expanded and with greater efficiency.

The role of language in the process, led by the media, is twofold. First is the classic manipulation , by which , and persuasion techniques derived from advertising, are formulated and transmitted tendentious statements , twisters , or simply false , while hiding unwanted information : the traditional war propaganda . In this sense it is said that the first casualty of war is truth, where the media are used to hide the truth, to convey falsehoods, to misinform. But secondly there is another more subtle form of manipulation, consisting of the inappropriate use of existing concepts, or creating new ones, through which articulates the global discourse on the war, so as to establish a " way of speaking " official about the whole process, which is usually followed closely by the media, even to some degree by those who claim to oppose in principle what is happening. It is the second casualty of war: the language itself, and thus their implicit conceptual apparatus.

This is possible because language in general by the limitations of the lexicon used (the concepts), presents "reality" in a certain way, in the sense that the world is perceived through the different terms we use to "describe", and thus through their different loads valuation. Therefore, not only euphemisms have been used, as can be easily replaced by euphemisms alternative terms more precisely descriptive, but something deeper. Of what it is to create a comprehensive and coherent conceptual framework that leaves no alternative language option except everyday communication forcing (which is contrary to the same communicative effectiveness), including here the journalists themselves, who sometimes welcome, expressed manipulative unwilling, to which politicians and their advisors have created for them in a planned manner.

What a better example than our recent war that continues to go for about 10 years now. The officer speaking mode on the "war" could not forget the image of the future which seeks to Iraq and the rest of the area. First you should proceed to the "reconstruction" of the country, and then move to impose a "new order" in the area, looking for the "stability and peace" world, which required a "regime change" in Iraq, which, through "various stages" supervised by the U.S., should move from dictatorship to "end democracy" within a short period, ending with the integration of the new Iraq to the "international community".

The concept of "reconstruction” as applied to this case, or any massive bombardment followed by criminal invasion and occupation

...