The fine art of WT-style deceptive writing.
The other day, I happened across this Watchtower Press release from June of last year, relating to the changes surrounding the blood transfusions df-ing policy. I had seen it before, but in re-reading it I was struck by the clever construction.
There are three key paragraphs (which were top-and-tailed with an intro and summary) and all of them ended with the words: “…this position has not changed.”.
In fact a good deal had changed procedurally – from this point on they were no longer actively disfellowshipping a transfusee, but were deeming the transfusion to be a voluntary act of disassociation - which is as every bit as good as a disfellowshipping, but with less legal risk to themselves.
Clearly, though, someone in the PR dept. felt that the tone of the thing should be “no change here, steady as she goes, what’s all the fuss about?” Hence, all the repeated “this position has not changed”.
So how do you introduce fairly major policy change within an announcement while still conveying to the uncritical reader an overwhelming sense of “nothing’s changed” ?
Like this:
Paragraph one says:
The Bible commands Christians to “abstain…from blood.” (Acts 15:20) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed.
So far, so good.
Paragraph two:
If one of Jehovah’s Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.
This too is true. We are now all nicely set up for the switch, which comes in Paragraph three:
If a baptized member of the faith wilfully and without regret accepts a blood transfusion, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The individual is no longer viewed as a member of the Christian Congregation because he no longer accepts and follows the Biblical prohibition to abstain from blood.
They should paragraph-off here and say : (klaxons blaring, lights flashing) “THIS IS THE CHANGE! THIS IS THE CHANGE! This is the new stuff, and the whole point of this announcement!”
…but they don’t. They continue right on in the same paragraph on a slight tangent:
However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This position has not changed.
So, there they have 3 paragraphs, each of which ends up with the mantra: “this position has not changed”.
Except that in the third paragraph, that crucial phrase relates not to the whole paragraph, but solely to the immediately preceding sentence. The business about possibly accepting someone back into the fold indeed has not changed, but the way that piece of writing is constructed, the casual reader may well conclude that they have just read three paragraphs restating existing policy, no part of which has changed .
You gotta hand it to ‘em. They are very clever, they do know how to do this stuff.
Duncan.