Kim Dalton, the head of the Australian Film Commission, was interviewed on ABC 666 Radio last week.
Fowler, Gowers and Don Watson would have wept. It was a masterful performance of bureaucratic language. I’ll come to it below.
The commission is to merge with Screensound, the neologism for what we used to know by the more sensible name, the Australian Film and Sound Archive.
Any organisation that changes its names from the Australian Film and Sound Archive (a name which tells anyone precisely what the organisation is) to Screensound (a fatuous meaningless concoction) deserves punishment.
The punishment should have been for its managers to hang their heads in shame for a week for bowing to faddism, and they should have been ordered to change the name back to the sensible original. The punishment should not have been the organisation’s dismemberment.
But my argument here is not so much about the fate of the Australian Film and Sound Archive as about the language which accompanied the attempted hatchet job.
Why don’t they say what they mean? Why don’t they simply say: We propose to chop away part of the archive in Canberra? We propose to move the management of the collecting of archival material to Sydney and Melbourne. We propose that most of the dealings between the archive and the public will be moved to Sydney and Melbourne. Some people now working in Canberra will have to move or lose their jobs. We think that the action is in Sydney and Melbourne, so there.
If they were not prepared to say that, why put the proposals up?
Dalton is no doubt a hard-working, diligent public servant giving effect to his master’s will, as a good public servant should.
But his language on Chris Uhlmann’s show last Friday on ABC 666 conveyed little meaning to me. What do you think?
This is what he said:
“What we did yesterday was to release the second stage report, review of programs of ScreenSound. It’s a directions paper. It establishes a policy framework that will provide a basis to go forwards with the integration with the AFC. And it makes a number of proposals about both the structure of the organisation and also a realignment of some of the way we deliver the programs, and also sets out some, several, new initiatives.”
In response to Uhlmann’s assertion that people would lose their jobs, Dalton said, “Well, what we did in the paper was to set out a series of proposals, as I said, which will have implications for the structure of the organisation and delivery of programs for the organisation, and yes, some of that will, there will be some jobs which will be affected by those proposals. . . .What I outlined to a number of individuals yesterday who are directly affected by the proposed changes; I outlined the processes that we were going to go through over the next couple of months. And that’s a process of discussion and consultation, both with the staff and representative bodies, such as the union, but also with the broader stakeholders and, to get their input and opinions about the future direction of the archives, and what we think in fact is a very exciting set of new programs and initiatives.”
I translate this as: We have got some plans for the archive and I’m going to talk to the people who might lose their jobs.
As to the plans, I will quote Dalton again. But please do not let your eyes glaze over. Just ask why do people speak like this?
Dalton said, “Well we think what you’ll see no doubt is an expansion of services, and you’ll certainly see a national focus brought to the work of the archives. We’re very much interested in focussing some new programs out into regional Australia, and bringing the collection in a variety of forms into regional Australia and making it more accessible to regional Australia. . . . So, yes of course these sorts of changes, at times, affect individuals, and that has to be dealt with quite sensitively, and discussions have to be had. At the same time it’s very important that the archives does move forward. The Australian Government gave us a brief and that brief is very much about a national focus for the archives and it’s very much about the Australian Government, through the Australian Film Commission, taking a national and a leadership position in terms of screen culture around Australia.”
What in Heaven’s name does it mean?
What does “move forward” mean? What does “taking a national and a leadership position in terms of screen culture” mean?
Dalton again: “Well I guess what we’ve done over the last six months is very thoroughly looked at the operations of the archive. We’ve looked at some of the existing programs, and we’ve decided that we believe, through a realignment and a refocussing, that the existing resources can be used to provide, I think, more access to more Australians, and on a national level.”
Maybe it has some meaning. But for non-native speakers it needs translating.
I don’t think “realignment” means straightening a road or railway track. I don’t think “refocussing” means getting a camera and twiddling the front dial so that close-up things are clearer.
I think it means we are going to chop away parts of the organisation.
And the “national level” means exactlyt he opposite of what you would expect. It means taking part of the organisation out of the national capital and putting it in Sydney and Melbourne.
Asked why a film body like the Australian Film Commission was the best body to deal with sound Dalton said, “Well, there was our experience when we began work on this was that within the sound industries in Australia there was a great deal of concern about the priorities which were or were not being provided towards the sound area. There was a concern about the lack of an articulated policy about, set of policies about, the role of sound within the archives, and that was something that we thought should be addressed. People within the archives also though that should be addressed, and embraced and engaged with that process, and the reaction and feedback we’ve had from the sound industries is that they’ve welcomed that discussion.”
In the old days people addressed envelopes or meetings and feedback was the electronic whine you got when you put the microphone too close to the loudspeaker.
Uhlmann hit with some crisp questions about job losses in Canberra. But it was like running a scalpel through muddy water.
The passive voice pervades this sort of language. For example, “There was a concern about . . . .” We are not told who is concerned. More words, less information. No one to pin anything on.
They also use unemotional abstract nouns: issues, processes, priorities, concerns, initiatives, accessibility, input and implications. They never use emotional abstract nouns: fear, love, hate, envy and greed. They also use what I call misplaced passive verbs: addressed (not envelopes or crowds), engaged (not to be married), embraced (not with arms and kisses) and so on.
However, the language does not work. Either people’s eyes glaze over and they ignore it (as most of it should be) or they get it translated and act on the translation with added fury because they feel they were told plainly first up. And heaven help us if journalists are not around to do the translations and interpretations.
Would you talk to your kids or spouse like this?
“I’m home, dear. Do we have a commitment to move forward in terms of embracing a world’s best practice dinner?”
“No, dear, we’re going to McDonald’s.”