David Edwards of Media Lens.
Stephen Poole is, assuredly, a proficient writer, his essay on Orwell sure to impress and provoke. And that's the key power of liberal output, in serving to define the critically safe boundaries of language and what we may reasonably consider 'unspeak'.
The power of Edwards's critique lies not only in defending Orwell's name but in pointing out the core limitations of Poole's own 'radical' language.
Orwell and Fromm understood that broader political and ethical concerns were being eliminated from awareness by state-corporate forces persuading people to view themselves as producers and consumers rather than as responsible human beings. More recently, American physicist Jeff Schmidt, who edited Physics Today magazine for 19 years, describes how media professionals are trained in exactly this way to internalise the understanding that they should not ‘question the politics built into their work’ [...] Ironically, Poole’s review of Orwell is itself a textbook example of the kind of alienated response described by Orwell, Fromm and SchmidtOrwell, a true crusading writer, would surely have approved of Edward's own human undercutting of liberal journalism and the corporate professional at large. It's the real kind of unspeak that Guardian writers like Poole find hardest to face.