The media is another means through which language is manipulated in 1984. The Party is continually changing what is printed in newspapers, and not just newspapers, but all forms of language distribution that might spark any kind of free thought in its citizens: “This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance” (Orwell 36). This then, prevents citizens from having any reason to rebel against the Party. An additional way that the Party uses the media to manipulate its citizens is by altering the political speeches that Big Brother gives to correct any wrong information he might have spoken: “It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother’s speech in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened” (Orwell 35). By manipulating Big Brother’s speeches in this way, it makes it look as though he is always right and sets up an image of perfection in the public’s minds. Why would they rebel against a perfect leader? Luchini says this strategy is of particular significance because it “forces people to want to comply with the rules” (Luchini 103), as opposed to the citizens under dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini who hated their leaders and hated having to follow their rules, and therefore were always looking for ways to overthrow them (Luchini 103).
            Today’s journalists do not go that far, of course, but they do determine how stories are presented and what language to use when writing about current events. For example, when U.S. military troops participate in activities that could be called terrorist in nature, journalists do not use the word “terrorism” in their reports. Van Dijk talks about this way of presenting a more appealing side to military actions: “… ‘our’ forms of political violence, such as military intervention or the actions of the police, are spoken and written about in such a way that they do not give rise to mental models that can be generalized as terrorist attacks, but as legitimate forms of (armed) resistance or punishment” (Van Dijk 371). An additional means of language manipulation is to soften language to make negative events seem more positive. This is often achieved through the use of known euphemisms, particularly about military actions, which are commonly used nationwide in newspaper and magazine articles and therefore become everyday terms. In his article “Politics, Advertising and Excuses: Why Do We Lie?” published in the July 2004 issue of ETC, Robert Ian Scott sites a Newsweek article from May 6, 1968 entitled “New Peak for Newspeak,” which talks about how euphemisms are used, particularly in reference to military actions, to soften language. The article cites “effective ordinance delivery,” which is really a cover for “bombs demolish a target,” and “collateral damage” in place of “killing helpless civilians” (Scott 194) as primary examples. By using euphemisms like these, the public gets a much less violent image of the war efforts and may be less likely to protest against it. Luckily, we have not reached the level of language manipulation used by the media in 1984, but current-day journalists clearly do use manipulative language at times.