Better example, even though "Doublespeak" is not an official Newspeak term.
Doublespeak -
Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language; any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not.
One way to achieve this is to slip an unrelated sentence into a paragraph, which gives the reader the false impression that the sentence is related to the others.
PEDIATRICS (doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2835)
Unintentional Child Poisonings Through Ingestion of Conventional and Novel Tobacco Products
Gregory N. Connolly, DMD, MPHa, Patricia Richter, PhDb, Alfred Aleguas, Jr, PharmDc, Terry F. Pechacek, PhDb, Stephen B. Stanfill, MSd, Hillel R. Alpert, ScMa
Results: A total of 13705 tobacco product ingestion cases were reported, >70% of which involved infants <1 year of age. Smokeless tobacco products were the second most common tobacco products ingested by children, after cigarettes, and represented an increasing proportion of tobacco ingestions with each year of age from 0 to 5 years (odds ratio: 1.94 [95% confidence interval: 1.86–2.03]). A novel, dissolvable, smokeless tobacco product with discreet form, candy-like appearance, and added flavorings was found to contain an average of 0.83 mg of nicotine per pellet, with an average pH of 7.9, which resulted in an average of 42% of the nicotine in the un-ionized form.
Carefully read that last sentence. Since the rest of the paragraph is discussing products that poison children, you would assume that the novel, dissolvable, yada yada candy-like product discussed in the last sentence has been shown to poison children, would you not? Read it again. All it is telling you is the quantity of nicotine that has been measured in the product. It says nothing about the products causing any poisoning.
Methods:
Accidental poisonings resulting from ingestion of tobacco products by children <6 years of age during the period 2006–2008.
Multiple packs of Camel orbs were measured for nicotine content.
Results: Age-and gender-specific case frequencies for each tobacco product type, including smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), cigarettes and used filter tips, cigars, and others, are shown in Table 1.
What is missing from Table 1?
The Categories in the table include:
Smokeless tobacco - 1,768
Cigarettes and filter tips - 10,573
Cigars - 187
Other/unknown type - 1,197
Recall that "Smokeless tobacco" includes chewing tobacco and snuff.
The Discussion goes on to desrcribe the new dissolvable products.
Connolly and his cronies cleverly give the impression that the dissolvable products are included in the poisoning data, lumped into the second largest category, "Smokeless tobacco" which has the second largest total. However, there was no count being kept of dissolvables, and the Camel orbs targeted in their little project did not even come onto the market until 2009. They conventiently forgot to mention that pharmaceutical nicotine products caused many more poisoning cases than the smokeless tobacco products.
In fact, the only documented cases the authors can cite that can be specifically linked to the "novel tobacco products" are cited in the article: "At least 1 case of ingestion of Orbs by a 3-year-old child (Oregon Poison Control Center, personal written and oral communication, July 27, 2009) and 2 cases of mild poisonings in children 2 and 3 years of age resulting from ingestion of snus (a flavored, oral, tobacco product packed in small paper pouches and sold without explicit warning to protect against child ingestion)."
So when we finally get around to discussing these products, which are not included in the shocking statistics for smokeless products, all they could find was one case for an orb! Big Whoop.
Then there is the dig at the end that the products may create addiction among youths. Hmm... if that hasn't happened with Commit lozenges or Nicorette gum, why would it happen with these products?
