# data[].attributes.headline
Democrats Used to Campaign. Now Everyone Has a ‘Movement.’

# data[].attributes.subject
Democrats Used to Campaign. Now Everyone Has a ‘Movement.’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Political Memo

Image

Beto O'Rourke of Texas campaigned in Waterloo, Iowa, last month. He is one of three Democrats who have so far sustained their presidential campaigns through small-dollar donations. Credit Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Tired: Mounting a campaign for president of the United States.

Wired: Asking Americans to join your "grass-roots movement" for president.

It's unclear exactly how the two are different. But pitching your "movement'' to voters is now in vogue for a sprawling and unpredictable field of Democrats, all vying to lead the party into its new era.

"Thank you so much for being part of this movement," Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington wrote to his supporters recently. Mr. Inslee is running a long-shot presidential bid primarily about climate change. "I've said all along that this is a movement powered by grass-roots supporters just like you."

"Thanks again for making this movement possible," said another recent campaign email, this one from Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join the conversation around the 2020 presidential race.]

Democratic candidates are desperate to brand themselves as true champions of the people, free of corporate interests and deference to big money. But while only three major candidates - Ms. Warren, Beto O'Rourke of Texas and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont - have, to this point, sustained their campaigns through small-dollar donations, it has not stopped others from characterizing their bids as true "grass-roots movements."

This includes Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, even as she gathered donations at the home of an investment banking mogul, and Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, who have feasted on California's elite donor circuit.

The language shift also reflects a party that is seeking to appease its activist base, which has been emboldened since President Trump's victory in 2016.

Image

President Trump framed his 2016 campaign as an existential struggle, using terms like "movement" to boost his anti-establishment credentials. Credit Tom Brenner for The New York Times

In that election, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump stood out from other candidates for their willingness to frame the campaign as an existential struggle, using terms like "revolution" and "movement" to drive home their anti-establishment credentials. With Democrats now seeking to redefine themselves after more than two decades of dominance by the Clintons and Barack Obama, such phrases have become the norm, rather than the exception.

"You want to try to create the sense of a movement that's new and will grow from the grass roots up," said Joel Benenson, a key consultant on Mr. Obama's campaigns and the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful run in 2016. "But no one has run a race for president without a well-run and well-thought-out campaign."

Alexandra Rojas, the executive director of Justice Democrats, the progressive group seeking to move the Democratic Party further left through primary challenges, said voters should be wary that every campaign claiming to be a movement may not be following through.

"You have to ask: Will they spend a bunch of money in paid communications?'' she said. "Or are they genuinely going to build a grass-roots movement that prioritizes the volunteer base and the small dollar base? If you're not doing both those things, it's hard to claim that you're building a movement."

[ Who's in? Who's out? Keep up with the 2020 field with our candidate tracker.]

The "movement" moment has several historical touchstones that predate the "outsider'' efforts of the 2016 presidential contest. Democratic campaigns of the past, including Shirley Chisholm's historic run in 1972 and Jesse Jackson's "rainbow coalition" of working-class Americans in 1984, serve as a model for modern Democrats seeking to fashion their own bids as bottom-up endeavors.

Mr. Obama won plaudits for bringing together what became known as the "Obama coalition," a demographic mix of voters who fueled his rise from the backbenches of Illinois politics to becoming the country's first black president.

Michael Dukakis, the former Massachusetts governor who won the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, said he hopes the focus on projecting an organic movement doesn't come at the expense of implementing a solidly functioning campaign structure. He said in a crowded primary field, as he had in 1988, the campaign that quickly organizes and targets potential voters will have an advantage.

"I don't think you win elections with movements," Mr. Dukakis said, though he acknowledged the rhetoric may fit the moment.

Senator Elizabeth Warren laid down a populist marker at the start of her campaign, when she announced she would not accept corporate PAC money. Credit Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York Times

"I know we have young people who want to get involved, and they're not fans of Trump, but it's more than that," Mr. Dukakis said. "If you're going to win an election, you need a regular old campaign."

Ms. Warren, who was among the first major candidates to announce she was running, laid down a populist marker on her very first day, when she called for all candidates to reject corporate PAC money and individual super PACs. As other campaigns followed suit, Ms. Warren raised the stakes, eschewing all private and high-dollar donations in a move that has come at some political risk - and led to the resignation of her finance director, who disagreed with the decision.

Strategists have said Ms. Warren, along with Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Sanders, will provide a test case for how much Democrats care about the language of movements being reflected in a campaign. Others have framed the question in a different manner: Is the Democrat base really as opposed to America's wealthy and elite - or to the general principles of capitalism - as some of the presidential candidates believe?

"The base is still anti-establishment," Ms. Rojas said confidently.

Rebecca Katz, a progressive consultant in New York City, said she was "happy to see so many people talking about movements," but added that she hopes the candidates take "other lessons, and not just words."

"Things like working together, listening, and putting forward ideas that the majority of people want," Ms. Katz said. "If you look at successful political movements, whether it's for 'Medicare for all' or Green New Deal, I'm hopeful that they will listen and then fight for what the majority of us want."

Campaigns have also sought to hire staff members with movement credibility, which has meant an influx of more racial and gender diversity, as well as senior staffers who don't come from political consulting backgrounds.

But while Democrats have made staffing and language changes, questions persist about whether this is simply a cosmetic front, or a fundamental shift in where power lies in the top presidential campaigns. Though several staffs have put women and members of racial minorities in top positions and advising roles, many of the candidates' closest political allies remain the insider strategists who helped them rise within the party.

The upshot is that Democrats could choose to adopt the language of grass-roots movements, without the principled ideals. Even Ms. Warren, for example, made clear that her pledge to forgo high-dollar fund-raisers was only a promise for the primary elections, and would not be true if she was the general election candidate.

"Every one of these people are running campaigns," Mr. Benenson said flatly. "They can play with the lexicon all they want."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Where Once They Campaigned, Now They Lead a Movement. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats Used to Campaign. Now Everyone Has a 'Movement.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Political Memo Tired: Mounting a campaign for president of the United States. Wired: Asking Americans to join your "grass-roots movement" for president. It's unclear exactly how the two are different. But pitching your "movement'' to voters is now in vogue for a sprawling and unpredictable field of Democrats, all vying to lead the party into its new era.

# data[].attributes.headline
The grave dangers of Trump's 'patriotic correctness'

# data[].attributes.subject
The grave dangers of Trump's 'patriotic correctness'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) misspoke. In a speech about Islam and civil liberties in America, she described the 9/11 attacks with a phrase - "some people did something" - far too casual. In context, Omar's words were an inartful expression of a legitimate frustration: that, in the wake of this horror, the U.S. security state went into hyperdrive, and the rights of the innocent many were violated because of the abhorrent deeds of the guilty few. Out of context, her words have become a jingoistic cause célèbre.

Naturally, President Trump got in on the action, tweeting a video which juxtaposed Omar's phrase with graphic footage of the terror attacks. Omar reported receiving a "sharp increase" in death threats after the tweet, many of them explicitly referencing Trump's post. But, presented with this information by a local reporter while visiting Omar's home state on Monday, the president was unconcerned.

He had no second thoughts about the tweet, Trump said, "not at all." Omar has "got a way about her that's very, very bad, I think, for our country," he continued. "I think she's extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country."

The logic here is stunning: For those who demonstrate insufficient patriotism, death threats are no problem. In fact, they may even be appropriate. Fail to adequately perform uncritical affection for the United States and it will be noticed and punished. Real Americans police each other's patriotism, Trump seems to be saying, and those who are "extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country" cannot expect to get off scot-free.

Of course, it goes without saying that controversial speech will have consequences. Omar could not anticipate - and I very much doubt she did anticipate - that her speech would be met with universal agreement or even silence from those who don't share her views. No politician with a national profile would be naive enough to imagine she could avoid confrontation; in this very speech, in fact, Omar called on American Muslims to be willing to "make people uncomfortable" in their civil rights activism if necessary.

But there is a chasm between the consequences Omar could have rightfully expected (criticism, denunciation, lost votes, lost office) and those she got (death threats, fueled in part by a tweet from the president, who does not regret his role in inspiring what are hopefully empty menaces to Omar's life). The former is appropriate and normal - part of participating in public conversation in a country like ours. The latter is what happens when patriotism goes awry, when devotion to the nation-state takes a turn toward the idolatrous, when we stop wanting what is best for our communities and simply want to be the best, unchallenged by even what is intended as constructive critique.

This poisonous sort of patriotism - I'll use Trump's word, though "nationalism" would serve as well - is jealous and officious by nature. It demands to be complete, so it requires its observants be ever vigilant for dissent. The result is what the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh has astutely dubbed "patriotic correctness":

It's a full-throated, un-nuanced, uncompromising defense of American nationalism, history, and cherry-picked ideals. Central to its thesis is the belief that nothing in America can't be fixed by more patriotism enforced by public shaming, boycotts, and policies to cut out foreign and non-American influences. Insufficient displays of patriotism among the patriotically correct can result in exclusion from public life and ruined careers. It also restricts honest criticism of failed public policies, diverting blame for things like the war in Iraq to those Americans who didn't support the war effort enough. [Alex Nowrasteh via The Washington Post]

For those operating with a full-blown case of patriotic correctness - and Trump is unquestionably one of the fever's Typhoid Marys - "anything less than chest-thumping jingoism is capitulation" to those perceived to be America's enemies, Nowrasteh writes. It is, in effect, a type of treason (which, recall, is a death penalty offense. Trump's comfort with his role in Omar's receipt of death threats makes a certain grim sense by this rationale).

Thus it is no surprise to find Trump employing "treason" language with some regularity. "I think what the Democrats are doing with the Border is TREASONOUS," he tweeted last week, two days before posting the Omar video. This is a blatantly false accusation: Democrats' border security policies, whatever we think of them, simply do not fit the Constitution's intentionally precise definition of treason, which was narrowly crafted to avoid the abuse of this charge practiced by the monarchs of old Europe.

Kings who claimed to govern by divine right could levy charges of treason to suppress public dissent. Presidents of a nation ostensibly governed by its people - people who disagree on many things, immigration and our policy response to 9/11 both included - are not supposed to do the same.

That Trump does so, and that he does it with the support or at least indifference of so many, should serve as a glaring warning against the ugliness the patriotic correctness he practices can produce. Any demand of loyalty that has us making, condoning, or downplaying threats of murder over a crude turn of phrase is a loyalty imbalanced. It does not benefit our country, and it is no virtue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The grave dangers of Trump's 'patriotic correctness'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) misspoke. In a speech about Islam and civil liberties in America, she described the 9/11 attacks with a phrase - "some people did something" - far too casual. In context, Omar's words were an inartful expression of a legitimate frustration: that, in the wake of this horror, the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Also See
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union," stipulates Article Two of the Constitution, "and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Since 1790, every president has made an annual report to Congress, highlighting the challenges and opportunities facing the nation. Presidents from Jefferson to Taft dispatched lengthy written addresses; since Wilson, most have emulated Washington's example and delivered shorter remarks in person. Using the Bookworm platform for text analysis, we've combed through the full texts of all 224 State of the Union addresses and ranked the frequency with which each president used each word.

Mapping the State of the Union
An interactive graphic shows the 1,410 different spots on the globe presidents have referenced in 224 speeches.
We invite you to explore these speeches. Click on any individual word and observe how frequently each president employed it. Sort by DATE to see how the word's use has evolved over time, and by DENSITY to rank the presidents by their propensity to use that particular word. Click on any of the colored bars to summon a list of all the times that the corresponding president used the word in a State of the Union address. Then scroll down below the graph and see how our team of historians interprets what this chart reveals, and what it may conceal.

FREEDOM: Perhaps the defining value of American society, the word is surprisingly rare in the nation's first century. It appears only once in the Constitution, and early presidents used it sparingly. Not until FDR placed the " Four Freedoms" at the heart of his 1941 State of the Union did the term become a staple of presidential rhetoric. Since then, it has flourished, but with a noticeably partisan tilt: the four presidents to use it the most are Eisenhower, Reagan, and the Bushes. To date, Obama has used it less frequently than any president since Warren Harding. - Benjamin Schmidt

PUBLIC: It was among the most common words in the earliest State of the Union addresses, reflecting the language of self-government in the early republic. Debts, lands, currency, and roads were all public trusts, administered rather than owned by the government. More recent presidents speak of the public only a tenth as much, and then mostly in reference to public schools. In the last 70 years, some of what was once public has been apportioned to either directly to the government or to the American people. The shift may mark a change in the speech's audience as well; while presidents previously exhorted Congress on the public's behalf, now they speak more directly to the people about what government can or cannot do for them. - Benjamin Schmidt

CHILDREN: Children and families make few appearances in these speeches before the 20th century. The New Deal expanded the federal government into realms traditionally left to state and local authorities, and the growing social welfare state brought families into focus. Presidents have also found it rhetorically useful to highlight the benefits of their politics for children, marking a shift in the political discourse. - Yoni Appelbaum

CURRENCY: As the 19th century progressed, the form and basis of the monetary supply became an increasingly contentious issue. Many Republicans stood behind the gold standard, the Greenback Party pressed for paper money not backed by gold, and many Populists and Democrats argued for bimetallism. In the 20th century, fights over monetary policy moved shifted away from precious metals and toward the Federal Reserve. As the issue lost its currency, the word simply disappeared. - Yoni Appelbaum

WAR: For all the variation in these speeches, war is depressingly ubiquitous. Its constant presence, though, masks a variety of different meanings. Presidents have discussed wars between other nations, declared their intent to avoid war, or proclaimed their commitment to rebuilding after wars. More recently, presidents have also introduced metaphorical conflicts, as when George H. W. Bush discussed his War on Drugs in 1989. Even so, the prominence of wars in these speeches underlines both the frequency of military conflicts and the preeminence of national defense among the many responsibilities of the chief executive. - Yoni Appelbaum and Mitch Fraas

HER: Sometimes the context in which a word is used tells us more than raw frequencies. Before the Civil War, many presidents used female pronouns to refer to foreign states. Language evolved, and her disappeared from State of the Union addresses. Then, in 1982, President Reagan acknowledged a heroic federal worker named Lenny Skutnick, sitting in the audience. As presidents made a habit of acknowledging guests who exemplified virtues they wished to praise, her returned to their lexicon. - Yoni Appelbaum

For more on this topic, see " Mapping the State of the Union," by Mitch Fraas and Benjamin Schmidt, along with this tool that compares presidents side-by-side, developed by Benjamin Schmidt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also See"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union," stipulates Article Two of the Constitution, "and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Since 1790, every president has made an annual report to Congress, highlighting the challenges and opportunities facing the nation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spending Behavior Influenced By Language [Motiongraphic]

# data[].attributes.subject
Spending Behavior Influenced By Language [Motiongraphic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spending Behavior Influenced By Language [Motiongraphic]

# data[].attributes.body
Our use of diction towards national issues can negatively influence people's perceptions of our character.

# data[].attributes.body
A claim of policy depicted through the articles is to be cautious of what we say in order to avoid the possibility of turning it into a controversy.

# data[].attributes.body
The language reflects who we are by revealing our biases and opinions on a topic or situation, therefore you should be aware of the words you use to avoid offending people.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reveals who we are by determining our motives and perspective on a topic.

# data[].attributes.body
People should not employ language that promotes their own agenda, while rejecting criticism.

# data[].attributes.body
Our language can reflect our intentions, therefore we should be aware of the words we're using to get our message across while also being aware of the language we hear.

# data[].attributes.body
Our choice of words should be put into more consideration in order to not offend others since it can contribute to conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
Language reflects who we are by revealing our intentions and the motives behind them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arianna Navarro, Jocelyn Wood, Tori Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
Arianna Navarro, Jocelyn Wood, Tori Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
Claim of Value:
People's perceptions of our credibility can be negatively affected when we are not fully conscious of our diction.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to avoid offensive language discussed in a topic, people should be conscious and reflective of their word choice as it may reveal wrong intentions.

# data[].attributes.body
Over exaggerating another person's language is immoral because it misinforms and manipulates the audience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon 

# data[].attributes.subject
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon 

# data[].attributes.body
The words we use to express ourselves are often interpreted differently by other people, therefore you should be wary of the words you use in order to avoid offending a certain audience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tyler Huynh, Vi Tam Nguyen, Leyna Nguyen, Matthew Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
Tyler Huynh, Vi Tam Nguyen, Leyna Nguyen, Matthew Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
Our choice of diction reveals our position on a certain topic, in which we must take precaution of the audience's opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
Language reveals who we are by voicing our opinions and our reasoning for it

# data[].attributes.headline
Jason Nguyen, Ezekiel Hernandez, Isabella Ramos

# data[].attributes.subject
Jason Nguyen, Ezekiel Hernandez, Isabella Ramos

# data[].attributes.body
The diction we use may negatively imply our purpose out of context in the perception of others.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflect the intentions and/or the purpose of people.

# data[].attributes.body
We should be cautious of the diction used as it can change an audiences response and the intentions behind a statement made.

# data[].attributes.body
Language is conveyed differently depending on our interpretation of the intention behind a tone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Richard Mach, Daniel Tabata, Jenifer Tran

# data[].attributes.subject
Richard Mach, Daniel Tabata, Jenifer Tran

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects who we are by our diction subconsciously influencing others  positively.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cyndy Medrano, Corinne Williams, Linda Zavala

# data[].attributes.subject
Cyndy Medrano, Corinne Williams, Linda Zavala

# data[].attributes.body
Our use of diction can either positively or negatively affect people's perception of our character, therefore, it is important to remain neutral.

# data[].attributes.body
Intentional changes in language can be either conveyed as cosmetic or reflected as a complete change in understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects how we view ourselves and our surroundings.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use is able to unintentionally change others' perceptions on both the topic and the speaker.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim of value: The language we use affects how people see us by creating tones in our writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.subject
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.body
Diction in language should be used conscientiously to avoid provoking people unintentionally.

# data[].attributes.headline
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.subject
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use can reflect what our feelings towards a certain subject is and how intense those feelings are.

# data[].attributes.body
Language can affect others' perspectives on our credibility and the topics we address.

# data[].attributes.headline
Isabella Ramos, Ezekiel Hernandez, Jason Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
Isabella Ramos, Ezekiel Hernandez, Jason Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects our characteristics as a person and our intentions/feelings towards a topic.

# data[].attributes.body
One should use diction that could appeal to the audience to establish the goal persuading the audience with the message that is there

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects our true intentions and our personal opinion on a topic.

# data[].attributes.body
People should be aware of the language they use and alter their manner of speaking as to try to not offend people.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects our beliefs or intentions. People should be cautious about their choice of words as to not offend their audience(s).

# data[].attributes.headline
Arianna Navarro, Tori Nguyen, Jocelyn Wood

# data[].attributes.subject
Arianna Navarro, Tori Nguyen, Jocelyn Wood

# data[].attributes.body
Claim of Fact: The language we use reveals our personal opinions and motives about a topic.

# data[].attributes.body
When discussing controversial topics, the language we use can negatively impact the way other's perceive us.

# data[].attributes.body
Politicians should not use language that hints towards changes they won't follow through with because it results in mistrust between the speaker and their audience.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to be cautious of what we say in order to avoid the possibility of turning it into a controversy.

# data[].attributes.body
Revised claim of value: The language we use negatively affects how people see us based on our diction and word choice.

# data[].attributes.body
Our use of diction towards national issues can negatively influence people's perceptions of our character.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use can affect the way readers judge the merit of our character, and, in turn, their values on the topics we address.

# data[].attributes.body
Our language can reflect our intentions because of the diction one uses, therefore one should be aware of their word choice in order to get their message across, and the audience should be aware of it too to avoid being manipulated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Richard Mach, Jenifer Tran, Daniel Tabata

# data[].attributes.subject
Richard Mach, Jenifer Tran, Daniel Tabata

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use may be interpreted as negative, affecting the opinion of others regarding our argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Politicians should not use language that falsely promotes ideas they do not agree with in order to gain support.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reveals who we are by determining our motives and perspective on a topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.subject
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to use language and diction conscientiously to avoid provoking others unintentionally.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arianna Navarro, Jocelyn Wood, Tori Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
Arianna Navarro, Jocelyn Wood, Tori Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
Revised Claim of Value:
When we are not fully conscious of our diction, people's perceptions of our credibility are negatively affected.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cyndy Medrano, Corinne Williams, Linda Zavala

# data[].attributes.subject
Cyndy Medrano, Corinne Williams, Linda Zavala

# data[].attributes.body
Our use of diction can either positively or negatively affect people's perception of our character.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arianna Navarro, Tori Nguyen, Jocelyn Wood

# data[].attributes.subject
Arianna Navarro, Tori Nguyen, Jocelyn Wood

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reveals our personal opinions and motives about a topic.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reveals who we are by letting us voice our opinions and motives towards a certain topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Language is conveyed differently depending on the time, place, or situation, which can also affect a person's interpretation.

# data[].attributes.headline
A change in language is often seen as cosmetic rather than giving a change in understanding. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A change in language is often seen as cosmetic rather than giving a change in understanding. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Cyndy Medrano, Corinne Williams, Linda Zavala

# data[].attributes.subject
Cyndy Medrano, Corinne Williams, Linda Zavala

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects how we view ourselves and our surroundings.

# data[].attributes.body
Writers should be cautious of diction used as it can cause miscommunication and change the intentions behind the statement made.

# data[].attributes.body
The language that we use reflects on our characteristics which can be influenced by our surroundings

# data[].attributes.body
Authors should use pleasurable diction to appeal to the audience through persuasion techniques so they could understand the message and meaning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon 

# data[].attributes.subject
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon 

# data[].attributes.body
When formulating the words to express ourselves, we should be wary of the different interpretations that can arise as it can lead to unnecessary conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
Over exaggerating another person's language is immoral because it misinforms and manipulates the audience.

# data[].attributes.body
It is wrong to negatively change the audiences' perception when you are aware of the language you use.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use, whether false or true, reflects our intentions and/or purpose to the desired audience.

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects who we are by revealing our intentions and the motives behind them.

# data[].attributes.body
People should not solely employ language that promotes their own agenda, while rejecting criticism.

# data[].attributes.body
Our choice of words should be put into consideration when speaking on an offensive topic, since it can contribute to conflicts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.subject
Angeline Khuat, Sanya Soukchareon, Amber Leon

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use can reflect our feelings towards a certain subject and reflect the intensity of those emotions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tyler Huynh, Vi Tam Nguyen, Leyna Nguyen, Matthew Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
Tyler Huynh, Vi Tam Nguyen, Leyna Nguyen, Matthew Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
People should be more conscious of the words they use in a specific society as to prevent unwanted conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
People should be aware of their diction and tone, and alter their manner of speaking as to try to not offend people and make their intentions clear.

# data[].attributes.headline
Isabella Ramos, Ezekiel Hernandez, Jason Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
Isabella Ramos, Ezekiel Hernandez, Jason Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects our characteristics as a person and our intentions/feelings towards a topic.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to avoid offensive language discussed in a topic, people should be conscious and reflective of their diction as it may reveal wrong intention.

# data[].attributes.body
When discussing controversial topics, the language we use can negatively impact the way other's perceive us.

# data[].attributes.body
The use of langauge can differ from topics that makes us reflect on the certain situation which reveals our character

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reflects our  intentions and our personal opinion on a topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
The diction we use may imply our purpose out of context, negatively, in the perception of others. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The diction we use may imply our purpose out of context, negatively, in the perception of others. 

# data[].attributes.body
The language we use reveals who we are by determining our perspective on the world, intentions towards other people, and the motives in our actions

# data[].attributes.body
People should be cautious of their word choice in order to avoid misinterpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
Our use of diction is able to positively or negatively influence people's perception.