(Well, last time I nailed it down it did.  When I pulled the nail out it went  Peeeeeeeiuw!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

Language doesn't have a Set of meanings because tokens, words, and (especially) phrases do not have rigorous definitions.  The token "is," word "To Be," has pages of definitions and sub-definitions in the OED.  Illustration:

x IS y ; Logical, where IS conveys "the same as"

The ball IS red  ; Phenomenological, where IS conveys "has the ontological accidental of"

In the Logical use the the use of the token within the term can be rigorously defined through axiomatics such that it can determined, necessarily, the relationship of x and y.

The the second use ... well, it gets complicated and the process gets more convoluted as one applies greater rigor.  Grossly, but accurately, simplified: the end point of analysis is ultimately achieved when the analyst declares, "Bugger this for a game of soldiers" and moves on.

Doublespeak happens when the communicator purposely manipulates the inherent ambiguity of Language for emotive (a la Logical Postivitism) persuasion with the intent to obfuscate, rather than illuminate.  

But what we are all coming to realise is that what people DO is more important than what they say.

That is why 'action' is a topic here at ET.

You can't be me, I'm taken

Oh, we have that too. It's "la communauté internationale". Never quite figure out what that was.

Apparently, it refers to those nations which take it upon themselves to police the world.

I don't think Colman is worried about diaries, I think he's worried about doublespeak in the press, and government and thonk-tink pronouncements.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

If one points out a distinction, some will say that this means there must be a line between black and white. If one points out shades of grey, some will say that this means there is can be no distinction. The former use dawn and dusk to argue against day and night; the latter use day and night to argue against dawn and dusk.

This pattern, if named, could perhaps be dismissed more quickly an generate less noise that distracts from substantive discussion.
--------------

Where meaning is real, yet inherently fuzzy, I often think in terms of prototypes: a prototypical "day" is sunny, and a prototypical "night" is dark. However, another pair of prototypes would have the Sun well above or well below the horizon. Finns may find these exotic, and instead use clock time: Helsinki, land of he midnight dusk.

Note that part of the fuzz is that the prototypes themselves can differ -- but they, too, need not be precise. Meanings remain useful provided that what is similar to one prototypes is usually similar to the other.

A prototypical "European culture" is of course harder to describe than day or night, but disaggregating what one means into dimensions (religions, political structures...) works fairly well, and can be done with respect to the specific issues addressed in a discussion.

My position supports the use of labels, but opposes the idea that they must correspond to boxes. They have meaning, but not need not have that kind of meaning. In actual discourse, however, where a label is being abused, it may be best to avoid it. (Thus, I can concede the uselessness of any label, in a prototypically abusive context.)

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

Esp. No.3  You can't defeat propaganda by deciding that a word can't mean X, Y, or Z.  In Orwell's 1984, doublespeak worked because words were removed from the language.  Without the word to think the thought, there was no thought.  But if we endlessly clarify a word, or change it subtly (all words change subtly over time; etymology is fascinating--to me), or just make some up for the hoil of oot, and laugh at those who use democracy when they mean no such thing...by using it against them...

The problem is the deliberate use of words to an end by Ze Purrs Dat Be, but it seems this power is on the wane as the word has left the presses and leapt into the internet...

Well, that's the hyperbole.  If the political discussion is formed by The Sun, The Mail and [add your local examples here], then "higher" words are irrelevant as "traitor", "scum", "coward", "cheat", "liar" etc. are used as...weapons?  I've lorst the plurt!  Eek!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.