But this does raise an interesting point:  When the mere use of certain terms reinforces the legitimacy and/or appeal of an ideology or culture that supports the dominant power structure (even if that usage creates potentially bad associations for those terms), then does using those terms become intrinsically Orwellian (because no matter how and when and to what end the speaker uses them, they serve to reinforce the dominant power structure)?

Using (in an imprecise way : because after all, the original meaning is still valid) buzz speak when the speaker does not intend to promote it feels much more Orwellian than when there is such a promotional intent.

I believe that for something to be Orwellian, there has to be an intent to deceive or distort

Because the problem with Orwellian speech is not its use as propaganda, easily recognisable as such, but but when indeed its formulations and simplifications become part of common discourse, orienting thoughts its way... I'd find it much more worrying if the economist was using "brand name" without being aware of its impreciseness rather than because he was fishing for some speaking tour in business conferences...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères