“Walking back” — the new darling in media terminology

With the presidential race in full swing, news stations (primarily cable) are in 24/7 mode talking with and interviewing “experts” and “surrogates” for both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

As both sides send out their PR, marketing, polling and media experts, these poor souls have the unenviable task of having to explain the positions of their bosses (the candidates) and more often than not, “clarify” what the candidate meant to say but didn’t.

This holds true for both Trump and Clinton.  Trump with the immigration issue and Clinton with her email issue.  Both make large statements at large gatherings, and when what they say sinks in, the media want to know why they both keep changing their positions.

Typically this would be called “changing a position” or “taking back” a promise.  Simple and straight-forward language.  But a new term has crept into this election.  It is “walking it back.”

What exactly does it mean to “walk back” something?  Well, apparently it means the same thing as changing a position.

So while Trump originally said he wants to deport 11 million Mexican aliens, his reps have to go on TV and “walk back” that statement and say what he really means, whatever that is.  And the same with Hillary.  When she said she turned over all the emails she had, and the FBI said no she didn’t, then her reps have to go on TV and “walk back” that statement and clarify what she meant to say, but for some reason forgot.

We live in a world of soundbites and a changing of language to keep up with the changing times.

Most of it is fueled by the media, who for some reason find simple, plain English just to boring to adhere to.

Now that’s a statement I will never “walk back.”