Origin and History of The Phrase
The Washington Post editor Benjamin C. Bradlee "is credited with coining the phrase non-denial denial to characterise the evasive Oval Office answers to questions," according to a 1991 retrospective on Bradlee's career in The Times.
The phrase was popularized during the Watergate scandal by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their 1974 book All the President's Men, in reference to evasive statements and equivocal denials by then-Attorney General John N. Mitchell.
William Goldman's screenplay for the 1976 film adaptation put the phrase into the mouth of Ben Bradlee and used it to dramatic purpose. The Bradlee character looks at some White House releases and comments "All non-denial denials. We're dirty, guys, and they doubt we were ever virgins, but they don't say the story is inaccurate." Later, Bradlee worries about the accuracy of a story and asks the reporters "That didn't sound to me like a non-denial denial. Could you have been wrong?" But when other editors suggest that the paper needs to back down, Bradlee writes a note that says "We stand by our story," which he calls "My non-denial denial"; then he adds, "Fuck it, we'll stand by the boys."
A 1976 newspaper article called an Olympic official's statement on blood doping "a non-denial denial, a Watergate denial", an assessment of Ron Ziegler's career dubbed him "the non-denial denier" and placed his tenure as White House Press Secretary in "the Alice-in-Wonderland era that spawned the form of official evasion that came to be known as the non-denial denial."
Read more about this topic: Non-denial Denial
Famous quotes containing the words origin, history and/or phrase:
“Though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed,a, to me, equally mysterious origin for it.”
—Henry David Thoreau (18171862)
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
—Karl Marx (18181883)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase the meaning of a word is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, being a part of the meaning of and having the same meaning. On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)