A new media protocol will ensure no plain-language medical explanation escapes without several additional layers of clarification.
In this satirical report, news organisations require a second expert to explain every expert’s plain-language explanation. The target is the recursive machinery of broadcast clarification, not patients, families or illness.
Following a recent radio segment in which an oncology professor translated a serious medical update into accessible language, major news organisations have announced that every expert explanation will now be followed by a second expert explaining what the first expert meant. The measure is intended to protect audiences from accidentally understanding a subject before the broadcast has filled its allotted duration.
The new protocol was developed by the International Bureau of Recursive Clarification, an obviously fictional standards body headquartered inside a conference-room flowchart. Under its rules, a medical specialist may explain a technical term in ordinary language, but the explanation cannot be released until it has been reviewed by a senior correspondent, a graphics producer and an accredited Practitioner of Saying It Another Way.
“Experts are trained to provide accurate context, which is valuable but operationally alarming,” said Dr. Clarissa Parenthesis, the bureau’s Director of Explanatory Containment. “If a professor says something clear in twenty seconds, the remaining four minutes become dangerously available for silence, reflection or another story.”
“Our goal is not to confuse viewers. Our goal is to explain clarity until it becomes content.”
Explaining the explanation
Under the system, the first expert will describe the concept carefully. A presenter will then lean forward and ask, “But what does that mean?” The second expert will repeat the explanation using shorter nouns. Finally, an animated graphic will depict several glowing arrows approaching a simplified human outline while a label reading “WHAT THIS MEANS” occupies approximately 43 percent of the conceptual atmosphere.[1]
Felix Gloss, Interim Deputy Undersecretary for Accessible Accessibility, said the bureau had considered allowing audiences to retain the original explanation without further processing. That proposal was rejected after a risk assessment identified the possibility that listeners might simply absorb the information. “Comprehension without visible mediation creates the impression that journalism has ended,” Gloss said. “We therefore insert an additional interpretive gasket between every statement and the person hearing it.”
The protocol also establishes a Jargon Escalation Ladder. At Level One, a technical term is defined. At Level Two, the definition is paraphrased. At Level Three, a correspondent stands beside an enormous touchscreen and moves a digital circle from one side of the screen to the other. Level Four is reserved for occasions when the touchscreen does not respond, requiring the correspondent to tap it repeatedly while maintaining institutional composure.
Media ethicists welcomed the decision on the condition that serious diagnoses remain treated with dignity and that the explanatory machinery—not patients, relatives or illness—remain the object of scrutiny. The bureau agreed, adding that its next project would be a twelve-part explainer on why explainers begin with the phrase “So, essentially” and then continue for the lifespan of a medium-sized refrigerator.
[1] The remaining 57 percent is reserved for a photograph of a laboratory corridor, two unnecessary gradients and the word “BREAKDOWN,” which here means “explanation” rather than the newsroom’s internal condition.”
