Chapter 1 looks at the range of figurative language types that can be found in advertising, discusses how and why they are used creatively and reports findings from studies that have explored the relative advantages of different combinations of metaphor and metonymy. It introduces key concepts such as metaphor, hyperbole, understatement, metonymy, and illustrates how they work alone and in combination in effective advertising. The chapter then explores ways of exploiting the creative potential of figurative messaging. These include the use of personification, shock tactics, anaphoric reference, innuendo, and narrative structure. Finally, it shows how figurative language can be used effectively in advertisements to convey humour and irony.

Defamation can have a long-term effect – a ‘propensity to percolate through underground channels and contaminate hidden springs’ of C’s reputation (per Slipper v BBC1). It is a technically difficult tort, in which the defences available to D assume equal, if not greater, prominence in the judgments as do the elements of the cause of action itself. As a common law tort, it is an ‘ancient construct’ (per Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd2). The Defamation Act 2013, which took effect on 1 January 2014, overruled aspects of the common law, but preserved other aspects, adding to the complexity of the tort. Wherever the publication complained of began in 2013 and continues into 2014, the court is now likely to have to consider the position both at common law and under statute (per Donovan v Gibbons3).

This section introduction furnishes an overview of Trump’s verbal behavior when it verges on or crosses into falsehood, by way of innuendo, gaslighting, and plausible deniability. It compares the Trump administration’s symbolic practices with those of Nazi Germany, including the use of superlatives and hyperbole so extreme it takes on a “fairy tale quality.” The chapter further identifies a favorite Trump discourse sequence here termed “reactive reversal,” related to the concept of “plausible deniability” discussed in a later chapter. First, Trump stakes out a hyperbolic claim, and if a public outcry follows, Trump reacts by reversing his claim and blaming others for their inference. Then he may triumphantly declare victory over whoever “really” claimed/did what he originally claimed. This is one of Trump’s methods of gauging reaction from the public.