Plausible

Plausible (pronounced plaw-zuh-buhl)

(1) Having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable; possibly or probably true.

(2) Well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust.  Obtaining approbation; specifically pleasing; apparently right; specious.

(3) Worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready (obsolete).

1535–1545: From the Middle English, from the Latin plausibilis (deserving applause, praiseworthy, acceptable, pleasing), the construct being plausus (past participle of plaudere (to applaud)) + ibilis (ible) (the Latin adjectival suffix (now usually in a passive sense) which creates meanings "able to be, relevant or suitable to, in accordance with" or expressing capacity or worthiness in a passive sense). The meaning "having the appearance of truth" is noted from the 1560s.  The plausible has become nuanced (the comparative more plausible, the superlative most plausible) but synonyms (of the historic meaning) include credible, probable, persuasive, possible, logical, valid, conceivable, tenable, creditable, likely, presumable, sound & supposable.  Plausible is an adjective, plausibly is an adverb, plausibility is a noun; the noun plural is plausibilities (although the antonym implausibilities is probably the more often heard form.

Cynicism is nothing new and in English the meaning "having a specious or superficial appearance of trustworthiness" had been appended as early as the 1560s.  The noun has been documented since the 1590s in the sense of "quality of being worthy of praise or acceptance" although it too was soon co-opted and by at least the 1640s was also used to suggest "a specious or superficial appearance of being right or worthy of acceptance".  The adjective implausible (not having an appearance of truth or credibility) dates from the 1670s although as late as earlier in the century it was still being used in its original sense of "not worthy of applause".  There's a prejudice that "implausible" and related forms are used more often than "plausible" and its relations nut it may simply we we notice the former more and "plausible deniability" is really just a loaded way of saying "implausible".

Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is a construct of language to be used in situations where it’s possible to tell lies because it’s not possible for others to prove the truth.  In common law jurisdictions, it exists also as a legal concept given the evidential onus of proof falls (usually) not upon the defendant so if the opponent cannot offer evidence to support an allegation, variously beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities, accusations can plausibly be denied regardless of the truth.  Most associated with politicians or public officials but practiced also by those in corporate chains of command, it’s used usually to deny knowledge of or responsibility for anything unlawful, immoral or in some way disreputable.  Depending on the circumstances, it can protect institutions from damage or, more typically, shift blame (and consequences) from someone senior to others lower in the hierarchy.  While the art & science of plausible deniability doubtlessly has been practiced since the origins of humanity, the phrase was coined within the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), apparently as early as the 1950s although it seems not to have appeared in any printed source available to the public until 1964 and became part of general use only during the Watergate crisis (1973-1974).  Some sources credit Allen Dulles (1893–1969; Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) 1953-1961) himself with the first public use but, like his brother (John Foster Dulles (1888–1959; US Secretary of State 1953-1959)), he's blamed for much.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Within the CIA, it described the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities became public knowledge.  This was a time when the CIA was lawfully permitted to assassinate people, especially uncooperative politicians in troublesome countries.  It's obviously a murky business but the consensus seems to be the CIA still kills people but never uses the word assassination and, dating from an executive order issued by Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977), the agency is no longer allowed to kill heads of state.  This prohibition was presumably a kind of "professional courtesy" on the part of President Ford and one which he must have hoped would be reciprocated.  It's not difficult to guess which countries definitely have at least one executioner silently on the payroll and which almost certainly don't but most are in that grey area of uncertainty.

Alastair Campbell (b 1957; Downing Street Director of Communications & official spokesperson (1997–2003)) with Vladimir Putin (b 1952; Prime-Minister of Russia 1999-2000 & 2008-2012, President of Russia 1999-2008 & since 2012) and Tony Blair (b 1953; UK Prime Minister 1997-2007).  Mr Putin in recent years has stretched plausible deniability well beyond the point at which plausibility can be said to have become implausible. 

One fine practitioner of the art was one-time tabloid journalist Alastair Campbell, spokesman for the New Labour government during most of Tony Blair’s premiership.  Campbell added a post-modern twist in that he dealt mostly with journalists who knew when he was lying and they knew that he knew they knew.  Things evolved to the point where Campbell came to believe this was proof of his cleverness and some suspected he began to lie, even when the truth would have been harmless, just to show-off his cynical contempt for just about everyone else.  It worked for a while and certainly suited the New Labour zeitgeist but later, when employed as press officer for the British & Irish Lions on their 2005 tour of New Zealand, his effectiveness was limited because even when telling the truth, which, in fairness, he often did, the baggage of his past made everything sound like spin and lies.  The Lions lost the test series 3-0, the first time in 22 years they lost every test match on tour but nobody suggested Campbell was in anyway responsible for the on-field performance.  Still, plausibility deniability remains an essential skill in modern media management.  An example would be:

(1) You run a government in some country about which, for a variety of reasons, Western governments tend not to make tiresome complaints.  Here, you can do just about anything you wish.

(2) One of your people has run away to another country and is being really annoying.  You arrange to have him invited home for discussions over a cup of coffee.

(3) They crew sent to issue the invitation botch the job, murdering him in a quite gruesome manner (ie the method not far removed from how they dispatch them on home soil).

(4) You deny it was an execution, suggesting death happened when an argument about football or something became heated.  (Plausible denial #1).

(5) Didn’t work.  You now deny ordering any connection with the operation, saying it was an unauthorized rogue team.  (Plausible denial #2).

(6) The other country lists nineteen suspects involved in the murder and demands extradition for trial.

(7) You work out which of the suspects is most expendable and it's announced he had died in "an accident" (that and "natural causes" often a grey area you've noticed).  You hope the sacrifice will satisfy honor on both sides.  (Plausible denial #3).

(8) Problem isn’t going away, even though kind folks in many countries are helping you try to make it go away.  You have the remaining eighteen suspects arrested and locked-up somewhere reasonably pleasant and most secret.

(9) Other country is still being tiresome, maintaining people who kill others should be tried for murder in country where crime was committed.  You understand the legal point but still can't see what all the fuss is about.

(10) You arrange it to be announced the eighteen suspects are dead, all SWATE (shot while attempting to escape).  (Plausible denial #4).  The system works.