The Pen as Sword in Gulf . . . Situation : Words: Hussein, Bush and the media all keep an arsenal of euphemism and hype on hand to further their own agendas.

Words on the airwaves. . . .

That they can be weapons has been demonstrated by the scorching battle of euphemism and hyperbole that has marked Persian Gulf tensions and blurred reality.

Propagandizing words are hardly new to TV. They’re the very essence of the medium, in fact, from their use in toothpaste commercials to the infinite book and movie promotions passed off as useful conversation on talk shows.

Such words are stored in our brains as symbolic forms that can be recalled with the proper stimuli. After years of seeing and hearing Arab and terrorist linked, for example, exposure to one of these words automatically triggers a mental image of the other, justified or not.

The gulf conflict has intensified the spotlight on words, from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s self-serving description of his captives as “guests”--as if he were Conrad Hilton and checkout time were noon--to early characterizations of Hussein by President Bush and others as a “Hitler” or a “madman.” Despite a recent softening on the verbal front in the United States, the “Hitler” and “madman” labels persist.

Hussein is a rotten character, all right, but villains as epic as Hitler come along only about once a millennium. And for someone at times described as demented, he seems to have acted rather shrewdly at times. For instance, although his ruthless policy of deploying “human shields” at key installations sharpens his maniacal image in the West, for all we know it may indeed have achieved his purpose of deterring a U.S. air attack.

“Hitler” and “madman” are dehumanizing words of warspeak that have traveled across the airwaves since early August--effective language for shaping public opinion and whipping up fervor for troop buildups and military action. After all, if your opponent is as monstrous as Hitler--whose holocaustic policies killed 13 million civilians--or is incapable of rational thought on any level, then even the most extreme action against him seems not only justified, but even mandatory. You don’t negotiate with a deranged demon.

More gulf-coverage language to ponder:

* Crisis . When does this cease being a “crisis”? Although that word continues to be the operative title in local coverage describing events in the gulf region, the networks have increasingly tried alternatives. ABC, for example, has been calling it the “gulf standoff.”

* Middle East situation desk . Sounds impressive, evoking a feeling of danger and excitement and images of huge maps and charts in front of which journalists who are specialists follow troop and diplomatic movements in the gulf region.

Not quite. Actually, the “Middle East situation desk” is KABC radio’s exaggerated description of its modest rip-and-read operation. When it comes to hyperbole, broadcasters take a back seat to no one.

* Exclusive . More hyperbole. Never have there been more “exclusive” TV interviews with a single person than those with Mohamed Sadiq Al-Mashat, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States. This guy has to be wearing roller skates to get to all these “exclusive” interviews. The loose interpretation of “exclusive” here is that no one else was interviewing him at that moment .

* Our boys overseas . This archaic description of U.S. forces in the gulf region should be dropped immediately in view of the numerous females serving abroad.

The questionable use of certain words extends beyond the gulf story. For example:

* Live . Perhaps the leading weapon in local news arsenals is the “live” report, even when going “live” serves no purpose other than to create a mood of excitement and immediacy that’s intended to titillate viewers, not inform them. Having someone do a “live” standup on a day-old story is every bit as deceptive and manipulative as it is dramatic.

* Special . NBC programs that look like documentaries, sound like documentaries and, in fact, are documentaries, are no no longer documentaries. So says the network. Its new title for such programs--”special”--is designed to attract viewers who normally would not view documentaries. And after viewing some of these programs, they may not want to view “specials” again, either.

* Victim . Some of the publicity concerning “When You Remember Me,” a movie airing Oct. 7 on ABC, describes Fred Savage as playing a “victim” of muscular dystrophy. Having a disability does not make one a “victim,” a word that connotes helplessness.

* They . You’ve heard it an infinite number of times: “They say.” Yes, well, that takes care of that, for if “they” said it, it must be true. But who are the mysterious “they,” and where do “they” get their information? Why do “they” know more than we know?

* Brown nose and suck . It’s startling how some words and expressions come into common usage on TV and elsewhere without anyone seeming to consider their genesis. To “brown nose” means to cozy up to someone you want to impress. It succeeds “apple polishing.” But unlike the latter, “brown nosing” verbalizes a physical act--the words are self-explanatory--that is disgusting.

“You suck!” were the words spoken by a 7-year-old character on the premiere of the new CBS series “Uncle Buck.” CBS justified using the line on the basis that kids that age say it all the time. That’s another debate. But even if they do say it, do they know that it refers to oral sex?

* Destroy and put to sleep . These are the common euphemisms for taking the lives of animals, cushioning terms designed to make us feel better about the act. Humans are killed or murdered, animals are destroyed, a word that implies a certain detachment. Humans are killed, animals are put to sleep, as if they’ll wake up later.

A story on a recent local newscast detailed a number of animals in the possession of a man arrested at his house. One was a rattlesnake. Said the reporter: “Authorities put the snake to sleep.” Did they sing it a lullaby or what?

Some expressions should be “put to sleep.”