NEW
YORK, March 15, 2004 -- I have
two documents in front of me.
The
first is from Luntz Research,
the firm run by conservative
pollster and media consultant
Frank Luntz who double dips
as an MSNBC commentator. He
plans electoral media strategies
for a fee from the right and
then takes a fee from mainstream
media for his "objective" assessments
of issues on TV. Sounds dicey?
It is.
Frank and Co. take credit for
coming up with concepts like "Contract
With America," "Partial
Birth Abortion," "The
Marriage Tax" and "The
Death Tax". They have a
way with words because they understand
the importance of words in framing
the way the media covers stories
and people understand them. They
say they "revolutionized" political
research and communication in
America because they "specialize
in language."
"We alone," they boast
to differentiate themselves from
other PR firms, "offer numbers,
strategic direction and the actual
words and phrases that have literally
changed history. . . Others may
have more clients. But (we) are
counseling a movement."
The second document comes from
the files of former Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill who told
tales out of school about the
Bush Administration after they
canned him. He took home some
19,000 documents when he left
the bowels of Bushdom. Many were
secret. He then gave them to
journalist Ron Susskind, who
drew on them in his whistleblowing
book, The Price of Loyalty.
Susskind, loyal to the right
of Americans to know what their
government is saying to itself
when telling the public another
story, posted these internal
memos, talking points and other
documents online at http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsusskind.com.
One of these documents shows
how much attention the president
and his cohorts pay to "staying
on message in the media," ie.
what they should and should not
say.
During his time at the Treasury
Department, O'Neill once got
a memo from PR chief Michele
Davis to prepare him for an appearance
on Tim Russert's "Meet the
Press" on NBC. The memo
coached the Treasury Secretary
on how to spin and avoid hostile
questions.
Here's part of what it said.
It shows us how politicians are
prepped to use the media to advantage,
and why they sometimes seem so
robotic:
MESSAGE: FIRST ANSWER. No matter
what the question: We must act
to ensure our economy recovers
and put people back to work
KEY LINES TO DELIVER. An economic
security package to make the
recession shorter and put people
back to work faster. Creating
jobs is the key to success.
WORD CHOICES. Economic security,
not stimulus. Talk about people
and their jobs, not growth and
surplus.
There follows a reference to
what O'Neill's tone should be.
We now know that O'Neill's tone
-- especially his opposition
to the Bush tax cuts -- left
him without a job. And he is
not alone. As Paul Krugman showed
recently in an unusual graphic
chart in his New York Times op-ed
column, the Administration has
yet to come close to its job
creation goals.
Forget reality here, and focus
on the language, the calculated
effort at manipulation and the
way in which public opinion is
influenced by carefully chosen
words, slogans, and political
themes that are repeated endlessly
by officials and the "echo
chamber" that supports them
on radio and outlets like Fox
News.
Even occasionally critical media
performers like Russert allow
these deceptive phrases to sail
by without subjecting them to
tough scrutiny. You can't rely
on most media interviewers to
even realize how they and the
public are scammed.
Berkley Professor George Lakoff
has been studying this phenomenon
and the framing of language that
makes it so successful. Framing
is the mental structure that
we bring to our thinking. He
argues that conservatives know
how to do this much better than
progressives and Democrats. They
have, he says, been doing it
for decades.
"The power of these frames
cannot be overcome immediately.
Frame development takes time
and work. Democrats have to start
reframing now and keep at it," he
writes.
Lakoff does not urge Democrats
to co-opt Republican language
or feign right. Instead, he argues
for getting in touch with progressive
values and a moral system that
cuts "across the usual program
and interest group categories.
What we need are strategic initiatives
that change many things at once."
He urges a posture that goes
beyond Bush-bashing and seizing
on the negatives of the other
side. He counsels a more positive
approach:
"Articulate your ideals,
frame what you believe effectively,
say what you believe and say
it well, strongly and with moral
fervor. It is essential for progressives
to understand the importance
of prodding media outlets to
be more open to their perspectives
and worldview. Consider how polarized
public opinion is in actuality
and how many Americans want to
replace the current Administration.
Then, think about how skewed
the coverage is in this context.
"The next step is to fashion
a strategy of getting access
and then using that access effectively.
Sometimes, you need to have the
rigor and focus that is embodied
in that document I cite preparing
a onetime Bush acolyte for Meet
the Press. Sure it encourages
him to fudge, but it is also
about carefully choosing a message
and getting it over no matter
the questions that come your
way."
Rhetoric, hyperbole and stridency
don't work in a media environment.
You have to be personable and
persuasive. Recognize that many
people who disagree with progressives
on some issues may agree on others.
Don't just preach to the choir.
Assume interest, not hostility."
News outlets love it when the
election campaign gets more intense
and dirty. Confrontation and
name-calling are their bread
and butter. Heat, not light,
is their preference. At the same
time, the public needs to hear
and see critical voices. The
right has been well trained at
playing the media game. Progressives
have to learn the rules and not
be afraid to win.
News
Dissector Danny Schechter
writes a daily weblog on
MediaChannel.org. Embedded:
Weapons of Mass Deception
(Prometheus) is his latest
book.
|
© MediaChannel.org, 2004.
All rights reserved.
|
