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.
|
