Manufactured news
Images and propaganda
How much does free speech cost?
spin
Loaded language
Talking points

Media and Deception

Deception is possible in all forms of communication. Language allows lying, for instance. With the Internet, we could have a 14 yr-old posing as a supermodel in a chat room, or a 30 yr-old pedophile posing as a 14 yr old. TV relies on deception, unreality . . . reality TV may be the worst of this--they are as slickly produced as any TV show, and usually the age range of the actors is what, 22-25? If it's so real why does the TV industry have to tell us? Well, partly because it's officially a genre now, and lots of viewers consume anything and everything that upon first whif smells like reality TV. The following is from a student, who has written scripts for reality TV shows, and who gave permission to share it:

There are a variety of types of shows in reality, from documentary style to games.  These are well worn formats.

When a network orders a show, they choose a format and topic, which is pitched to them from a company that has made other shows for them.  This predictablilty guarantees they'll get a product similar to the ones they've had before and, on the down side, means they are averse to anything "new".

Next, the production company hires people who have worked for them or other similar companies.  Each position is tightly defined such as the "casting" department that chooses the "real" people.  They look for specific types - the hot girl, the nerd, the crazy person - in order to get the proper, familiar chemistry for the show.  It's efficient to make shows through the same process each time.  By utilizing the same system, they produce an expected result.  Because the system has been used many times, it has been optimized for efficiency and the waste eliminated.  This means the production comany owners can pocket more money out of the fee they receive to make the show.

The network airs the show and measures its audience.  This quantifiable measurement is used to determine if the show should continue.  This provides calcuability to the process and insures that more of the same will appear on television.  There is no motive to be creative because creativity is unpredictable.  It is more profitable to produce the same product over and over with different casts of similar characters.  It gives the viewers the same predictable product that they get when they buy a hamburger at a fast food chain.

The process is controlled throughout.  It is managed by large media companies who seek to make profit.  It does not reward creativity because creativity is unpredictable and possibly expensive and the results of a new idea are unknown.  From my perspective the perpetual remaking of the same product which is, in theory, supposed to provide entertainment is unsuccessful.  It is not entertaining to see the same thing over and over.

That is from a student who has worked on these shows in the past. Her point about control being something that pervades the whole process is a good one--control over the cast, over the script and plots, over the production company, and ultimately over consumers--who are baited with these shows in a fairly predictable way with 'teasers' and trailers and the like. In this case, to have predictability over ratings and be able to approach advertisers with some confidence about its value to them. But . . . . reality?? The only reality is that television is heavily scripted and tailored to specific (and affluent) audiences in order to attract advertisers. Ever seen the reality TV hit 'Desperate single parents getting by on food stamps and TANF?' Didn't think so.

And what about radio-what are we getting? How are those super-small playlists calculated? Why do they sound the same wherever you travel? Do we know much about the voices at the other end? Who owns the stations? Are the talk radio hosts anything more than paid actors there to jack up ratings? And newspapers? In some cases, stories that appear are actually press releases sent out by a company (promoting a new product, for instance), but they are presented as news.

The point is that much of media is manufactured, produced, designed to sell audiences to advertisers, as Herman and Chomsky contend, and represents someone's point of view, but is often presented as neutral or disinterested.

Manufactured news

Oftentimes journalists are overworked, outlets understaffed. This causes many to rely on outside experts, people they can call to get opinions--watch the news and see how many 'experts' get interviewed on various issues. How objective are they? We can only assume that the media outlet has chosen them because they are independent, but occasionally you'll hear they're affiliated with think tanks of various sorts. Some of the conservative think tanks include the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Hudson Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute (this was a big one during the Iraq War--Bush made several speeches at their meetings). Liberal think tanks are less common, but exist. The Brookings Institution does policy research, and often times the results contrast with conservatives' views, but it is not affiliated with the Democratic Party as the former are with the Republican Party. In fact one of its scholars, Kenneth Pollack, one of the Brookings Scholars, wrote a book supporting the Iraq War, and much of their money came from the Olin and Bradley Foundations mentioned above. The Center for American Progress is similar to its conservative brethren. CNN and CBS both got caught reporting on White House proposals to change Social Security, using only 'experts' from conservative think tanks (think source filtering).

The Bush/Cheney White House perfected the art of manufactured news, and for most of its tenure was very effective in managing, even micro-managing, the White House press corps. They often require reporters to run quotes by them before they allow them to be published. Do the reporters have to? Well, only if they want access to the White House, so technically, no. The following was from Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post:

Recently, I was working on a profile of the now-departed chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, R. Glenn Hubbard. I dutifully went through the White House press office to talk to an administration economist about Hubbard's tenure, and a press office aide helpfully got me in touch with just the person I wanted. The catch was this: The interview would be off the record. Any quotes I wanted to put into the newspaper would have to be e-mailed to the press office. If approved, the quotation could be attributed to a White House official. (This has become fairly standard practice.)

Since the profile focused on Hubbard's efforts to translate relatively arcane macroeconomic theory into public policy, the quote I wanted referenced the president's effort to end the double taxation of dividends: "This is probably the most academic proposal ever to come out of an administration." The press office said it was fine, but the official wanted a little change. Instead, the quote was to read, "This is probably the purest, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." I protested that the point of the quote was the word "academic," so the quote was again amended to state, "This is probably the purest, most academic, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration."

What appeared in the Washington Post was, "This is probably the purest, most academic ... economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." What followed was an angry denunciation by the White House press official, telling me I had broken my word and violated journalistic ethics.

I had, of course, violated journalistic ethics, by placing into quotation marks a phrase that was never uttered by the source, ellipses or no ellipses. I had also played ball with the White House using rules that neither I nor any other reporter should be assenting to.

The Obama White House has also been accused of tightly controlling public events (most recently, the 'town halls' for discussing health care reform). Media don't always comply, though (an example from an AP reporter).

top of page

Images and propaganda

Propaganda also often passes for news. The photo opportunity, for instance, that substitutes for questions from reporters.

Images are often more powerful than policy analyses. This shouldn't surprise us. Commercial advertising works this way, appealing to emotion, various emotions, including fear. There's the classical conditioning. Pavlov's examples was the dog--he associated the ringing of a bell with the presentation of food, and pretty soon the dog was salivating at the ringing of the bell, having associated it with the food. Commercial advertising shows us skin, sex, beauty, glamour, and tells us to buy. And this is what drives commercial media.
Check out these images from the White House--what are they selling? What is media's role in this? Even the images have become news. Even news is reporting on the news of the images.

Selling war

Don't think this is a carefully orchestrated effort to bring the techniques of PR to the White House? When the Bush Administration was unable to show Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMDs), which was the primary public reason the U.S. was pushing for a war in Iraq, here was what one pollster for the Republican Party had to say:

"Whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction doesn't matter, because the rationale for the war changed," GOP pollster Frank Luntz told the AP. "Americans like a good picture. And one photograph of an Iraqi child kissing a U.S. soldier is more powerful than two months of debate on the floor of Congress." (from Washington Post, June 11, 2003, Terry Neal)

Got that? The rationale for the war was changed. When was the last time a reporter asked the president why he didn't sell the war as a way to simply get rid of Saddam, rather than as a pre-emptive strike to keep Saddam from detonating a nuclear bomb on American soil? Is it possible that American public opinion wouldn't have supported a war to remove him from power if he wasn't an imminent threat to Americans? This is not by any means the first time a president--from either party--has used such rationale to justify war.

Of course, the term 'weapons of mass destruction' is a serious spin, coming from a country that spends .50 of every dollar spent in the world on military capacity and weaponry. The U.S. military, instead of using 'weapons of mass destruction,' used 'smart bombs,' JDAMs, cluster bombs', 'daisy cutters,' and nuclear 'bunker busters' --all with festive sounding names that might make you think they're merely recreational weapons. The terms are sanitized--no implication that their intent is to kill thousands of people, at least not in the name. This sanitizing makes war easier to sell to the American Public. But WMDs . . . well they belong to our enemies. This is effective public relations and propaganda, and wars have always been fought side by side with propaganda machines. Here's a quote:

Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

Sound familiar? Where did this quote come from (it's at the end, if you want to peek)?

Propaganda has been around for a long time. Technology and a sophisticated media have turned it into not only a giant industry for the media (think advertising), but an effective means of influencing public opinion. Remember the quote above: 'you'll never know when a PR firm is being effective; you'll just find your views slowly shifting.'

For some real fun, check out the friendly faces at the CIA home page for kids (and a more somber view of the agency here). Here's totally kewl stuff for kids from the White House?? (editor's note: this is a parody site--the actual White House kids' site can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/).

But isn't all this free speech?

Yes, free to anyone with millions to afford it. Consider the Oregon Measure 27, which was defeated several years ago in a referendum. Measure 27 was designed to require labeling of foods with genetically modified organisms. Supporters of the measure included Paul McCartney, who did a concert in Portland and agreed to do some 30-second commercial spots. Supporters raised $190,000. The debate was awash in money, mostly on the corporate side, though.

Opponents of the measure, mostly multinational corporations in the agri-food business, sunk $5 million into the campaign, and hired the Portland PR firm Conkling, Fiskum & McCormick. You wouldn't know this by checking out their website (no longer online) --they were the 'Coalition against costly labeling.' The Vote Yes on 27 supporters used Paul McCartney on the home page. He also plugged the Measure when he toured through Portland. They, however, have a page that lists endorsing organizations, both for and against the measure. Some of the major corporations against the measure were Monsanto, CropLife Int., ConAgra, PepsiCo, Kellogg, Heinz, Hershey Foods--all large, multinational corporations, interested in quashing the movement. Following was an FAQ from their website:

Q. Who is promoting Measure 27?
A. Measure 27 was promoted by a special interest group called Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods. The group is funded by some organic food producers and organic food retailers who would benefit financially if consumers can be scared into buying their products. The group paid signature gatherers to qualify the initiative so that it could use Oregon's ballot measure process to push its own extreme agenda.

Q. Who opposes Measure 27?
A. The initiative is opposed by a statewide committee called the COALITION AGAINST THE CO$TLY LABELING LAW. Members of the coalition include: Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Oregon Grocery Industry Association, Oregonians for Food and Shelter, Oregon FoodPAC, Oregon State Grange, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Oregon Restaurant Association, CropLife America, Associated Oregon Industries and its Retail Council, and Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy (this should sound familiar ...).

Note that the supporters were a 'special interest group.' We don't see CropLife International, but CropLife America. We have the 'Oregonians for Food and Shelter' as well. Sounds pretty grassroots, eh? Their website stated ' Oregonians for Food and Shelter is a coalition to promote the efficient production of food and fiber, and protection of human health, personal property and the environment, through the integrated responsible use of pesticides, fertilizers and biotechnology. ' No information about who the sponsors of the website or organization are, but the page on board members is telling. But there are some key terms there: personal property (and intellectual property rights), 'efficient production' (sound familiar?), pesticides, fertilizers (brought to you by the petrochemical industry ...), and biotechnology implies multinational agribusiness firms.

If you think PR firms don't know how to use money to swing public opinion in the direction of their clients' interests, here's what the Portland Tribune reported at the time:

The Tribune reports that a new poll shows the anti-labeling campaign leading 65 percent to 27 percent, with 8 percent of those surveyed undecided. "The results were the reverse of a poll taken a month ago, just before opponents began running TV and radio ads and started a direct-mail campaign," the Tribune writes.

top of page

Spin

What is spin? It's taking a concept, and changing the meaning, usually to improve public opinion (in the political arena). 'Oregonians for Food and Shelter' sounds much better than 'Agribusiness Against Organic Farming,' doesn't it? We've talked about some easy examples: pro-life versus anti-abortion or anti-choice, pro choice versus pro-abortion. Lately we've heard 'terrorisim' or people advocating the killing of the unborn. Former Bush/Cheney White House operative Karen Hughes illustrates nicely, after essentially comparing pro-choice advocates, close to one million of whom recently marched in Washington, DC, with terrorists (spin has been italicized):

Hughes made her comments on Sunday, April 25, on CNN. Speaking in reaction to the more than one million women and men gathered in Washington, D.C., for the March for Women's Lives, Hughes said:

"I think after September 11, the American people are valuing life more...and I think those are the kind of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really, the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."

Hughes addressed the growing outrage over her comments with an e-mail statement published in the Washington Post on Wednesday. "That is a gross distortion and I would never make such a comparison," Hughes said. "Surely even the most strident of partisans, and reasonable people on both sides of the abortion issue, can agree that we have been reminded of the precious nature of human life and that we ought to work to reduce the number of abortions in America."

Hughes managed to use at least four forms of spin here: 1) speaking for the American people, 2) guilt by association (terrorists and pro-abortion marchers in same breath), and 3) the partisan attack (I've done nothing wrong or partisan--they're the partisans, I'm a reasonable person), and 4) substituting a reasonable argument (reducing abortions) for a radical argument (outlawing abortions)--do we think she's advocating contraception as a means of reducing abortions??

Bush, Clinton and polling

Presidents all use pollsters, but in different ways. President Clinton used polling obsessively-to help formulate public policy. Why? Presumably to come up with popular policies that would have broad support. He was roundly criticized by conservatives for 'governing by polls.' His policies were often quite conservative, even right of the center, but he managed to get support for them.

President Bush said that there was no polling in his White House. He saids in the press that he governs 'based on principle and not polls and focus groups.' If only. As Joshua Green pointed out,.Bush's pollsters had names (although like PR pros, they were not public figures), and his administration spent $1 million on polls in his first year in office-twice what Clinton spent during his first year. Bush's 2 pollsters--one does surveys and the other focus groups--are in the background, though, more like PR firms operate . . . in fact, one of the reasons Bush tried to distance himself from polls, is because polls suggested the public was turned off by Clinton's use of them. So creating an image of being 'principled' was one way to distinguish himself from Clinton (who for various reasons wasn't too popular toward the end of his 2nd term).

How does the Bush White House use polls? Often after approval ratings are low, for instance after they rolled out their energy plan--Vice President Cheney's project, which was essentially a wish list written by the oil and gas industry. They follow the strategy of consultant Frank Luntz (chapter 5), which is to find the language that will best sell their policies. One uses polls to formulate policy to achieve public support; the other uses polls to garner public support for existing policy.

Here's an example from the days after 2004 when the President was attempting to move Social Security to the private sector (rather than as a government program, funded by the payroll tax). In a speech his first year, rather than address "Social Security," Bush opted to speak about "retirement security." Polls suggested that 'retirement security' was a more effective way--especially after 9/11, when practically everything was tied to 'security'--to move toward change and private social security accounts--even though a vast majority of the public is opposed to such a move. And during the brief speech he repeated the words "choice" (three times), "compound interest" (four times), "opportunity" (nine times) and "savings" (18 times). Why? Because his proposal to allow people to take social security and put it into private investment accounts was unpopular. Polls showed pretty clearly people liked the idea of a guaranteed retirement pension, rather than betting on the fortunes of the stock market. So polls and focus groups were used to refine the argument--the key words were 'choice,' 'higher returns,' and 'control.' Later, 'privatization' was replaced with 'personalization.' The 'ownership society' was used to try to convince people they could 'own' their own retirement (rather than the current system, where workers finance current retirees). We haven't changed social security yet, but Bush won re-election in 2004 partly because he didn't scare too many elderly voters . . . More examples: school vouchers were unpopular, so the name was changed to 'school choice.' The policy was the same and is still unpopular with most Americans--giving people money to send their children to private schools. The 'estate tax', which Bush wanted to repeal, sounded like a benefit for the wealthy. How many of us have 'estates?' So it is now referred to officially as the 'death tax.' Who could argue that the government should soak grieving families, no matter how wealthy they are or whether they did anything to earn their inheritances?? 'Social security privatization' later became 'wealth-generating private accounts' . There are new efforts afoot to 'do something' about Social Security, but after the stock market's performance in the last few years, it's unlikely politicians will have the support they need to hand it over to Wall Street. Other name changes used included 'Healthy Forests,' which was a policy to increase salvage logging in National Forests (but which also included agreements to harvest old-growth timber, a more contentious and lucrative issue). Here's Fox News' take, this from In These Times. Then there was 'Clear skies,' which was a watering down of existing anti-pollution regulations through the Clean Air act, sought by utilities companies wanting to increase their investments in coal-fired power production without triggering costly regulation.

Use of loaded language

Here's an example, from fair.org (fairness and accuracy in reporting), from Newt Gingrich, who was a prominent conservative and critic of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. He's writing about the use of language to persuade and influence public opinion, essentially this was a memo to Republican candidates, an instruction book for politicians and political candidates about how to attack democrats and their policies in the press, or fend off attacks:

"As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC (a Republican Party committee to support and raise money for GOP, or Republican candidates [GOP stands for 'Grand Old Party') tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We Are a Majority," Langauage is listed as akey mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates, we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used....

Contrasting Words
Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists... endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...
stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage

(Okay, here are the 'good' words):
Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... crusade... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide... liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom... peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... workfare... eliminate good-time in prison... strength... choice/choose... fair... protect... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate

So, next time you listen to a politician's speech, listen and see how many of these words pop up. It doesn't matter whether they're true characterizations or not, or whether they unfairly smear the opponent--what matters is the ability to influence the public and win elections. Remember the third propaganda statagem--appeal to emotion. Scare 'em to death, and then offer them warm fuzzies in the form of your own solution to a problem!

top of page

What are 'talking points?'

Again, enter Frank Luntz. Republicans were very successful in the 2002 elections, partly because Republican candidates were given a 'campaign primer,' essentially a script or playbook of talking points, to memorize for debates and interviews with the media. Here are some examples of the 'talking points' the Republicans were told to speak with one voice on:

• Avoid supporting any specific proposal for personal retirement accounts - the concept backed by President Bush to let workers invest part of their payroll taxes on their own. And "never use the word 'privatize' when referring to Medicare modernization or reforms."
• If environmental groups endorse a Democratic rival, for example, Republicans are urged to say that the "Sierra Club has given at least 96 percent of their major political party contributions to Democrats."
• If challenged on school vouchers, the suggested response is, "I'm not going to engage in class warfare. The real issue here is opportunity."
• On social security privatization: "There are a lot of studies, proposals and options out there right now. Of course, it is difficult ... to have an honest debate on the subject because Democrats are simply using scare tactics," says the suggested response.

Luntz also produced a voluminous 2006 midterm election guide. No one on the democratic side has his knack for word craft. Linguist George Lakoff has tried to interest democrats in using the same techniques (to support political views more aligned with his own), but Lakoff does not have the ear of the party. He co-founded the Rockridge Institute, a liberal think tank, but the money wasn't there to support projects that didn't have large industrial/corporate donors.

The quote was from Hermann Goering, said during the Nuremburg trials after World War II. Goering was Adolph Hitler's Reichsmarschall in Nazi Germany. Actually, there was some controversy over whether Goering ever said this. There is an excellent website, www.snopes.com, that discusses this quote--it is an excellent site for debunking many of those bad emails you get that sound fishy.