- The mainstream media carry out their propaganda service
on behalf of the corporate and political establishment in many ways: by
choice of topics addressed (government rather than corporate abuses, welfare
rather than Pentagon waste, Kadaffi rather than Guatemalan state terrorism),
by their framing of issues (GDP growth rather than distribution, Fed policy
effects on inflation and security prices rather than on unemployment),
by their choice of sources of information (heavily depending on officials
and think tank flacks), and by their use of language, among other practices.
-
- I want to focus here on the tricks of language that serve
propaganda ends, although it should be recognized that biased word usage
is closely tied to the other modes of bias. Heavy reliance on officials
allows the officials to frame the issues and to use words in ways that
serve their agenda. The word "terrorist" is applied to the target
enemy (Iran), or the enemy of our friend (Hamas, the PLO, the Kurdish PKK),
not the "constructively engaged" governments of Colombia, Israel,
Turkey or, back in the 1980s, Savimbi and the apartheid government of South
Africa. The examples below will show how story framing and word usage are
essentially two aspects of a single process.
-
- The integration of word usage, framing, and source selection
points up the fact that language is an arena of conflict and struggle.
Word meanings, connotations, and applications are fluid and change in the
course of struggle. For example, labor has long fought to have the word
"strike" mean a legitimate labor tactic and part of the institution
of collective bargaining, whereas management has always tried to get the
word to symbolize labor violence, inconvenience to the community, and damage
to the GDP and balance of payments. Management has been pretty successful
in getting the word interpreted with negative connotations. Similarly,
"welfare" has taken on negative connotations as part of the 25
year long corporate and rightwing attack on the welfare state. This same
campaign has seen the word "government" become a word of derogation.
Politicians run against "Washington" and "government."
At the same time, interestingly, as the right wingers like killing (except
fetuses) and are fond of the military establishment, they have succeeded
in making the word government applicable only to the government in its
civil functions; in denouncing the "government," we are not denouncing
the Pentagon.
-
- Words are regularly transformed in the service of the
powerful. "Terrorism," originally used to describe state violence,
as in the French Revolutionary "reign of terror," has evolved
in modern times to focus mainly on anti-government, anti-establishment
forms of political violence. "Political correctness," originally
an ironical left term for the standards of comrades prone to sectarianism,
was seized by establishment spokespersons for a broad-brush castigation
of the academic left. "Freedom" has been subtly transformed in
the New World Order from political to economic liberty (including liberty
for GE, GM, Exxon, and Royal Dutch Shell), just as "democracy"
has lost its substantive qualities in favor of adherence to electoral forms.
"Entitlement" has taken on negative connotations as the dominant
class has succeeded in identifying it with claims of the weak, as in "Social
Security entitlements" (there are no military-industrial complex "entitlements,"
only "procurement," service contracts, and occasionally acknowledged
"subsidies").
-
- "Reform" is the classic of word revisionism
in the service of power, transformed from meaning institutional and policy
changes helpful to the afflicted and weak to moves away from the welfare
state and toward free markets, thus helping the afflictors and strong.
In an Orwellian twist, "reform" that frees the poor and weak
of their "entitlements"-pushing them into a labor market kept
loose by Alan Greenspan-is referred to as "empowerment."
-
- Let us review some of the common word tricks of the servants
of power in the media and think tank-academic community, taking examples
from recent press usage.
-
- PURRING
-
- Purr words are those with positive and warming overtones
that create an aura of decency and virtue. Reform, responsible, accountability,
choice, jobs, growth, modernization, flexibility, cost-benefit analysis,
national security, stability and efficiency are all prime purr words. The
"reformers" are always having their "patience tested,"
while never testing the patience of others ("Labour costs test patience
at US Airways," Financial Times [FT], April 14, 1997). And they are
invariably moderate, centrist, courageous, daring, and proud. The New York
Times' (NYT) Leslie Gelb spoke of Aspin, Solarz, and Al Gore as "courageous"
for having broken ranks and supported George Bush's decision to bomb Iraq
rather than pursue any less violent course of action (March 10, 1991).
A NYT headline of April 11, 1997 reads "Proud but Cornered, Mobutu
Can Only Hope." Mobutu is one of the great thieves and scoundrels
of modern times, but having been installed by the CIA and protected by
the West until 1997, even now he is accorded the purr word "proud,"
which the paper would never apply to Kim Il Sung or Saddam Hussein.
-
- We can put up a large list of purr words from names of
congressional bills, always designed to express positive values, even if
in substance they threaten enormous pain: New Jersey's "Family Development
Initiative Act" (stripping benefits from the poor); the "National
Security Revitalization Act" (more boondoggle money); the August 1996
"Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act"
(which includes five purr words in a single Orwellian classic of doublespeak).
Republican pollster and deception manager Frank Luntz carefully tested
the "resonance" of words in advising Gingrich and company on
the language to be used in the Contract With [sic] America. He was quite
open that you include purr words even if it misrepresents intent, yielding
the deception masterpiece "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act,"
for a proposal whose core content was sizable cuts in capital gains taxes.
-
- The use of "flexibility" in "Democrats
Show Flexibility On Capital Gains Tax Cut" (NYT, Feb. 23, 1997), illustrates
how word usage and framing are integrated-"flexibility" gives
a positive resonance and tacit approval within a frame stressing political
compromise. The paper could have used words like "cave in" or
"weakening" and framed the issue as one of Democratic acceptance
of a further regression in the tax structure.
-
- For the New York Times, spokespersons for the military-industrial
complex like Sam Nunn, the late Henry Jackson (Senator from Boeing), and
the recently retired Republican Senator Alan Simpson are "moderates"
and automatically get words expressing approval-an article by Claudia Dreifus
on Simpson is titled "Exit Reasonable Right" (June 2, 1996),
and in an interview she allows Simpson uncontested justifications for his
"rough" usage of Anita Hill and assailing Peter Arnett's Gulf
War reporting as traitorous. A column on Jeane Kirkpatrick, by Barbara
Crossette was titled "A Warrior, A Mother, A Scholar, A Mystery"
(NYT, Aug. 17, 1994). Kirkpatrick was most memorable as a "scholar"
for her view that "totalitarian" regimes like those in the Soviet
bloc can never open up; and as a humanist she was perhaps best known for
alleging that the four American nuns raped and murdered in El Salvador
in 1980 had asked for it.
-
- For the Times, the Arab world is "split into a clearly
moderate, pro-Western camp led by Egypt..and a fiercely nationalistic anti-Western
coalition gathered around Iran..."(Aug. 12, 1990). Moderate and pro-Western
are synonymous and sources of "stability," as in "In Uneasy
Time, Saudi Prince Provides a Hope of Stability" (Jan. 19, 1996).
Pro-Western moderates like Saudi Princes, or Suharto, are never "dictators"
or "tyrants" like Fidel Castro, and if they are not explicitly
tagged moderates, approval is expressed by references to their economic
accomplishments in "growth"-as regards Suharto, for example,
"even his critics [specifics unmentioned] acknowledge that he has
brought growth and prosperity to this country of 190 million people"
(NYT, July 28, 1996).
-
- A moderate program is one approved by the western establishment,
whatever its impact on the underlying population, as in "Jose Maria
Aznar was appointed prime minister [of Spain] on a moderate platform, promising
strict austerity to put the economic house in order" (Philadelphia
Inquirer, April 5, 1996). As noted earlier, those implementing approved
programs are accorded other purr words-they are bold, courageous, slay
ogres, and they do things "quietly" (Thomas Friedman, NYT, "Mexico's
quiet revolution," Dec. 17, 1995), never noisily and recklessly. These
purr words often not only express approval but mislead as to substance.
Thus, James Sterngold says that "Nafta is all about corporate efficiency"
(NYT, Oct. 9, 1995), which is completely untrue-it is about corporate bargaining
power, corporate rights to invest abroad, etc. If "moderates"
carrying out neoliberal programs do this in violation of election promises,
this is itself courageous and meritorious for the dominant Western media.
Politicians must "stay the course" and avoid "pandering
to fears" (translation: do what the electorate wants; NYT, ed., entitled
"Why Poland Can't Flinch," Oct. 26, 1991), which displays the
triumph of media class bias over the nominal commitment to democratic processes.
-
-
- SNARLING
-
- Snarl words are those that induce negative reactions
and feelings of anger and rejection, like extremist, terrorist, dictator,
dependency, welfare, reckless, outlaw, and snarling itself. Moderates never
snarl, nor can they be outlaws, terrorists, dictators or reckless. Established
institutions like the Pentagon and large corporations don't suffer from
"dependency" or receive "welfare payments." There is
"waste" in social budgets, so assassins of the welfare state
pretend that that is what they seek to contain in budget cuts (along with
"dependency" and immorality). They can count on the mainstream
media not making comparisons of waste in social and military budgets.
-
- Fidel Castro runs an "outdated police state"
(NYT, March 8, 1990). Leslie Gelb speaks of the "vicious dictator"
of North Korea in an article entitled "The Next Renegade State"
(NYT, April 10, 1991). There is no "outdated police state" or
"vicious dictator," let alone renegade, among the "commercially
engaged" countries of the world. The NYT has never used "vicious
dictator" to describe Pinochet or the Argentinian generals of 1976-83
who, in the words of an Argentinian truth commission, brought to Argentina
a terrorism "infinitely worse" than what they were allegedly
combatting.
-
- Environmental "extremists" using "junk
science" are now frequently encountered in the mainstream media, especially
with the numerous industry mouthpieces like ABC reporter John Stoessel
and the editors of the Wall Street Journal. This reflects the intensified
corporate assault on environmental regulation, which feeds into the media
through corporate funded think tanks (see "A Million For Your Thoughts:
The Industry-funded Campaign Against the FDA by Conservative Think Tanks,"
Public Citizen, 1996). For the industry-think-tank-media complex, extremism
and junk science are, simply and crudely, oppositional positions and data.
Vigorous counter-positions, however, have been advanced by the Union of
Concerned Scientists ("Is junk Science Trashing Our Planet?,"
Nucleus, Winter 96-97) and in Peter Montague's Rachel's Environment &
Health Weekly as well as other publications, so that there is a struggle
over who perpetrates junk science, but the monied interests have an edge
in the mainstream media.
-
-
- PUTDOWNS
-
- These are less aggressive words of denigration that chide
rather than snarl. Leftists are "noisy" ("Latin Leftists
Make a Noisy Comeback," WSJ, Jan. 2, 1997), whereas those pursuing
neoliberal ends like Zedillo, as noted, are "quiet." Leftists
are victims of dogmas ("German unions dump left-wing dogmas,"
FT, Nov. 16-17, 1996), whereas those pursuing neoliberalism are showing
courage and realism in advancing what by implication are true principles.
And when leftists are not noisy but recognize their setbacks and need to
adapt, they are "chastened" ("A Chastened Latin Left Puts
Its Hope in Ballot," NYT, July 29, 1996). That they may be chastened
by systematic state terror that decimates their ranks need not be mentioned.
-
-
- PLAYING DOWN VIOLENCE
-
- Economic "reforms" are "tough" and
toughening ("Tough reforms bring rewards," FT, Dec. 16, 1996;
Latins are "Toughened by experience," FT, Feb. 10, 1997). Our
own managers of terror abroad are "tough" ("Tough Guy For
Latin Job" [Elliot Abrams], NYT, May 1, 1985), and our client state
leaders who kill and torture are not ruthless killers and torturers but
"tough" (Argentinian General Robert Viola, NYT, Oct. 6, 1980)
or merely "forceful" (Israeli General Ariel Sharon, NYT, Feb.
11, 1983). Their massacres are muted into the use of "disproportionate"
force ("EU criticizes Israel's use of disproportionate force,"
FT, Oct. 2, 1996) or "repression" ("Mr. Clinton made the
requisite complaints about Indonesia's repressive tactics in East Timor,"
NYT, 10/3/95); their torture is "physical force" ("Israel
Allows Use of Physical Force in Arab's Interrogation," NYT, Nov. 16,
1996) or "harsh interrogation" (NYT, Nov. 17, 1994). After each
Israeli invasion of Lebanon-referred to as an "incursion"-the
NYT refocuses attention away from the killed, wounded, and dispossessed
victims to the "new opportunities" for diplomacy ("Shock
of War Could Improve Opportunities For Diplomacy," July 11, 1982;
"U.S. Sees Opportunities and Risks In Mideast After War in Lebanon,"
Oct. 31, 1982).
-
- Back in 1982, U.S. officials brought to the United States
a Nicaraguan officer allegedly captured in El Salvador who "confessed"
that Nicaragua and Cuba were aiding the Salvadoran rebels. In a press conference
in Washington, he declared that his confession had been extracted under
torture. The New York Times article describing this was entitled "Recanter's
Tale: Lesson in Humility for the U.S." (April 2, 1982). The use of
"humility" allowed the story to be framed around U.S. official
embarrassment at the failure to properly assess the Nicaraguan's shrewdness
and ability to "hoodwink" us, and away from the fact that our
clients torture. This kind of trick helps explain why torture was so readily
institutionalized in the U.S. provinces under U.S. training. We should
be "humble" in expecting torture payoffs.
-
-
- OBSCURING APPEASEMENT OF CLIENT STATE TERROR
-
- Key phrases serving this function include "quiet
diplomacy," "commercial diplomacy," and "constructive
engagement," which are intended to suggest that the appeasing administration
is really bargaining hard for human rights rather than putting a public
relations face on its appeasement.
-
- We also "de-link" commerce and human rights,
which implies that we merely separate the two rather than that we attend
to the former and ignore the latter. With commercially important client
states it is notable how often relations are "complex" and negotiations
with them "delicate" ("The American relationship with Saudi
Arabia is complex and delicate...," NYT, ed., Jan. 29, 1997), in contrast
with our dealings with say Cuba where words and action can be rough. This
language covers over the fact that material interest causes us to appease
and even aggressively protect regimes that grossly exploit and deny basic
rights to their populations.
-
-
- FACILITATING INNUENDO
-
- Words and phrases like "linked" and "it
is reported" and "officials claim" permit connections and
actions to be presented without verifiable evidence. The headline "Link
to Iran suspected in Saudi blast" (Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 3,
1996) illustrates an important mode of disseminating propaganda; and the
more the allegation fits existing biases the easier it is to pass it along
without supporting evidence. Only the powerful can play this game on a
regular basis.
-
- The way this system manifests bias can be seen by comparing
Eric Schmitt's "Few Links in Church Fires, Panel Is Told: Official
Sees Racism but No Sign of Conspiracy in Firebombings" (NYT, May 22,
1996), and William Broad's "Unabomb Case Is Linked to Antiwar Tumult
on U.S. Campuses in 1960s" (NYT, June 1, l996).
-
- The Times has always treated the 1960s resistance with
hostility, so here Broad "links" the accused Unabomber Theodore
Kaczyinski to the antiwar movement simply because some of his teachers
and fellow students opposed the Vietnam War and urged peaceful resistance,
even though Broad admits that "by all accounts he was cool to the
antiwar unrest."
-
- Broad could have "linked" Kaczynski's alleged
violent acts to the actual violence of the war itself, which was the source
of the peaceful protests that he "links" to Kaczynski. Broad
also could have said there is no evidence tying Kaczynski to any groups
advocating violence, but that would have precluded making use of the thin
and even ludicrous link that allows trashing the 1960s antiwar movement
once again. In the case of the Church bombings, the Times chose to play
down the linking possibilities. It is evident from the subhead given above
that the paper could have "linked" the church bombings to racism,
but instead it chose to deny a link to a "conspiracy." This makes
the bombings sound less ominous and pernicious than if they were "linked"
to something. The bombings of the black churches didn't offer the paper
any links they were eager to make, as in the case of the Unabomber.
-
-
- PERSONIFICATION AND USE OF COLLECTIVE WORDS
-
- Personification of groups and nations and the use of
collective words are other devices commonly employed to get over preferred
positions not supported by evidence. The use of "Brazil" in "Faith
in reform buoys Brazil" (FT, Feb. 24, 1997) is based entirely on attitudes
expressed by Brazilian bankers and securities market professionals, who
constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of the Brazilian people.
-
- A classic of this genre was David Sanger's "Jittery
Asia Has Visions of a Nuclear North Korea" (NYT, April 7, 1991); the
generalization to Asia was apparently based on statements of three individuals,
two of them officials, one Japanese, the other South Korean. David Rosenbaum's
"The Tax Break America Couldn't Give Up" (NYT, Oct. 8, 1989),
illustrates the use of a collective term to confuse an issue. He claims
a generalized feeling among Americans of being overtaxed, but this overlooks
class differences in attitude toward specific taxes. It is possible that
ordinary Americans feel overtaxed but would be pleased to see higher taxes
on the affluent and corporations. "America" could not give up
these tax breaks because ordinary citizens have little weight in national
policy making. Rosenbaum effectively obscures such consideration by his
use of "Americans."
-
-
- FALSELY IMPUTING BENEVOLENT MOTIVES
-
- My current favorites are "risk" and "gamble,"
as these are now being applied to the savage welfare "reform"
bill of August 1996. The Philadelphia Inquirer asserts that "Congress
and Clinton are gambling that many poor Americans won't need a safety net
to land on their feet" (Aug. 4, 1996). The New York Times editorialized
on the "gamble," and their house economist, Peter Passell, quoted
a think-tank analyst that the bill was taking a "risk" that the
people thrown off welfare might not find jobs (Aug. 8, 1996). The use of
these words implies that Clay Shaw, Gingrich, McIntosh, and Clinton are
really concerned about those poor folks being pushed out on the streets
and no doubt weighed the costs and benefits in some kind of humanistic
calculus. This is apologetic nonsense. These politicians weren't taking
any risks or gambles; they were completely unconcerned, if not actually
pleased, about any pain the victims would suffer.
-
- It is of course absolutely standard media practice to
assume that their own country has good intentions as it ravages in its
backyard or other parts of the world (e.g., in the Persian Gulf or Indochina).
We always strive for "democracy" and resist somebody else's aggression,
but never commit aggression ourselves. Even when we have destroyed a democracy,
as in Guatemala in 1954, the U.S. mainstream media uniformly found this
justifiable in view of "the threat of communism," which was entirely
concocted (although conveniently internalized) and a cover for the pursuit
of the interest of United Fruit and a determination to get rid of a seriously
reformist leadership that wouldn't take orders. The power of media rationalization
of U.S. aggression reached its limit in the Vietnam War where, despite
the U.S.'s exclusive reliance on force, and official recognition that our
agents could not compete with the "enemy" politically, in James
Reston's classic of apologetics we were in Vietnam to establish the principle
"that no state shall use military force or the threat of military
force to achieve its objectives" (Feb. 26, 1965).
-
-
- REMOVING AGENCY
-
- Where we or our allies have done terrible things, watch
for the resort to the passive voice and other modes of removing agency.
Thus the New York Times subhead for the article on the ending of the Guatemalan
civil war (Dec. 30, 1996) is "After 100,000 dead, the peace ceremony
is more solemn than celebratory." Actually, the numbers are well above
100,000 dead, but note the failure to say who did virtually all the killing
or what government in 1954 displaced a non-killing elected regime with
the regime of terror whose violence is supposedly now ending? In its Indonesia
reporting, also, the Times has trouble identifying an agent: "More
than 500,000 Indonesians are estimated to have died in a purge of leftists
in 1965, the year Mr. Suharto came to power" (April 8, 1997). Actually,
the "purge" went well beyond "leftists," including
several hundred thousand peasant farmers, and there is no doubt who did
the purging and what great power supporting the purge viewed it as a "gleam
of light in Asia" (James Reston, NYT, June 19, 1966).
-
- These are just some of the modes by which words are manipulated
to serve bias and propaganda. In many cases the process entails passing
along the word usage and frame of the originating source. But the media
claim to be seeking truth and serving the public (not corporate and elite)
interest. That should be the standard by which we evaluate and criticize
them as we seek to shrink the immense gap between their own proclaimed
ideal and actual performance.
-
-
- http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/june97herman.htm
|