The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right's Dirty Work?
AlterNet
The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media
Doing the Right's Dirty Work?
By Don Hazen, AlterNet
Posted on July 14, 2008, Printed on July 14, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/91355/
The New Yorker magazine hits the news stands today with a shocking
cover -- a caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama depicting the
presidential candidate in a turban, fist-bumping his wife who has a
machine gun slung over her shoulder, while the American flag burns
in the fireplace. The cover is shocking in that it depicts the
Obamas in bizarre caricatured images and associations which reflect
the very stereotypes with which the conservatives, particularly Fox
News, have been trying to frame both the Obamas. Thus, instead of
satire, the cover becomes a political poster for conservatives to
reinforce their messages. Senator Obama was shown the cover image by
a reporter covering the campaign on Sunday, and while seemingly
taken aback, he declined to comment.
But the Obama campaign quickly put out a release condemning the
magazine cover. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said in a
statement: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff
explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the
caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But
most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Unfortunately the impact of this image will extend far beyond the
reading audience of the New Yorker; cable news and the right-wing
media noise machine will amplify the derogatory image to millions
more. And the New Yorker of course will reap enormous publicity,
clearly translating to increased sales and notoriety for the brand,
and for corporate owner Conde Nast -- one of the largest and most
powerful media companies in America.
But the publicity could very well backfire. Editor David Remnick and
artist Barry Blitt's attempt at satire seems so arrogant and
indulgent in its insensitive and out of touch with political and
media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs, that it just might make a
lot of people angry, including some subscribers. The cover turns the
magazine into a potential Molotov cocktail, to be gleefully tossed
by Fox News and the conservative blogs, into the already combustible
tinderbox of race and muslim stereotypes just below the surface of
America's public discourse.
John Arovosis at America Blog writes:
A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make
Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, and Barack Obama basically a
terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin Laden on
the wall). And this is funny? Is the New Yorker so out of touch that
they don't realize that much of America, or at least too much of
America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife?
"This might be a case of the liberal media "that bends over so far
backwards to be "fair" that it becomes just as bad as FOX News. I'm
sure the New Yorker thinks they're actually poking holes in the myth
by making light of the stereotypes. Yeah, and tell us how this pokes
fun at the stereotype? It reinforces it. And yet again, you'd never
see them try anything like this with John McCain. God forbid you
even ask a question about John McCain's experience, the media will
destroy you. But paint Obama and his wife as America-hating
flag-burning violent terrorists, and it's funny.
Jake Tapper of ABC News adds:
"Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East
Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is
-- should assume that just because they're mocking such
ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in
emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the
right-wing.
""This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish,"
says a high-profile Obama supporter, "and I suspect that other Obama
supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or
buying a magazine that trafficks in such trash."
Lindsay Beyerstein, who blogs at Majikthise makes an important point
in emphasizing that:
"Our national discourse is impoverished when it comes to
racially-loaded images like the New Yorker cover. When I saw the
cover, it was clear to me that the the cartoonist was trying to
covey a true and important point: All the Obama myths, like his
Muslim father, fit together into a coherent and poisonously racist
wingnut caricature. These aren't just random rumors. The anti-Obama
mythos is a continuation of the ugly narratives that conservatives
have been spinning since the civil-rights movement and before. That
said, if you put those images on the cover of a national magazine,
you're helping Fox spread those sick memes -- whether you intend to
or not. It's easy to say "my work means what I mean it to mean, and
if you don't get it, that's your problem" -- but it's never that
simple. If you're approaching an assignment from a position of
incredible privilege, say as a cover cartoonist for the New Yorker,
you can't just write off the unintended consequences of your
expression. If you insist on doing so, maybe that is racist."
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post added on Sunday on his CNN media
show Reliable Sources that the cover is arguably "incendiary." In
the end, it is shocking how the experienced editors of the New
Yorker don't have the remotest idea of how framing the Obamas in
this way completely reinforces the negative and harbored feelings
that they are absurdly trying to satirize. This is satire run amuck,
and is a perfect example of how antiquated notions of journalism can
play a role in provoking the worst of sterotypes and off-the-wall
fantasies.
Remembering what happened to Gore and Kerry
Back in the 2000 presidential campaign, conservative operatives
successfully framed the idea that Al Gore was a fabricator (no need
to mention the myths because they were untrue and don't warrant
repeating). But the stories wouldn't have stuck without corporate
media aggressively running with the disinformation about the tall
tales, repeating them so often that most people eventually just
assumed they were true.
In 2004, it was John Kerry's turn. He was pegged for a flip-flopper
early on -- as if no politician ever changed their mind about
complex issues -- and again, with the media endlessly repeating the
charge, it stuck. And to help seal Kerry's fate, he got
"swift-boated" with never-proven allegations about his war hero
status, and the success of that story planted seeds of doubt in some
voters.
Fast-forward to the present. So far neither the conservatives nor
the McCain campaign have been able to negatively frame Obama in a
way that has stuck. Hillary Clinton and partner Bill were not
ultimately successful either. But that hasn't been for a lack of
trying. Charges suggesting Obama is weak on defense, untried under
pressure, inexperienced, and even a male chauvinist a la Geraldine
Ferraro, haven't succeeded. It may be that Obama is a far more
nimble politician than his predecessors, that Gore and Kerry's
painful lessons have been well learned by the Obama team, or that
the media for whatever reason haven't yet ganged up on Obama as they
did in the past. Or probably some combination of all three.
Thus far the attempt to raise questions about Obama's religion
represents the most persistent attempt to create a false narrative
about him. So it was pretty shocking recently when I saw "Barack
Obama is a Muslim and other stories" as the headline of the lead
article on Salon. Maybe Salon is still sweet on Hillary. But one
wonders why this headline and message? It does heavy lifting in
support of the frames that Obama is a closet Muslim -- not a
Christian -- with a secret agenda. It's the same message that Fox
News, right-wing talk radio and conservative pundits have been
pushing for months. Questions about Obama are consistently linked to
Fox's repetition compulsion connecting Obama with the word "madrassa"
which happens to mean school -- and are now planted firmly in the
media's psychology as school "for terrorists in the making."
Meanwhile, the image below accompanied the headline.
Apparently, Salon was making it easy for you, the reader -- just
like when you were a kid -- to take a cut-out of a stereotypical
Muslim and paste it right onto Obama. Even Fox News hasn't been that
clever in terms of their efforts to stain Obama with associations to
his father and to his name.
The White House and conservatives have dominated the media and
public discourse over the past eight years, achieving remarkable
success in winning much of their agenda, despite significant
majorities opposing their ideas, as measured in opinion polls.
Conservatives have accomplished their hegemony, in part by
effectively using and repeating simple, powerful language, and
having it persistently echoed in the corporate media -- and even in
progressive and independent media. No doubt, their biggest success
has been creating the dominating frame, the "war on terror." They've
successfully transformed the criminal acts of a small group of
freakishly successful hijackers into a perpetual war which has
become the fundamental message of Bushism, since 9/11. The "war on
terror" provided the context for the hugely unpopular occupation of
Iraq, the diminishing of civil liberties, and the establishment of a
vast new domestic security apparatus. The media repeated the frame
of the "war on terror" as though it were an inevitable response, a
factual truth, and not a political frame that ideologues constantly
pushed to justify an enormous shifting of priorities in the U.S. and
around the globe.
Conservatives understand the power of a "frame," which
linguistically is a conceptual structure used in thinking -- and in
reality is how we come to think of images, ideas and viable
narratives associated with words and phrases.
There are many dozens of conservative frames and phrases with which
we are familiar. We often don't notice how they creep into our own
consciousness and get repeated by us: Democrats want to "cut and
run" in Iraq; "Partial birth abortion" in reproductive rights; gay
marriage will d"estroy the family"; "the death tax," etc.
None of these frames would be successful without the generous and
repeated help of the corporate media, which have perpetuated the
myth of John McCain as a "maverick," with his "straight talk
express," despite the fact except for a few exceptions, his record
is very conservative, and he has changed his position incessantly,
as this video from Brave New films and the recent article by Steve
Benen, "John McCain -- 61 Flip-Flops and Counting," clearly
document.
This framing-language success by the conservatives is pretty well
known.B ut even that awareness doesn't stop us from often
integrating conservative talking points into our own language,
becoming language carriers ourselves. Now of course, The New Yorker
might say about their cover or Salon might say about their headline
-- "oh our readers are too smart," or "we were being ironic," or
"provocative to prove a point." But the fact of the matter is that
many more people will see that headline and register in their brains
than will read the story alone.
Elements of a frame
There are some basic rules about frames that editors and writers
might want to think about, if they are interested in avoiding
persistently reinforcing conservative language and ideas. The
fundamentals include: every word is a frame; evoking a frame
reinforces and strengthens that frame; negating a frame, i.e.
attacking it, reinforces that frame; and finally, words defined
within a frame evoke the frame.
OK, maybe that sounds a little like gobbledy gook -- what does this
all mean? In his New York Times best-seller Don't Think of an
Elephant (disclosure: I wrote the introduction to the book and was a
strong advocate for the title), George Lakoff basically boils it
down to, "When I tell you: don't think of an elephant, you can't
help think of it." (The most famous version of this concept, is
Richard Nixon insisting, "I am not a crook.") So the word elephant
is a frame -- i.e. it conjures up an image of an animal with a
trunk. If you repeat the word -- "I love elephants," or want to
dismiss it: "I never want to think of an elephant again," you
strengthen the elephant frame. And when you say for example, "Sam
picked up the peanut with his trunk," you immediately know that Sam
is an elephant: words defined in a frame, invoke the frame.
So yes, I learned these basic concepts from George Lakoff, who had a
period prior to the last presidential election when he was very
influential among Democrats. He spoke to senators when they went on
retreat, and he was championed by heavy hitters like George Soros.
But like many "flavors of the month," he lost some of his cache. He
was replaced in 2006 by Drew Westen, a psychologist , whose focus on
the role of emotion in "determining the political life of the
nation" is the new hot thinking that Democrats and liberals have
more recently embraced.
Lakoff and Westen both have their critics, as does any newish
thinking that goes against conventional wisdom and many decades of
habits. And some suggest they may take some leaps from the research
to make their case, although they would vigorously debate that
assertion. But the point is that Lakoff and Westen have important
things to teach us that are fundamental to politics and
communication, and their work is very compatible.
It is not necessary to agree with all of their research, assertions
and speculation to appreciate the basic points of their thinking.
But if one is interested in going deeper, Lakoff's new book is The
Political Mind, not to be confused with the well-received book by
Westen: The Political Brain.
Getting back to the New Yorker and Salon, it's not my intention to
pick on them alone -- although the Obama headline and image were
pretty blatant. My objective is point out that often progressive and
independent media -- perhaps because we imagine that our readers are
different than normal people -- frequently undermine progressive
messages, or more likely reinforce conservative messages.
I believe that the words and images editors and writers use to frame
their stories is what most people will take away from the articles,
especially since many people get their news from just glancing at
the front page and cover story. Headlines, subject lines and teasers
are the most powerful and visible communication tools to connect
immediately with readers. With journalism on the web, a split-second
medium, some readers spend only brief moments on sites or on
articles, merely glancing at headlines and teasers.
The lead, or opening graph of the story is also important, but a
lead is only as good as its opening headline. If the lead graph
never gets read because the headline or teaser doesn't effectively
communicate, some great journalism and information can be wasted.
A recent morning I saw this headline on a story ready to run on
AlterNet titled, '"Dykes, Whores or Bitches': One in Three Military
Women Experience Sexual Abuse." And this article was from a feminist
organization. It was not helping the cause. We changed it
to:"Misogyny is Rampant in the Military; One in Three Military Women
Experience Sexual Abuse." Another recent headline was cued up:
"Limbaugh Wins Big in Elections." Was that true? And if so, why were
we announcing it? A simple tweak: "Limbaugh Wins As Biggest
Manipulator in Elections."
A few weeks ago, on one day, I read in rapid-fire order, the
following headlines on the Huffington Post: "Bush Compares Obama To
Nazi Appeasers." "McCain Crosses New Line: Obama Unfit to Protect
The Country." "Progressive Media Group Ditches Ad Effort To Appease
Obama." In each case the language connects Obama with a negative --
being an appeaser, needing to be appeased, being unfit for office.
These headlines are doing the conservatives' work for them.
What is interesting is Bush never mentioned Obama's name in that
speech in Israel, cited in the first headline. But the Huff Po frame
was essentially the same headline with which editors across the
world fell into lockstep. Those conservative framers are tricky and
very happy to see Obama's name spread around the world connected to
the word appeaser. They didn't even have to make the direct charge.
But the media was all to willing to do the work for the Bush
machine. The alternative headline AlterNet used: "In Israel, Bush
Lays Down Some Serious Fear-Mongering."
One recent frame in an article AlterNet was considering was "Right
Wing Sets its Sights on Oprah Religious 'Cult.'" This frame was
produced by a progressive religious site. It gives away the power of
the headline to the right wing, enabling them to frame Oprah as a
cult. A cult? Scientology is a cult; the fundamentalist Mormons in
Texas are a cult. Oprah is a highly successful TV entertainer, who
weaves a kind of spirituality lite for her huge audiences, which
seems generally positive, and hardly qualifies as a cult. After
seeking the article, thinking that the headline would be
controversial and attract a lot of readers, we realized the error of
our ways and decided not to post it.
One essential point is that drawing attention to negative frames and
reprehensible media figures, even in an attempt to answer them, can
have the effect of reinforcing them. It is almost always better to
frame one's own positive message and not mention the bad frame or
framer.
Many right-wing personalities court controversy because it sells
books, and raised ratings, and keeps them in the public eye. To
achieve the visibility, they often say outlandish things, and the
media, including progressives leap to highlight or answer the
ridiculous notions. Often the best tactics is to simply ignore those
hungry for attention, and not succumb to the urge to always respond,
and repeat their frame. There is one infamous familiar female media
figure who could use some neglect. In 2006, I wrote an article
entitled: "The Tall Blond Woman in Short Skirt and Big Mouth" or
TBWSSBMI. I pleaded with everyone to ignore this person. I trust it
is easy to figure out who she is. The article got more than 150,000
views, and hopefully more people started ignoring here. But who
knows? Even my effort reinforced the frame, since the mere mention
of her characteristics, just as in the case with the trunk and the
peanut mentioned earlier, put the image of her in people's minds. So
mum is the word.
As the presidential campaign moves forward, there will be many
attempts by each campaign to define the candidates with a phrase or
an image, that will link to a story that could be believed by
significant numbers of voters, and plant seeds of doubt. For example
it's been reported that some number of voters -- 10% or more --
already think Obama is a Muslim, a notion that presumably would
affect voters when they went into the polls. At this point in his
campaign, 10% more or less, is a manageable number.
It may be that after trying so hard, and meeting resistance, from
advocates like Brave New Films, and the "quick on its feet" Obama
campaign, that the Rupert Murdoch-Fox News-Wall Street
Journal-Limbaugh right-wing echo chamber may have lost some of its
clout. They may not be able to increase the number of Americans who
think Obama's a muslim to anything close to a tipping point. Or it
may be that Obama, with his message of hope, his ability to
communicate effectively, or even his controversy about the church he
has attended for decades, may have innoculated him from having this
piece of fiction become fact in people's minds.
Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/91355/
