Here how it’s done.
In the 2/21/05 NYT article, “A New Target for Advisers to Swift Vets”, USA Next is given a fabulous kick-off to their kill-Social-Security campaign, which will attack the American Association of Retired Persons in extremely shameful, deceptive ways. AARP is the nonprofit organization that publishes the AARP Bulletin that my parents and countless other Americans have received and trusted for decades.
The Main Focus/Objective of the Story: "We're Not Connected with the White House".
The article seems devoted primarily to convincing readers that USA Next and Swift Boat Vets are not affiliated with the Bush administration despite appearances to the contrary, but are “independently” pursuing Mr. Bush’s goal of dismantling Social Security. The space devoted to persuading readers that USA Next isn’t working with the White House is telling. I've italicized the many "we're separate from the White House" phrases. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to detect a strong “thou doth protest too much” smell:
- Mr. Bush criticized groups like Swift Vets last year, and his campaign kept its distance from the groups' attacks on Mr. Kerry. [“We keep our nose clean” rationale—TW]
- In policy battles like the one looming over Social Security, though, there is no prohibition againstcoordination [“It’s okay if it’s just a little” rationale—TW]
- Several huge business lobbies, like the Business Roundtable, have become closely linked to Mr. Bush's plans for Social Security and have assembled coalitions to promote the proposals across the country [“Everybody’s doing it” rationale—TW]
- In the case of USA Next, the group and the White House say they are not working together.
- Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said the administration was familiar with the group and has interacted with it on issues in the past, but said that it had no input on its current efforts.
- "We don't like asking anyone for permission to do anything,"Mr. Jarvis said."We totally support the president's boldness on Social Security, but we don't coordinate with the White House or the Hill. We know the people at the White House agree with us and we agree with them."
- "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the White House doesn't want anything to do with a group that is attacking the AARP," the official said, adding, "We arenot going to drag them into this mess."
- One USA Next official predicted that this time around, the campaign would be so aggressive that theWhite House might not to want to associate with it.
- USA Next was also talking to Terry Nelson, the former national political director of Mr. Bush's campaign who is a partner at Dawson McCarthy Nelson Media, about working as a consultant. But Mr. Nelson was already employed by Compass, a coalition of major trade associations working with the White House to support Mr. Bush's plan, and that stopped the deal
- "They wanted to maintain absolute independence," Mr. Nelson said. "They felt it was a conflict for them.
- "USA Next says it has taken pains to disassociate itself from the administration, evendeclining to join the large lobbying coalitions the White House is working with to pass Social Security legislation
"Patriotic War" Motif: Throughout the article, the presaged attacks by USA Next and Swift Boat Vets are presented not as radical moves to destroy a longstanding American tradition, but as exciting, gutsy battles in a larger “war”. USA Next speaks in terms of war, and the NYT, rather than keeping its own voice, cooperates by also using war terms and imagery in its reporting: This reinforces USA Next's "patriotic-war" framing of its intention to denigrate and demoralize AARP.
The war motif conceals the reality—that USA Next is attacking the only safety net that keeps food on the table for millions of senior citizens—while conjuring up visions of smart bombs, hand-to-hand combat and firefights that capitalize on recognizable, popular words and phrases from “patriotic” War on Terror coverage:
- …a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle…
- The lobbying group, USA Next, which has poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles…
- "We will be the dynamite that removes them."
- … the groups dueling over Social Security have been relatively tame, but the plans by USA Next foreshadow what could be a steep escalation in the war to sway public opinion
- …the organization came under fire when it was revealed that a lawyer for Mr. Bush's campaign was also advising Swift Vets.
- In policy battles like the one looming over Social Security…
- One USA Next official predicted that this time around, the campaign would be so aggressive…
- "We are going to take them on in hand-to-hand combat," said Mr. Jarvis, who is biting in his remarks about AARP…
- To USA Next, the battle lines have already been drawn…
Pro-USA Next "Bookend Persuasion”: The opening and closing paragraphs of the article are least likely to be skimmed or skipped, and are best for reader recall and persuasion (due to what's known in psychology as "primacy" and "recency" effects). These "bookend" parts of the article are quite flattering to USA Next, featuring positive descriptive words and phrases (which I’ve italicized) and direct quotes from its leader. “Mirror-image words” (Orwellian words or phrases used to conceal the opposite reality) are in bold:
- Taking its cues from the success of last year's Swift boat veterans' campaign in the presidential race, a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle to overhaul Social Security.
- To USA Next, the battle lines have already been drawn, and it does not shy away from comparisons to the veterans' campaign against Senator Kerry. "It's an honor to be equated with the Swift boat guys," Mr. Jarvis said.
Note that nothing could be less "conservative" or more radical than a lobbying organization determined to turn upside down the long-standing tradition of Social Security for aging Americans. No "battle lines" have "already been drawn--to the contrary, USA Next is pre-emptively drawing those "battle lines".
Pro-USA Next Word Count: When you look at the paltry word count allotted to opposing groups such as the AARP, this seems less an article aboutUSA Next than by USA Next. Direct and indirect quotations by this group and its White House counterparts dominate the article in terms of direct quotations and indirect references to such a degree that it sounds more like a press release than “news”.
For the “token balance” opposing viewpoint, AARP was granted 28 words in indirect quotes (“Individual X said…” ) and 21 in direct quotes,while USA Next was given 260 words in indirect quotes and 145 in direct quotes. The Bush administration’s anti-Social Security maven was granted another 35 words in indirect quotes.
That’s a total of 440 words from the Social Security attackers, compared to 49 for the one interviewee defending Social Security. Note that these figures are very conservative, because they don’t include all the information that was probably provided by USA Next and/or the White House, but never specified by the writer as to who said what. Clearly, one side is given every chance to articulate its position in a persuasive way, while the other is not.
Token Balance: Nod to AARP: Of course there’s the occasional negative thrown in, concealing the fact that the takeaway of this piece is that USA Next is the group with the values, the group that’s not “liberal”, and the group that’s not “out of step”. But even here, one little sentence (which I’ve italicized), repeated by the NYTimes with no further explanation or comment on the group's denial, allows readers to stop worrying about these complicated matters:
- “The group spent more money than any other interest group on House races that year, according to a study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project, and drew charges from Democrats that it was a stealth campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to support House Republicans. The group denied the allegations. Critics contended that the group was a front for corporate special interests. In a 2002 report, Public Citizen's Congress Watch denounced it, calling its leadership "hired guns."”
"Charges", "allegations", "denounced"--these vague words tell us nothing about the content or merits of the "critics'" concerns. Readers are likely to skim or ignore this "muddled middle" paragraph (contrary views are tossed into the skimmed/skipped mid-section of articles):
Positive descriptors for Swift Boat Vets/USA Next: Note how eloquently the article speaks for USA Next, glowingly articulating its views (I’ve italicized especially persuasive and subtle words):
- “USA Next has been portraying AARP as a liberal organization out of step with Republican values, and is now trying to discredit its stance on Social Security. USA Next's campaign has involved appearances by its leaders, including Art Linkletter, its national chairman, on Fox News and various television programs.
- “AARP, the largest organization representing middle-aged and older Americans, is considered [Considered by whom? Note the evasive passive voice. TW] a major obstacle [Again AARP is presented as the aggressor--TW] to Mr. Bush's Social Security plan in part because of its size and influence with the elderly. Though it is officially nonpartisan, and it stood beside the administration to help pass a prescription drug bill in 2003, many Republicans have long characterized the group as left-leaning.”
Why the reference to "many Republicans? How many? Which Republicans? Those in USA Next? Most Republicans? This is a classic use of the "stay with the herd" strategy: Like opinion polls designed to shape, not merely record, public opinion, by appealing to readers' desire to fit in and feel part of the majority, this reference to "many Republicans" supports USA Next's agenda by giving the impression that AARP is considered "left-leaning" by the majority. This offsets readers' natural tendencies to think of AARP as a moderate, traditional organization--and to wonder what all the fuss is about.
Now I ask you: Why should Mr. Bush pay some pricey PR firm to soften Americans for his next assult, when he can get this kind of "editorial news" promotion in the world’s most influential newspaper, free of charge? As I always say, the best editorials are on the front page.
Home | Articles | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2004 Jesus On The Family
