There is an email making the rounds, which a good and honest man assures me he has researched and verified, comparing the media's reaction to Pres. Obama's Inauguration versus that to Pres. Bush's 2nd Inauguration. The contrast very effectively illustrates the political propaganda technique known as "spin" (see Propaganda Techniques).
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
The content, the details, indicate that both Presidential parties were extravagant (I mean the "celebrations," not the "organizations," although...), but the difference in tone communicates volumes about how the media desires people to perceive the different administrations. That's spin.
Take another example. It was revealed in confirmation hearings that Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury in the Obama Administration, had failed to pay "tens of thousands of dollars in taxes," according to CBS News, over a period of four years during which he signed 16 quarterly statements affirming that he knew those taxes were due. Nevertheless, CBS and many others defended his confirmation, observing, "The 47-year-old is seen by many as the best candidate for the job, and there was concern that rejecting him would mean a delay in confirming a replacement that the country could not afford." So he's in, and with media approval.
But Geithner won't be alone at the Obama Presidential Cabinet table filing his amended return. Health and Human Services Secretary Designate, former Senator Tom Daschle, has admitted he owes nearly $100,000 in back taxes on "gifts" he received as professional courtesies. (Has anyone ever given you a gift that would trigger a $100,000 tax bill?!) The Obama administration is referring to Daschle's delinquencies as the result of "an honest mistake." It's an interesting phrase, "honest mistake." Have you ever heard of a politician who made a "dishonest mistake?" But the media is accepting that explanation without question or investigation.
Compare that to the treatment received by members of the Bush Administration. I can tell this one from personal experience. I get so tired of hearing of the inherent evil of that team that I occasionally invite my students to consider other possibilities. When I point out that Dick and Lynn Cheney donated over 70% of their 2007 income to charity, I never hear any appreciative response. Invariably I hear, "It was probably a tax dodge." Spin, you see, is subject to the Laws of Inertia--an idea set in motion by the media tends to stay in motion. That one will keep spinning long after the former Vice President's ashes are scattered over the Tetons.
Certainly no one party has a monopoly on spin as a propaganda technique. Both employ it regularly, and neither is as adept at spinning as their colleagues in the media. But judging from the current PR successes of the Obama Administration, supported by their media allies, and the dismal PR failures of the Bush Administration, there should be little doubt who is better at it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm not contesting your spin point. It's huge and well argued.
But as for the inauguration costs, I found an interesting article detailing the cost differences. According to him, the Bush cost didn't include security costs; the Obama-cited cost did. (Sans security, he says, Obama's costed $45 million.) Read it here: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003. For what it's worth.
But even if there's the $40 million / $140 million disparity, I want to say this: at most, 400,000 people showed up to Bush's second inauguration. (Some estimates put it at 100,000.) 1.8 million showed up at Obama's (or so the count is at present). That's four times as many.
Fixed costs are fixed, true. But per attendee, costs were on par. No?
Hi Sarah!
You're absolutely right. Cost per head brings the numbers much closer together. But then you have to ask what possible need there is for us to be paying for a party for 1.8 million (or even 400,000) people, especially in at time of economic recession/disaster?!
And even if we can manage to swallow that, as you noted, it doesn't change the spin the media put on the events.
That's a great picture! Hope school is going well.
PS
Dear Sarah,
Donna tells me I really need to keep up better. I hear you're already in practice. Congratulations!
PS
hey, this is erica skadan from your English 101-04 class! I was interested to see what your views were, and I happened to stumble across this little gem. I won't get into any fancy details but I'd love for you to know that I'm on your side. I've been getting very frustrated with these one sided arguments defending the Obama administration and completely bashing the bush administration. And all of this being in the media. And i'm very sad to see the youth, my generation, being easily persuaded by media, celebrities, etc. It's rare for me to find a fellow classmate or friend (especially around Seattle) that has a mind of their own. I don't really care if someone has a mind of their own and is apart of the left wing. We just need more deep thinkers. I could totally get more into it, but I'll refrain myself untill next time.
Post a Comment