rhetoric

"Barack and socialism? No, our country deserves better," implored Mark Williams.

Mark Williams addresses the rallyIt was only a few minutes into the October 22 rally staged by Our Country Deserves Better, a political action committee (PAC) formed to oppose the Democratic presidential candidate. But Williams, a conservative talk radio host from California, was just getting warmed up.

"Barack Obama represents people who are ashamed of this great country, who believe that this great country is the evil in the world and that, in their revisionist history, they cast us as the villain," Williams claimed. "And if we dare question them ... like Joe the Plumber: 'Mr. Obama, what are you going to do to my taxes?' That was enough for the dogs who support the ideological left to go after Joe the Plumber and shred him. ... There's no such thing as sacred, among the unholy left. They vilify this nation, and they vilify those of us who support it. ... [It's] the same kind of thuggery of the left that's used by totalitarian regimes around the world to silence opposition."

Towards the end of the rally, Williams invoked a long-discredited smear against Obama that seems designed to play on fears of his "otherness": that he's not really a U.S. citizen. "We all know that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States, beyond being above the age of 35 and probably an American citizen," said Williams, emphasizing the word "probably." He laughed and then repeated: "Probably. Even money."

Unlike his hypothetical conservatives cowed by leftist thugs, Williams will not be silenced.

In November of last year, a panel of scholars met at the New York Public Library to mark the 60th anniversary of George Orwell's landmark essay, "Politics and the English Language," and to discuss the current state of propaganda in American politics. A video from that panel is now available on the internet. How are political messages framed? How are they decoded by their audience? These and similar questions are explored by panelists including George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics and a guru of Democratic political messaging; Republican pollster and messaging consultant Frank Luntz; and Drew Weston, a professor of psychology and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Among other things, the discussion demonstrates that political pundits are no better at predicting the future than anyone else. (Luntz, for example, repeatedly predicts that Hillary Clinton will become the next president.) But if you want to understand how rhetorical framing works and how political strategists strategize, this 85-minute video provides some interesting examples.

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "Daily Show"An article in the New York Times asks whether Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's Daily Show has become the most trusted man in America, pointing out that his fake news comedy show has emerged in recent years as a "genuine cultural and political force." While 24-hour news networks like FOX, MSNBC and CNN have been pumping out infotainment-style news about topics like dead celebrities and sexual predators, the Daily Show has been critically tracking the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush Administration to increase the power of the executive branch. Stewart has proven to be a master at calling out government and corporate spin, hypocrisy and red herrings, and helping his audience see them, too. A 2008 study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Enter for the People and the Press found that the Daily Show has had an impact on American dialogue and that it is "getting people to think critically about the public square."

A BBC investigation has found British American Tobacco (BAT) violating its own voluntary international marketing standards in Nigeria, Malawi and Mauritius, using tactics that appeal to youth and circumvent advertising restrictions. BAT promotes and sells single cigarettes in these countries, a marketing strategy that appeals to youth, who often can't afford to buy an entire pack. BAT also sponsored musical events that had no formal age checks at the door. Celebrities at these events wore clothing bearing cigarette brand logos. In Mauritius, where cigarette advertising was banned in 1999, BAT paid to paint retail stores the same color as their leading brand, Matinee. In Malawi and Nigeria, posters were seen depicting single cigarettes and pricing cigarettes individually. BBC observed children as young as eleven buying single cigarettes. BAT's website says the company's voluntary marketing standards "embody ... our commitment to marketing appropriately and only to adult smokers." They promise their tobacco advertising will not "be aimed at, or particularly appeal to youth," will "not feature a celebrity," and that the company will engage in "no event sponsorship unless the participants and audience are adults." Previously-secret tobacco industry documents show that BAT adopted voluntary marketing standards as a way to "demonstrate responsibility" while staving off stricter government regulation of their products.

John Stodder has written the most interesting commentary I've seen from within the public relations industry about former Bush administration press secretary Scott McClellan's new book. It's interesting in part because Stodder is an interesting figure. For those who remember this sort of thing, he was one of two executives at the Fleishman-Hillard PR firm (the other was Douglas Dowie) who were convicted in May 2006 of multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud in a scheme to overbill the city of Los Angeles for public relations consulting services.

Notwithstanding the verdict, Stodder continues to maintain his innocence and remains free while he appeals the conviction. Apparently this has left him with some time to contemplate ethical matters, and he disapproves of what he sees in McClellan, whose "disloyalty strikes me as most amoral." Moreover, Stodder worries that McClellan's criticism of his former boss "is undermining whatever remaining credibility the PR industry can claim for itself."

Pastor John Hagee endorses John McCain for President in March 2008Pastor John Hagee, the controversial Christian televangelist who last March endorsed Senator John McCain's nomination for Republican candidate for U.S. President, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis were doing God's will when they chased the Jews out of Europe in order to herd them into Israel, where they could establish a Jewish state. In an audio tape of the sermon revealed by Huffington Post, Hagee went in and out of biblical verse as he preached, "'And they the hunters should hunt them, that will be the Jews. From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks. If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that." A Hagee spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the remarks, which can be found at around the 1:08 mark of his sermon titled "Battle for Jerusalem." Hagee later apologized for the remarks. But McCain, who had earlier sought Hagee's endorsement to improve his standing within the evangelical community, quickly distanced himself from the pastor, describing his comments as "crazy and unacceptable."

Plastic bag wasteThe Progressive Bag Alliance, the American Chemistry Council and Wal-Mart Stores were among the parties who successfully lobbied Democratic Pennsylvania State Representative Lisa Bennington to weaken a bill she introduced that would have phased out the use of non-biodegradable plastic bags at large grocery stores. The business and industry groups convinced the legislator to water down her bill, so that retailers are only required to offer bag recycling programs. The change fits a lobbying strategy used repeatedly by the Progressive Bag Alliance, a front group for plastics and polymer manufacturers. Wal-Mart quietly lobbied against this bill while greening up its public image. The giant retailer announced new "Earth-friendly" products like organic disposable baby wipes, and ran "Earth Month" TV ads featuring people standing in forests, grassy fields and by streams, while promoting Wal-Mart products.

Republican strategists are salivating over the "inflammatory sermons by Obama's pastor" Jeremiah Wright. They believe that Wright's sermons "offer the party a pathway to victory if Obama emerges as the Democratic nominee. Not only will the video clips enable some elements of the party to define him as unpatriotic, they will also serve as a powerful motivating force for the conservative base." Notwithstanding Obama's highly praised speech on race yesterday, the videos of Wright's sermons have "convinced some that, after months of praying for Hillary Clinton and the automatic enmity which she arouses, that they may actually have easier prey." According to Micah Sifry, "Obama's speech is a great test of the following question: Are we still living in the age of sound-bite politics, where the sharp attack line, even taken out of context, can become the 'truth' of an event or a person thanks to the amplifying and distorting effects of broadcast media? Or are we entering the age of sound-blast politics, where a 37-minute speech can actually be watched, read, and digested by millions of people (a million views already on YouTube!) using the abundant spaces of the internet -- and the themes and meanings they encounter and absorb will be not about the 'politics' of a speech, but its actual content? In other words, are we entering an age when politicians can be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?"

Language plays a powerful role in shaping political decisions, argues Brent Cunningham. As an example, he points to the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, "when the choice of words -- by the press and government officials -- played a crucial role in setting America on a course that led, ultimately, to our military action in Iraq. ... The decision to describe the attacks in the language of 'war,' rather than as a criminal act, emerged swiftly and organically in the earliest press accounts, and was quickly solidified and extended by President Bush and other administration officials." If the attacks had been defined using other language, such as "mass murder," this might also have defined the "terms of the response" differently, "within the domain of police investigation, criminal justice and the safeguards of law." Cunningham thinks that "journalism needs a rhetoric beat" focused on studying the uses and abuses of language, which "has emerged as a central issue in our political culture."

"The basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to go along with it,'" said Laura Sonnenmark, a participant in a recent focus group apparently funded by the Republican-associated lobbying group Freedom's Watch. Sonnenmark, a "focus group regular," said the moderator "used lots of catch phrases, like 'victory' and 'failure is not an option.'" She added, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants." The final questions of the session were: "How would you feel if Hillary [Clinton] bombed Iran? How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran? And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?" Neither the firm involved, Martin Focus Groups, nor Freedom's Watch would confirm that the organization funded the focus group. But focus group participants were handed a flier with a Freedom's Watch logo, and the group has advocated for confronting Iran, organizing forums on the "threat" posed by the country, and running ads calling the Iranian president a "terrorist."