What "Liberal" Media? Study Shows Manipulation of Press to Serve Right-Wing Agenda

by: project vote

Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 00:00


Cross-posted to Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

Media manipulation by the right-wing to influence public perception has been a decade-long tactic to undermine voter registration in America. While the current media frenzy surrounding the community organization ACORN is only partly related to voter registration efforts, it is important to note that the attacks have been built on a foundation of misinformation and media manipulation by the right-wing over several years, largely surrounding the myth of "voter fraud."

project vote :: What "Liberal" Media? Study Shows Manipulation of Press to Serve Right-Wing Agenda
How this strategy has played out was the subject of a recent independent academic study, "Manipulating the Public Agenda: Why Acorn was the News, and What the News Got Wrong." Conducted by Peter Dreier, director of the Urban and Environmental Policy Center at Occidental College and Christopher Martin, professor of journalism at the University of Northern Iowa, the report examines how "the little-known community organization became the subject of a major news story in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, to the point where 82% of the respondents in an October 2008 national survey reported they had heard about ACORN."

In a press release, the authors say that "...repetition of unverified allegations and distortions was the rule in national reporting of a purported 'voter fraud' scandal involving the community organizing group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) during the 2008 presidential campaign."

According to the study, 647 ACORN-related news stories published in 15 news outlets between 2007 and 2008, many of which parroted a plethora of unverified allegations from conservative parties.

"The academic study found that news-media coverage of the voter-fraud charges failed to distinguish between problems with registering voters and actual voting irregularities, which are rare," wrote Chronicle of Philanthropy writer Suzanne Perry, who recently covered "Manipulating the Public Agenda."

"It also found that 80 percent of the stories failed to mention that Acorn was reporting registration irregularities to the authorities; 85 percent failed to report that the group was acting to stop incidents of registration problems; and 96 percent failed to provide deeper context, especially about efforts by Republican Party officials to use voter-fraud allegations to dampen voting by low-income and minority Americans."

A prime example of conservative framing coloring the news, the study notes, is the widely reported August 2009 release of White House and Republican National Committee transcripts and emails. All major news outlet reports on the transcripts - which revealed that former Bush senior advisor, Karl Rove, helped orchestrate the firing of former New Mexico U.S Attorney David Iglesias "for failing to help Republican election prospects by prosecuting alleged instances of voter fraud by ACORN" - failed to discuss Rove's overt plan to attack ACORN's voter registration efforts in New Mexico and other states.

According to the study, this "demonstrates that there are indeed intensive political efforts to influence the national news agenda and to frame news stories by special interest groups."

In the study, Dreier and Martin note that, while the current frenzy is about ACORN, the pattern of manipulation has important ramifications for organizations across the country. "Although the 2008 presidential election is long over, conservative opinion entrepreneurs and the conservative media echo chamber remain fixated on ACORN,and poised to inject their frame about ACORN as an issue in the 2010 and 2012 national elections."

"Were this simply an isolated example of media complicity (witting or unwitting) with political organizations, the attack on ACORN would be of interest only to ACORN, its allies and detractors. But this case has wider implications. Our analysis of the narrative framing of the ACORN stories demonstrates that-despite long-standing charges from conservatives that the news media are determinedly liberal and ignore conservative ideas-the news media agenda is easily permeated by a persistent media campaign, even when there is little or no truth to the story."

In an Oct. 21 feature, the San Francisco Bay Guardian outlined the conservative agenda of using the mainstream media and playing on the public's psyche to promote the Party and its special interests. Bryant Welch, a clinical psychologist, author, and expert on political manipulation, tells the Guardian that "the right-wing commentators' success lies partly in their ability to harness core human emotions such as paranoia or envy."

"This is very, very sophisticated propaganda," says Welch. "I don't think progressives really get it that it's a technique being used all the time."

Republicans approach issues as a marketing challenge, according to George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. In the Guardian, Lakoff says that to "counter this tactic...the left would do well to learn how to frame things in moral terms instead of playing defense against right-wing spin masters."

According to the Guardian, Lakoff's advice is to "define the moral imperative behind empowering the people and their government to create a better world, then aggressively push a campaign to do so."

"It's the 'this is the right thing to do' approach," he says.  


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Real question: where's the Dem equivalent? (4.00 / 1)
It's good to have the new study.

But the basic story is at least 15 years old - back to the Arkansas Project.

What we really need some studies on is, Why, in all these years, haven't the Dems set up a similar propaganda operation?


Well, imho another "porpaganda" operation isn't a good answer... (4.00 / 2)
...to those distortions. This would only result in public discourse becoming more dishonest and distorted. But why do Dems not concentrate on countering falsehoods with the truth, and with factually based attacks of their own? For the "countering falsehoods" part, there's already Media Matters. Why don't prominent Dems use this to their advantage, cite it regularly, and elevate it's importance? Why isn't Media Matter cited as much as the effing Drudge Report? Really looks like Dems ignore the danger coming from the manipulating of the media by the right wingers, and do nothing to cunter this. That's dangerous, stupid negligence!

[ Parent ]
Earth To Gray! Earth To Gray! (4.00 / 1)
When you're not trying to do evil, you don't have to lie.

What skeptic06 is talking about is what many of us have been tearing our hair out over for decades now--the utter failure of the liberal establishment to create any sort of message machine to counter the flood of rightwing lies.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Ground Control to Major Paul... (0.00 / 0)
...good to see you put your mind reading helmet on. I, being a mere mortal, was a bit irritated about skeptic using the phrase "the Dem equivalent"...

[ Parent ]
A Famous Quip (4.00 / 3)
from Harry Truman: "We'll stop telling the truth about them, if they stop lying about us."

Unfortunately, that was a long time ago.  Since then, Dems have decided to unilaterally go through with their side of bargain while the GOP has only gotten more obsessed with the lying.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Paul ... (4.00 / 2)
but we know the Dem. Establishment has no interest in doing that .. not when we have tools like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mike Ross and Rahm Emanuel as part of the party ... they aren't in the party because they believe in the party's ideals ... they are only in it for the status and power(like all Republicans these days)  

[ Parent ]
Ike (0.00 / 0)
Ike insisted in making sure that German locals saw the concentration camps and saw them unvarnished.  Ever wonder why 12 years of intense propaganda did not produce a wide spread Nazi or semi-Nazi movement in Germany?

The media is bought and paid for (by their rich, corporate owners).  The people are another matter.


[ Parent ]
Who, What, When, Where, Why and How? (4.00 / 2)
These questions, rather than determining what the writers personal political views were, used to be how you evaluated good journalism from narratives or opinion pieces.  They are also helpful tools in determining whether you are being propagandized or informed.  Is the source answering these questions, or is the source finding a compelling way to focus attention on one or two aspects of a story, without giving the big picture.
It seems to me that what passes for good journalism today has flipped the old paradigms completely upside down, going from "don't be the news" to "consider the source" (which is another way of saying that the reporter IS the news).  If it comes from this or that source, it is good or bad journalism, dependent upon whether you agree or disagree with the political views of the person delivering it.  "Attacking the messenger" is not only easy in this format, it's almost necessary (since the messenger has made themselves such an integral part of the "story").
Cable "news," in particular, has been very influential in this change, editing pieces to give the explosive or salacious elements of a story (ratings candy) plus the hyperventilating opinion of those elements from a popular personality, and "leaving it there," without actually doing the investigative reporters work of answering all the pertinent questions that create an actual finished news story.
The excuse of the "twenty four hour news cycle" is always that they don't have time in the race to scoop other sources to do this work, which is hogwash, makes them easily manipulated, and great vehicles for propaganda seeking to "Control the media" by doing what Beck does...  Demagoguery.
I rarely ever see or hear "News" that actually contains the five W's and H in the mainstream anymore, and worse, I almost never hear them brought up in evaluating whether the piece was good or bad.
I think the answer to this dilemma is expecting complete stories, including the "boring" details, not focusing on whether it's biased to the right or left.

A few diaries in the making (0.00 / 0)
I would like to see you parse a few "news items" with your angle in mind.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox