What Are Words For When No One Listens Anymore?
Upon opening up our PE in-box this morning, a series of e-mails immediately caught my eye. I noticed them quickly because they were all from the same address and they included links to stories about CBS. Both came from Newsbusters, the blog of the conservative media watchdog group, the Media Research Center. And both linked to posts regarding words used on CBS News programs to describe stories in the news.
In the first instance, it seems Newsbusters is disturbed by CBS’ use of the words “domestic spying” to describe the Bush Administration’s use of the NSA to eavesdrop on conversations:
So the fight over phrasing will continue, but it seems to me that when even many Republicans are questioning the way the program is implemented, it’s up to the administration to make their case. And they’ve launched an aggressive effort this week to do just that, one which has received a lot of press coverage. Whether it’s called “domestic spying” (as almost every major news organization has done) or a “terrorist surveillance program,” the important thing is for the public and our politicians to understand it before making a decision about its worthiness.
These semantic arguments have become commonplace since the arrival of a breed of political consultant that specializes in “framing” issues through “buzz” words – the same type of people who advised Al Gore to wear earth tones. Newsbusters would love for the media to use the phrase “terrorism surveillance” because that jibes with the White House. Would that extend to a Democratic White House if they tried to label a tax increase as a “deficit reduction measure?” Probably not.
While that debate is important, the second point made by Newsbusters is just a little silly. It seems as though blogger Brent Baker is bothered about CBS anchor Bob Schieffer’s characterization of the Supreme Court’s new look:
And there is no value judgment on what “right” means. Nobody said this is bad news for the country, no one called it a distressing shift to the right, just described what this new court makeup could mean. It’s the Supreme Court, of course, which means nobody really knows how it will rule on any given case, but signs are positive for those carrying the conservative cause. Why is pointing that out somehow a bad thing? As one who shares some of those positions, it struck me as validation not some attempt to negatively spin anything.
In the first instance, it seems Newsbusters is disturbed by CBS’ use of the words “domestic spying” to describe the Bush Administration’s use of the NSA to eavesdrop on conversations:
“It’s been apparent since the story broke about President Bush’s terrorism surveillance program that the media wanted to frame the debate as ‘domestic spying’ and warrantless wiretaps, and nowhere has this been more clear than on CBS’s 'The Early Show' this morning [1/24]. In the span of 9 minutes, there were two stories regarding the subject, and four mentions of or references to this topic.”President Bush has a different way of describing the program, calling it a “terrorist surveillance program.” Both can be seen as accurate in their own ways, although to this point the majority of the media have used the “domestic spying” angle. What critics object to is the NSA listening into conversations between people in this country (presumably including U.S. citizens) and people overseas (say, Iraq or Afghanistan) that raise suspicions of terrorist activities. Critics claim this breaks the law because the NSA does not seek warrants, either before or after, from a court. Supporters say that if someone on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is calling someone in New York or Washington, it’s probably a damned good idea to find out what they’re talking about.
So the fight over phrasing will continue, but it seems to me that when even many Republicans are questioning the way the program is implemented, it’s up to the administration to make their case. And they’ve launched an aggressive effort this week to do just that, one which has received a lot of press coverage. Whether it’s called “domestic spying” (as almost every major news organization has done) or a “terrorist surveillance program,” the important thing is for the public and our politicians to understand it before making a decision about its worthiness.
These semantic arguments have become commonplace since the arrival of a breed of political consultant that specializes in “framing” issues through “buzz” words – the same type of people who advised Al Gore to wear earth tones. Newsbusters would love for the media to use the phrase “terrorism surveillance” because that jibes with the White House. Would that extend to a Democratic White House if they tried to label a tax increase as a “deficit reduction measure?” Probably not.
While that debate is important, the second point made by Newsbusters is just a little silly. It seems as though blogger Brent Baker is bothered about CBS anchor Bob Schieffer’s characterization of the Supreme Court’s new look:
“For the third time in fewer than two weeks, the ‘CBS Evening News’ on Tuesday night made sure that viewers realize how the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito would move the court ‘to the right.’ (Neither ABC or NBC have shown such concern for alerting viewers as to the ideological direction of the Supreme Court.) Anchor Bob Schieffer recalled how ‘the President promised during the election to move this court to the right. And from what we heard in these hearings, what we've already seen with Judge Roberts on the bench, it is moving to the right, isn't it?’ Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune agreed: ‘That's right’ and so ‘that means this court is poised for an historic shift to right on those key social issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, the death penalty, and perhaps even questions of presidential power.’”I guess this is meant as some sort of complaint about liberal bias, but I have to confess that I just don’t see it. First off, it’s a statement of fact (or so most conservatives hope). Second, as Schieffer noted in the quote above, it’s what the President campaigned on. So, election won, promises kept. Sounds like a good news story for conservatives to me, something they want to hear. The hearings are over, the nomination has been voted out of committee and there is no indication Alito will be filibustered or defeated by the full Senate vote so it has no impact on his chances for getting the job.
And there is no value judgment on what “right” means. Nobody said this is bad news for the country, no one called it a distressing shift to the right, just described what this new court makeup could mean. It’s the Supreme Court, of course, which means nobody really knows how it will rule on any given case, but signs are positive for those carrying the conservative cause. Why is pointing that out somehow a bad thing? As one who shares some of those positions, it struck me as validation not some attempt to negatively spin anything.
