Comment of The Day: French Framing

Democracy, though sickly and a bit nauseous from repeated blows to civil liberties, is not yet dead in Europe: 85% of the electorate, a tribute to banlieues activism, came out in France yesterday and made a statement – no more wishy washy middle. France seems to want a clear choice between neoliberalism or socialism; ether more of the Blair and Bush-led globalisation agenda, or a President that thinks that ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’ applies to more than just middle-aged white men with a comfy bank balance.

No prizes for guessing which candidate I prefer; although my preference is irrelevant given that I can’t vote there, nevertheless I think it would be a triumph for all European women should the French elect a female socialist president at the heart of the ‘old’ EU.

But now the election will move into a whole new phase. The stakes get much higher. In comments to Peter Preston’s Guardian article on the election this morning, a French commenter points out the election has wider implications – that it’s not just a left-right battle, but a question of the basic legitimacy of public leftwing ideas:

Being french, I found this article quit interesting, but even more the reactions some people have posted here. Indeed, france does have some things it can be proud of (good health care, excellent rail network, free education – from primary school to university – , and state subventions to sport, art, environmental groups, …), and of course some bad things that go with it (people abusing the health system creating a great debt, a very heavy bureaucracy, many taxs that few people understand). But it is true that this “France in a state of decline” narrative is indeed the corporate media’s ploy to break what was left of, not the socialist party, but the credibility of left wing policies. We hear all the time that Mrs Royal has no program, but that is not true. She has solid a program, many ideas,not all brilliant, but dominantly a pragmatic left wing.

But medias today spend their time telling us that we can be left wing untill we are 30 year’s old, but then, “please, be serious, a globalized society doesn’t have room for such nonsense. Get back to work and stop being childish”. Because problems in our welfare system do exist, we are made to believe that any welfare system is doomed to faliure. Indeed corporations big and small, and individuals do abuse of this system, but it does not mean that this system is a bad one, that it couldn’t be repaired. When your car has a flat wheel (or even two flat wheels), do you just scrap the car ? By ridiculizing the system, corporation and media are just slowly killing the idea that people can be left wing, by promoting a new idealic society of which their corporations would be at the center making the money and dictating their policies. This election isn’t just an election between RIGHT and LEFT, it is an election where the existence and legitimacy of LEFT ideas are at stake.”

Framing affects everything we see in the media. There is little reported in any media that is not intermediated by another person in some way even if it’s only uploading a clip. Someone still chose that clip. They framed the picture you see.

You cannot ever completely exclude the editorial voice, no matter how hard you try. Because worldwide media as currently constituted is corporate and profit making in structure, its larger editorial voice is also corporatist and the information put out is framed to support the making of those profits. To do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible and negligent towards the shareholders: sensation sells more than fluffy bunnies and hope so that’s the course the media follows.

Thus the narrative of permanent decline that suffuses everything we read and hear – we’re under attack, an amorphous ‘they’ is trying.to take our stuff, we’re being swamped, invaded… unimporant threats are hyped into planetwide scourges while imporant yet dull, worthy, complicated yet important issues are trivialised or go unreported.

The commenter has spotted the biggest frame of all in modern western democratic politics in action. It’s been the ur-narrative of all western politics since the industrial revolution and the concomitant rise of the newspaper barons, advertising and then the PR industry. The philosophy is so all pervasive that it was built in to EU institutions too.

Capitalism is not only the best way, it’s the only way. The Free Market is a pure and ineluctable product of nature, like sunlight or a mother’s love, or butterflies’ wings. Capitalism’s been ordained by God to make all for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous lunatic and one of the amorphous ‘they’ trying to take our stuff.

So, put very crudely, goes the story and so goes the editorial direction of the US and European corporate media-at-large.

Now, at least in France, the mainstream media will have to engage publicly with actual socialist politics again. That certainly seems to be what the public want – not just, as in the UK, a non-choice between one bunch of incompetent neoliberals and another but a proper public debate and a real choice between ideological directions for the country.

But the socialists had better be on the ball media-wise and not give their usual ‘our ideas will shine through because they’re right’, naive tv and radio performance. In Spain and the Netherlands socialist parties have shown that it’s perfectly possible to handle the media on your terms and be elected on principled positions. I hope the French socialists are ready for this coming campaign – because it’s not just Sarko v Sego now, it’s Sarkozy and the whole media and cultural establishment’s framing v Segolene.

Published by Palau

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, washed the t-shirt 23 times, threw the t-shirt in the ragbag, now I'm polishing furniture with it.

2 Comments

  • jebuff

    April 23, 2007 at 10:07 am

    Must disagree concerning your anti-Sarko opinion. A development economist by training, a proud liberal in American politics, I immigrated to France from America almost 20 years ago, and I’ve been lucky enough to know both countries from within. Sarko, much as he represents a more liberal economy, is a far cry from LePen, or even the “current occupant” in the White House.
    Although I am uncomfortable about some of Sarko’s flirtation with the far right (on immigration, etc) during the campaign, I do believe he offers the best chance to reform France without abandioning the best of this country’s wonderful social ‘engagement’. I also believe he’s too much of a pragmatist to shoot himself in the foot economically by attacking immigration as President. Watch his spoken policy drop under the waterline as soon as he’s elected. He knows, as we all do, that the immigrants are the hardest-working people in France, and for less. Their contribution via work, consumption & taxes far outweighs the cost of keeping the door, if not exactly open, at least slightly ajar.
    At the risk of sounding cynical, it’s not like one has to want to invite the guy over for dinner. If I must hold my nose while voting Sarko, so be it.
    In any case, the Socialists are still defending the old “French model” as if there was such a thing that could interest anyone in France or beyond with any understanding of economics. Sego can thus only offer empty promises for justice & benefits for all. It’s an insult to women to call for us to vote for one who’s incompetent, or standing on a broken platform.
    Too bad the PS hasn’t learned from the lessons of the UK, Germany, & the Clinton democrats in the US… The old left ideas are broken, and only the “new left”, fiscally responsible, pro-growth, and featuring a real sustainable social & environmental program can beat the right. If this existed in France, I’d vote Socialist again. Until them, Sarko has my vote.

  • Palau

    April 24, 2007 at 4:02 am

    What you are saying sounds remarkably like what many on the right said about pre-Blair Labour and look where that got us. That new left – “fiscally responsible, pro-growth, and featuring a real sustainable social & environmental program can beat the right” – that you wish for sounds rematkably like the disastrousl ‘third way’, also known as having your cake and eating it.

    I do agree with you that Segolene’s campaign, as a campaign, is dismal and I think the socialists have yet to get to grips with the messaging and spin required to run a national political battle. They’ve got less than 2 weeks now, they’d better pull their collective fingers out of their asses and soon. (But don’t count out the bobo vote yet: it might just swing it despite the socialists’ best efforts to shoot themselves in the feet.)

    But on the whole you are arguing the same old same old – the soft left says “the left is broken, we need a new left, nothing to do with me guv, I’m voting for the neoliberal”. Rather than actually engage with and think about shaping workable left wing left policies you’ve accepted the framing presented to you, that it is actually possible for a government to be pro-growth and feature a sustainable social and environmental program.

    Peak oil says not.

    You say “It’s an insult to women to call for us to vote for one who’s incompetent, or standing on a broken platform.” I reject that assertion: I’m calling on no-one to vote for Segolene justbecause she is a woman – as if anyone ould give any weight to what i say on the subject anyway – and as for whether she’s incompetent or standing on a broken platform that’s entirely up to the voters of France to decide.

    But should France choose a woman president, I would be pleased, absolutely no doubt of that. For feminism it is hugely strategically important and such a result would indeed be a triumph, as was the election of Thatcher in the UK. (Now there’s someone that I’d characterise as having been incompetent and standing on a broken platform.) It normalises women as leaders.

    Such a result would indeed be a triumph when looked at in that strategic sense, of women exercising their right to lead their countries just as incompetently or as competently as any man. Or are you suggesting that we should wait around for superwomen to turn up before we ever vote for women? If that same standard were applied to men no-one would ever be elected.