You Can Tell Which Way The Wind Blows…
…when the Associated Press change their stylebook to reflect changing political mores. Or is it just reflecting new market realities? From Alicublog:
IT’S ALWAYS WINGNUT HAPPY HOUR SOMEPLACE! The end of summer (and, no matter what the calendar says, Labor Day is the end of summer) always gets me down. Thank God for my imaginary playmates! Here’s Leon Wolf at Redstate, enraged to hear from his friends in the Movement that the AP stylebook has made a usage flip from “pro-life” to “anti-abortion,” and from “pro-choice”/”pro-abortion” to “pro-abortion rights*”:
So what exactly have the folks at Associated Press done? In the first place, they’ve done a great “framing” favor to the pro-choice side by casting the pro-lifers as the “anti-” side in the debate. As any “framing” person will tell you, labeling any cause as “anti-” anything will make it less appealing than labeling it “pro-” something else, even if they are functionally equivalent (pro-freedom sounds more attractive than anti-slavery…)
I’m sure it sounds more attractive to you, hoss!
(* The brethren claim that the AP-acceptable term is simply “abortion rights,” but it translates to “pro-abortion rights” for purposes of clarity, as seen in this AP story that ran September 3 in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.)
[…]
The language and the terms you use define the parameters of the debate*. Knowing this has been the Right’s greatest strength: indeed PR as an industry grew symbiotically with the Republican party. The one could not exist in its modrn form without the other.
For an overview on how this happened I heartily recommend PR! A social History of Spin by Stuart Ewen, who traces the inextricably linked historical roots of both, through two world wars and the New Deal, showing how the seeds of the ‘Reagan revolution’ were sown. This supposed revolution led to the deregulation of cross-media ownership and the end of balance in US political reporting and consequently to the wholesale co-option of the mass media by the PR industry. (That and the sheer lazy-assness and third-ratery of many prominent journalists.)
One hand has always washed the other:
Publishers Weekly:
“Is there any difference between PR and propaganda? Ewen (All Consuming Images), a professor of media studies at Hunter College in Manhattan, doesn’t think so. Accordingly, his account of the rise of the public relations industry begins with the U.S. Committee on Public Information, a government-sponsored organization dedicated to maintaining domestic morale during WWI. In the aftermath of the war, Ewen argues, public relations developed largely out of a corporate fear that genuine democracy would obstruct the workings of big business, with PR pioneer Edward Bernays offering, as he phrased it, lessons in “the engineering of consent.” As corporations like AT&T began to perceive the importance of utilizing public relations in the face of a public increasingly suspicious of monolithic companies, the PR industry hit its stride by learning to incorporate many of the tactics and iconography of the New Deal while simultaneously opposing its progressive politics.
[…]”
I read this book not long after it came out and fairly early into the Blair incumbency. Although I’d been long familiar with Labour doublespeak and duplicity, having been a party member, it was still startling to see how ruthlessly New Labour had adopted in their entirety those same PR strategies that Ewen describes .
They had learned in their long exile that if they could control the framing they could control the debate and to do that they had no compuction in using market methods. It was the Third Way after all.
Unfortunately for the country it’s been all about the selling and not the product so much. Blair and Co. have concentrated more on the frame than the debate and have been all mouth no trousers, all spin no substance, incompetence and authoritarianism nicely wrapped up in beautifully presented folderol. But as Blair and Bush are both finding, the market has its own logic and after buying something because of the ad only to find it’s crap, consumers tend not to buy it again. When you treat citizens as an ignorant herd of gape-mouthed consumers, it doesn’t do to forget they can take their buying power elsewhere. Ask McDonalds or Sunny D.
That’s really why the AP is changing its stylesheet – not from any progressive urge towards a bit of equity in debate, but because the old marketing terms like ‘pro-life’ don’t sell. The market has shifted:
Rove’s vision falling apart as mood turns against GOP
[…]
Numerous political analysts are forecasting that a tidal wave of voter dissatisfaction will wash incumbent Republicans out of office on Nov. 7 and possibly hand control of the House back to Democrats, who also are poised to make gains in the Senate and win back governorships.“The Republicans had a great run for a while, and it’s over,” said Charlie Cook, a nonpartisan analyst and founder of the Cook Political Report. More…
Blair story sparks feeding frenzy
Wednesday’s newspapers have reached fever pitch over the possible departure of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
[…]The Daily Telegraph dubs Tony Blair’s departure “the long goodbye”, and says Labour could tear itself apart between now and next spring.
The Times talks about 100 Labour MPs insisting Mr Blair must name the date or face mounting pressure.
Columnist Alice Miles argues talk of a smooth transition is wrong and that Britain needs a leadership contest.
The Daily Mail goes with the Sun’s bold prediction and says 31 May, but claims Gordon Brown was not consulted.
More…
*(Chomsky has been banging on about language and framing for years, but he’s a liberal moonbat so anything he may have to say can be automatically disregarded, thus nicely proving his point.)
Read More: PR, Propaganda, Spin, UK Poltics, US Politics, Abortion Rights, Bush, Blair
