Pass the propaganda…
Lori Robertson, of the American Journalism Review, wonders why so many Americans falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 or that we have found WMDs in Iraq. Could it be the fault of the press? She writes that
…consuming news usually–and logically–leads to greater understanding. Studies have shown that when the public is following a story and the press is covering a subject well, public knowledge increases. With the war in Iraq, it seems, this hasn’t happened. Who is at fault? Did the news media fall down on the job? Could they have done something differently to better inform their audiences?
The article rambles on for several thousand words without coming to much of an answer (not necessarily a bad thing), although there are some interesting moments. I’ll offer one possibility among many: The press doesn’t take proper account of the role of language in human affairs.
Having been a journalist, I’m quite well aware that most of them think of themselves as language experts because they write for a living. Average journalists are good stylists, certainly an important professional skill. But that is only one small bit of what it means to use language. And of the many other bits, average journalists could be better informed.
The habitual misuse of “rhetoric” is one good place to begin. Journalists trained in rhetoric might have had a better idea how Americans came to link Iraq with 9/11. Take a look at my original analysis of President Bush’s 7 October 2002 speech on Iraq. Read all that stuff highlighted in yellow.
Literalists will argue that Bush never said in so many words yadda yadda yadda. This willfully misunderstands rhetoric. Bush didn’t have to say it in so many words. The pathos and enthymemes of the speech did the persuading. Aristotle, 2,300 years ago, demonstrated how to get an audience to complete an argument by adding in the stuff that isn’t specifically said.
Journalists could report persuasive tactics as verifiable events if they knew how. Instead, they rely on partisan pundits to tell them what it all means. And the result is their reporting does more to transmit propaganda than to interrupt or challenge it.
If you want to know why Americans think Saddam was involved in 911 you have to look outside politics and into the world of psychology. People have an easier time dealing with things that are tangible than ideas that are not. In this example since Saddam and OBL are disliked and easily associated with terrorism it is simply easy for people to accept them as an object to dispel negative emotion onto.
Journalistic competence has a moral/ethical component. Put another way, you can’t report ethically unless you can report competently. Ethical journalism derives from the greatest possible degree of independence, and relying on a pundit to “tell you what it all means” forfeits a significant, and probably excessive, level of independence.
A good story has more than style
Andrew Cline at Rhetorica has a fascinating post on one way to improve the media: Teach these professional writers to better understand language. The habitual misuse of “rhetoric” is one good place to begin. Journalists trained in rhetoric might have h…
Carnival of the Vanities #55
I would have loved to come up with another new and interesting way to present the Carnival, but my brain cells have been a little too fried owing to overuse at work. So instead of making excuses, I will just get right to the entries and present them in…