MediaBloodhound

Operation Enduring Belief

President Bush can’t seem to pedal fast enough to outpace his plummeting poll numbers, while the left speaks hopefully of a tipping point in the national debate on Iraq. Though, quietly but persistently, one thing remains the same and should never be, as our feckless leader might say, “misunderestimated”: the marketing prowess of Karl Rove and its influence on the mainstream media.

The man who brought you such Trojan Horse pieces of legislation as “No Child Left Behind” and the “Clear Skies Act,” and whose directive of subliminal, and not-so-subliminal, repetition masterfully linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11 in the minds of more than half of Americans, continues to be the filter through which we receive much of our news. From cowing the mainstream media into lazy or misleading reporting to feeding them talking points they can run with and do his bidding, he still has them eating out of his hand.

Take, for instance, a recent Reuters article about President Bush facing more anti-war protesters while speaking at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Salt Lake City, Utah. In the second to last paragraph, Caren Bohan, the journalist who penned this piece, writes:

“Critics say Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks and that the administration has tried to tie Iraq to terrorism since the war to justify its actions.”

It’s mentioned in such a matter-of-fact manner that, if the statement wasn’t so outrageously erroneous and misleading, it would be easy to overlook. First, it has long been common knowledge, confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, that Saddam Hussein had no connection to September 11. Fact. Not conjecture. Not a result of a partisan divergence in viewpoint. So, on its face, this statement is false, and this reporting is irresponsible at best and propagandistic at worst.

The effectiveness of this specious reporting hinges on the words “Critics say,” which brands any disbelievers of the bogus Saddam link with the culturally pejorative “critic.” As in, nobody likes one. The subtext is also clear: labeling such people critics of the President during wartime inevitably calls into question their patriotism. Is this journalist allowing George a mulligan to soften the blows that Cindy Sheehan has landed, or is she simply lazy? Is this the best we can do: propaganda or incompetence? How much more of a mirror can the mainstream press become of the administration itself?

Then there was Norah O’Donnell, filling in last week for “Hardball” barker Chris Matthews. Speaking with Coleen Rowley, the Minneapolis-based 9/11 FBI whistle-blower and Democratic candidate for Congress who recently visited Crawford to show her support for Cindy Sheehan, O’Donnell wastes no time giving credence to new right-wing talking points:

O'DONNELL: You're a Democrat running for Congress. It was reported that Republican leaders in your state were just thrilled that you had decided to align yourself with anti-war extremists. Do you think that this could affect your race for Congress?

ROWLEY: Well, I will quickly correct the record, that they are not anti-war extremists. The majority of the people I saw down in Crawford were actually veterans groups.

O'DONNELL: But, Coleen, they do oppose the war in Iraq, do they not?

Oh yes she did. O’Donnell, in one broad stroke, not only runs with this McCarthyite terminology to describe anti-war protesters but also gives context to and extends its definition. You need not protest the war to be an anti-war extremist; you merely have to be opposed to it. Subliminal message to middle America: Even your dirty little thoughts of opposition can land you in the unpatriotic camp. So watch your step.

Then O’Donnell cuts to that day's tape of the Bush address where, for the first time, he actually mentions the number of soldiers who’ve given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s a somber message, of course politically motivated, intended to rally support with such sentiments as, “Each of these heroes left a legacy that will allow generations of their fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty.” O’Donnell picks it up from there.

O'DONNELL: The president also said today, Coleen, that the war in Iraq must be won and that a policy of retreat and isolation will not bring us safety from terrorism. Do you disagree with that?

Subtext: How can you disagree with that? O’Donnell speaks as if it’s incumbent upon those who oppose the President’s failed policy in Iraq to explain themselves, while the President, the creator of this mess, gets a rhetorical pass. You can almost hear Rove chuckling behind the curtain.

In one of the most egregious examples of political branding, the Associated Press reports that “nearly all Arlington National Cemetery gravestones for troops killed in Iraq or Afghanistan are inscribed with the slogan-like operation names the Pentagon selected to promote public support for the conflicts.” Though reported by the AP, this news item was too unseemly for the networks and cable news to focus on. Meanwhile, graphic pictures and detailed accounts of the BTK Killer’s victims – death porn – continue to draw their journalistic eye.

Yes, the military is going full-bore to get the word out now that more teenagers would rather play military video games than actually sign up with Uncle Sam. Operation names on gravesites are merely outdoor branding. For the shock and awe marketing blitz, the Leo Burnett advertising agency has been charged to create a recruitment campaign - for a healthy $350 million - that avoids mention of Iraq. When asked about their new contract, the agency had this to say:

"Leo Burnett USA creates ideas that inspire enduring belief for many of the world's most valuable brands and most successful marketers, including McDonald's, Disney, Procter & Gamble, Marlboro, Altoids, Heinz, Kellogg, Nintendo and the U.S. Army."

All of this must make the man behind the curtain proud.

The Ultimate Sacrifice

President Bush set the tone in the aftermath of 9/11, and he has stayed the course ever since, never asking more from us, or from himself. At the time, we were told we’re at war. Our sacrifice during this crucible? We were instructed to get back out there, by God, and keep shopping. Falling into line, the mainstream media accepted this directive with the mindlessness of children trailing their parents through a labyrinthine strip mall - as if American consumers crowding the aisles of Wal-Mart and guzzling whipped Starbucks confections would somehow shore up our national character, strike fear in our enemies and instill admiration in our allies.

Fast-forward four years and, meanwhile back at the ranch, President Bush is enjoying another five-week vacation. This at a time when retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey says of Iraq: “This thing, the wheels are coming off it.” So too are they coming off of Bush’s poll numbers, which are dipping to LBJ-dogged-by-Vietnam territory. Enter Cindy Sheehan, a spirited mother of a fallen soldier, who has managed to capture the imagination of Americans, puncturing the mainstream media bubble more successfully than anyone to date during Bush’s reign. Frank, amiable, soft-spoken and eloquent, she is the seeming manifestation of her message. She couldn’t save her son, so now she fights to save the lives of others still caught in the crosshairs of this nightmare, and, quite possibly, the soul of America.

Worldwide, millions of concerned citizens marched to prevent this war, but the millions weren’t enough to compel the mainstream media to carve out a substantial storyline, to consider the underlying validity of the protest and then pose responsible questions – as representatives of this republic - to a president bent on invading a country that never attacked us. Instead, to our ongoing detriment, it is the gratuitous sizzle of a Michael Jackson or Natalee Holloway or BTK Killer story - defanged of any national and international relevance - that continues to be their strength as well as their glaring weakness.

Therein lies the beauty of Ms. Sheehan’s story: she embodies the micro and macro, the personal tale that has, like it or not, become our new national tragedy. Her son paid the “ultimate sacrifice” - words Bush often leans on when trying to appear empathetic to the lives lost - and now she demands to know for what purpose. Bush’s response thus far to Ms. Sheehan’s entreaties to meet briefly?

“But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job. And I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”

Cindy Sheehan’s life and thousands of others have been shattered by this war of choice, and yet the President isn’t willing to sacrifice as much as a power nap.

So the mainstream media finds itself faced with another moment of truth. First, there was the debacle in Florida, then the toothless press conferences leading up to the war in Iraq, followed by the shameful 2004 election coverage. They are 0-3 in the Moment of Truth department. When Cindy Sheehan drew a line in the sand for George W. Bush, she consequently did the same for them.

Conservative radio talk show hosts and their print and TV cohorts are in a tizzy because they fear Ms. Sheehan is their kryptonite: truth in a concerned mother’s uniform. Lining up with character assassination pies, they’re attempting to nail her with the "radical" tag, to align her with the Michael Moore camp (not because he’s a radical, mind you, but rather because he’s already been effectively branded unlikable), anything to strip away the trust and empathy she inspires every time we hear her speak. Fred Barnes of FOX News dug down deep and came up with: “She’s a crackpot.” The big networks? They, in effect, made her a one-day story. She asked. He said no. Next. Simultaneously, Ms. Sheehan is being fed through the wood chipper of “objectivity” central to the cable news format, the he said/she said style of reporting that devoted equal time to confirmed Swift Boat liars.

The goal is to turn the focus from her cause and Mr. Bush to Cindy Sheehan’s in-laws, steadfast Republicans who disagree with her actions. In effect, Ms. Sheehan’s character becomes the subtext of every question: What’s her true motivation? Doesn’t everyone have an angle? Why should we trust her? They’re two sides of every story, right? And the crux of the story – why won’t President Bush meet with this bereaved mother for ten minutes? – fades into the ether of our collective short-term memories.

“Hardball” host Chris Matthews, a master at this game of obfuscation, went a few rounds with Ms. Sheehan last night, attempting to muddy the underlying point of her protest and shift the focus to anything but President Bush - to Afghanistan, her disgruntled Republican in-laws, her impending divorce. First, Ms. Sheehan states exactly why she wants to speak to Mr. Bush, culminating with:

“And the other thing he always says is that we have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission. Well, Chris, I had my heart and soul ripped out on April 4th, 2004. As a mother, why would I want any other mother to suffer the way I am? Why would I want one more of our dear children to be killed for this mistake, for the lives in Iraq? And those are the answers I want from the president.”

But rather than acknowledge what she’s said, Matthews spins the wheel of discourse directly into oncoming traffic:

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

Whether or not one agrees with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan - which, incidentally, was also a tour de force of mismanagement, linked to Osama’s escape - the point, contextually, is that this has nothing to do with her plea or her cause. Nor are her differing political views with her in-laws, or her impending divorce. Yet after reading an open letter from one of these in-laws, released through a conservative radio talk show, Matthews, channeling Perry Mason, says:

“So it seems like you have a division in your family.”

You can almost hear the “da-nuuuuh…” in the background. This inevitably forces Sheehan to waste a chunk of airtime explaining this relationship. A relationship that is already known and, again, bears no relevance to her mission. Matthews ends this exchange by unsuccessfully goading Sheehan into discussing the dissolution of her marriage. Her reply is quintessential Sheehan, gracious but sharp:

“My husband has always agreed with me philosophically. And he only disagreed with the intensity that I put into the fight. But I am compelled to do this. And other than that, that's as far as I'm going to talk about my family’s - another personal tragedy due to this war.”

During the recent Plame-Rove flap, some in the White House press corps, like David Gregory of NBC and Terry Moran of ABC, finally expressed at least a modicum of outrage for the stammering excuses spun by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. However briefly, they acted like journalists, asking pointed follow-up questions and showing resolve when not answered. For the first time during Bush’s tenure, they seemed willing to sacrifice their coveted positions for a go at the facts. Cindy Sheehan will need more of this kind of sacrifice if she is to make significant gains in this growing deadly war of image vs. reality – from the mainstream media who have irresponsibly led us down this path for the last five years, as well as from the American public who have now seen too much of the emperor’s clothes to turn away.

Armies of Compassion

Is there a better way to kick off this blog? The NY Times coverage of George W. Bush addressing the Boy Scouts at their national jamboree in Virginia. It reads like an article ripped from The Onion, or the transcript of a "Boy Scout Bureau Chief" from The Daily Show. But alas, it is neither.

It’s not the discrepancy between what President Bush says and his actual deeds, and the jaw-dropping cognitive dissonance this affects. Sadly, we’ve grown to expect this, and would be shocked to field an utterance of his that is both genuine and mindful. Instead, what continues to baffle is how the President is covered as if he were a wildly popular and successful Commander in Chief, rather than the guy who led us into war with documented falsified information, bogus informants and Orwellian scare tactics. Of course Matthew L. Wald’s piece is a “hard news” story, not an op-ed piece. But if people were to stumble across this article years from now and weren’t availed of the reality we find ourselves in today - yes, history books are written by the winners - what’s to stop them from coming away with the impression that Bush sounds like another Winston Churchill or Teddy Roosevelt.

After Bush points out that he himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Jr., are all former scouts, he adds, as if irony didn’t exist, “Thousands of scouts have shown the highest form of patriotism by going on to wear the uniform of the United States.” Yet not even a hiccup from Wald as to Bush’s dubious National Guard service or Cheney’s “I had other priorities” explanation for not serving in Vietnam. Bush and Cheney made a mockery of this “highest form of patriotism.” Since this is fact rather than opinion, and wholly relevant, I only ask that the 800-pound gorilla at the jamboree be acknowledged.

Wald further reports: “Mr. Bush praised the virtues of scouting and listed all those included in the Boy Scout law, including trustworthiness and loyalty.” So Bush lists all the virtues of scouting found in the Boy Scout law and Wald chooses to showcase “trustworthiness and loyalty.” (At this point, the gorilla is doing cartwheels and grabbing his privates.) Is Wald really implying that this administration is trustworthy? Well, yes, he is by cherry-picking these two adjectives from the entire list Bush rattled off. Loyal, yes, Bush & Co. are nothing if not loyal, but of course for the wrong reasons; they go to the mat for their friends no matter how incompetent, corrupt and seemingly indefensible their actions.

Bush, inevitably, is lavished with applause throughout this sermon of red, white and blue. The article even begins, “President Bush drew cheers on Sunday from a crowd of tens of thousands of Boy Scouts and their parents with talk about patriotism, morals and the role of their organization in creating leaders.” Yet I find it hard to believe that, even among a sea of Boy Scouts and their dewy-eyed parents, there wasn’t one dissenting voice, not one of them who couldn’t stomach this stream of empty clichés in the face of mounting body counts reported daily from Iraq. Later, after listing charitable scout activities across the country, he drew “cheers as each state was mentioned.” If Disney makes a movie about Bush’s presidency, this might well be the perfect ending. Cue the swelling music.

In closing, Bush says, “On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank the Boy Scouts for serving on the front lines of America’s armies of compassion.” Uh-huh, armies of compassion. Militaristic language so distasteful, yet so exquisite, that I have to check my copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four just to verify it wasn’t lifted. The article also happens to end on this quote. An article reported as if its speaker were a returning war hero rather than a President bogged down in a war of his own making.