Solidarity of Wind
by
Nathan Fey
On Thursday, October 12th President Bush appeared at a fundraising event in Chicago to support local Republicans running for midterm elections. Under normal circumstances President Bush’s visit would not have been big news outside of Chicago. But these were not normal circumstances. Although the President’s participation in the event had been long planned, recent events within Congress deemed it national news. The national media jumped all over itself to cover this event. The event was unique because it gave the media an outlet to express itself on the scandal surrounding the Speaker of the House and ultimately expose their own inherent bias hidden in their use of language.
News articles covering the fundraiser come from The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Sun Times, The Chicago Tribune, and The New York Times. Two pieces of academic research that are critical to deconstructing these pieces of media come from linguists with a heavy background in politics. George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language,” focuses on the dangers of thick political language and its influence on our culture. Geoffrey Nunberg’s book, “Talking Right,” explains how political rhetoric has evolved into a monster in its own right by turning words and phrases from their historical definitions into exaggerated imagery that evoke emotional rather than definitive responses. The application of this academic research to the content in the news articles will show that the subjectivity of the language becomes clear and bias is exposed.
A thorough examination of five news articles from major newspapers from across the country about the Chicago fundraiser leaves the reader to question the objectivity of the authors. The language used in the articles subtly betrays objective journalism. Because of the underlying bias hidden in the language, the articles become almost as persuasive as they are informative. The language is sprinkled with key words, loaded phrases, even omissions that either support preconceived ideologies or contest the audience’s embedded values and beliefs. Five articles paint contrasting pictures by shaping the event’s context through a skillful use of language. The only conclusion an educated audience can come to is that when the media fails to remain objective, it also fails in its most important duty to inform.
When an educated person reads a piece of print media they assume that they are smart enough not to fall prey to tricky language contained within. Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist who teaches at the University of California at Berkley comments in his book “Talking Right” of the “growing mistrust of political language [and] a natural reaction to the growth of political double-talk and mendacity” (Nunberg, p. 20). Nunberg contends that political rhetoric has intensified to a point that it actually controls public opinion. An example of crafty political language can be found in such terms as “USA Patriot Act,” “Clear Skies Act,” and “Healthy Forest Initiative.” Public opinion can be shaped by careful use of friendly language. Without a firmly established knowledge of what exactly these acts do, the titles alone are as important as what is contained within.
While most Americans are wary about taking political discourse at surface value, Nunberg claims that those who believe they are superior to deceptive advertising are those that are easiest to seduce. A common ideal is that “an excessive concern about language is merely a distraction from things that really matter” (Nunberg, 23). In other words, they get us when we’re not paying attention. In fact, they get us by getting us to not pay attention. Nunberg asserts that we should focus on the distraction the language creates to successfully deconstruct media. The use of language in politics is really just a form of advertising. Political language creates an image, plays to our emotions, and strives to be a conducive link between our established ideologies and the message’s purpose.
Depending upon who you talk to, there are two wars we are fighting right now in Iraq. If you speak to a left leaning person, they would most likely tell you that we are at “War in Iraq.” A right leaning person would likely say “War on Terror.” They are both describing the conflict in Iraq but have used two completely different terms to do so. They both carry weight that elicit contrasting emotions. The word “liberal” may conjure up images of an educated snob whose idealism conflicts with real world solutions. The word “conservative” can put an image in your head as a Bible-thumping, NRA card holding, close-minded, backwoods yokel. It’s no accident that both of these words have come to embody only the far ends of the spectrum while vigorously dragging those in the middle through the mud to their respective sides. The power of words and their context are growing and changing. And they are changing our culture. The power of one word in particular will have a profound effect on what voters will do on November 7th.
“Terror” is the hottest word in the political landscape right now. The word alone will have a tremendous effect on the midterm elections this fall. One of the hot button issues of the moment is the protection of America from its enemies. The Republicans say they can do a better job of that than the Democrats and vice versa. The use of the word “terror” when discussing the issue of America’s security has been framed and solidified in our conscious. It has become a blanket term synonymous with the word “threat” that swirls around the issue with North Korea. This word serves one purpose. It stirs up our fears that our tranquil lives can be broken apart unexpectedly as they were five years ago. The use of this word in political discourse has changed from its singular definition. When the word is used now it is to exploit our fear of attack. Many Americans will vote this November for who they think will best ease this fear. Many of those politicians who get that vote are the same who cultivated that fear with their use of language.
If this abuse of language seems strangely familiar, it is. Anyone who’s ever read “1984” by George Orwell can recognize the metaphorical danger of politically loaded language. Orwell states in his essay “Politics and the English Language,” that political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind” (Orwell, 171). The language of politics shape public opinion of an issue as much as the actual essence of the issue. A journalist’s ability to remain objective or to succumb to bias lay in his use of language.
When President Bush came to Chicago in mid-October to help raise money for the Republican Party, the national media had a field day. Although his appearance was planned well in advance, Bush’s visit became significant for his reaffirmed support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Hastert had come under fire in previous weeks in the wake of the Scott Foley scandal. When the newspapers hit the stands the day after the fundraiser, major coverage had been given to the event. The coverage was decisively varied.
In order to expose bias through subtleties in the language contained in the articles several factors must be examined. Who, what, why, and how come first. Secondly, it is important to examine what some reports chose to include while others omitted. Five reports by five newspapers portray distinct characteristics. The news articles are from The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times.
Each article mentioned the Scott Foley scandal and its relevance to President Bush’s affirmation of support of the House Speaker. The New York Times made reference to it with phrases such as: “Questions continued to swirl… about Mark Foley’s e-mail to male pages,” and “news first surfaced [about] risqué e-mail.” The Chicago Tribune used phrases like “congressional page controversy” and when referring to Hastert’s link to Scott Foley’s improprieties. The language in The Chicago Sun-Times had more bite than The Chicago Tribune with reference to the “congressional page scandal.” The Washington Times used the phrase “sexually explicit email… sent to teenage male pages,” while The Los Angeles Times called it “inappropriate electronic messages sent to a former congressional page.” All of these phrases were used to describe the same thing. Yet they all paint a different picture to evoke either passive or aggressive emotions from the reader. Only The Washington Times mentioned that the victims of Foley’s behavior were minors. Words such as “questions” and “controversy” and “demands” are used in different papers to explain the same issue.
The New York Times described those who attended the fundraiser as a “revved-up group of Republican donors, activists and leaders” while The Chicago Tribune chose to describe them as “several hundred people.” The Chicago Sun-Times describes the audience as “400 people who paid at least $1000 a head” to attend the fundraiser. The Washington Times simply calls them “Republican supporters.” The Los Angeles Times does not make a descriptive reference to the audience.
An excerpt from The New York Times uses the word “Democrat” next to some cleverly loaded language in which President Bush accuses Democrats of “trying to block his terrorism initiatives and threatening to end his tax cuts.” President Bush also has to deal with “Democratic resistance to the USA Patriot Act” and the “Democrats failure to understand the true threat of terrorists.” Very strong language contained in the article can manipulate even the most wary audience.
The Washington Times described Hastert as a man who “looked tired” and that he appeared to withstand “demands that he step down from his post for failing to police his own ranks.” The New York Times describes President Bush as smiling for several minutes and offering Hastert a “hearty handshake as Mr. Hastert, beaming, patted him on the back.” These two descriptions of Mr. Hastert cannot be more contradictory. Both The Chicago Sun-Times and The Chicago Tribune say that Hastert and Bush “stood shoulder to shoulder” but The Chicago Tribune adds “though only for a few minutes.”
Sifting through all of these articles supposedly covering the same event, one cannot help but become frustrated. Each article achieved it main purpose. Information as to why the President’s appearance alongside Hastert was important news was equally conveyed in each article. President Bush’s visit to Chicago was significant because he backed Hastert in the wake of “demands that he step down…for failing to police his own ranks” following a “scandal,” according to The Washington Times. The Chicago Sun-Times also got it right when it said that Bush backed Hastert “amid calls he step down for the way he… handled the congressional page scandal.” Or maybe the Chicago Tribune was less subjective when it said of Bush’s support of Hastert following Foley’s “sexually explicit electronic messages to an underage congressional page.” The New York Times spoke of Bush’s “embrace of Mr. Hastert since the news first surfaced.”
It is easy to recognize journalism that is biased by simply reading different reports of President Bush’s visit to Chicago. The language exposes the author’s bias in the framing of words and phrases. Watered down and loaded phrases turn simple reporting into subtle persuasion. Bush’s visit to Chicago presented a challenge to mainstream media. The reporting of the event, if not done carefully, exposed the media as to what side of the fence they were on. Consciously or not, the media was advertising their bias to their audience by becoming translucent. Their opinions and perceptions of the event differed greatly. An author can bring an inherent bias to journalism and readers can also bring an embedded supposition that can detract from the information they receive from a piece of media. The challenge is to shed, or pick apart the bias contained within and without. As Orwell states in “Politics and the English Language”, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” (Orwell, 167).
Some call the manipulation of political language the “War on Truth.” But the truth can be subjective. The battle over language is a war over the framing of the truth. It is an attempt to give solidarity to the wind as Orwell puts it. There is no solidarity to wind and one can only give it false perceptions. Truth is a house of cards that crumbles from converging and diverging winds. The objective is not to keep this house standing solid, but to blow harder than the others so its falls in your favor. Whoever blows the hardest, wins.
Curl, Joseph. “Bush Stands by Hastert at Illinois Fundraiser; Predicts win for speaker, GOP in Mid-Terms.” The Washington Times. 10/13/06
Gerstenzang, James. Bush Backs Hastert When Backing Hastert isn’t Cool; The President takes the speaker’s side as GOP candidates wary of the Foley flap have canceled his appearances at fundraisers.” Los Angeles Times. 10/13/06
Newbart, Dave. “Bush: I’m Proud to be Standing with Hastert: President praises speaker at GOP fundraiser here. Chicago Sun-Times. 10/13/06
Nunberg, Geoffrey. Talking Right. 2006 Public Affairs Publishing. New York, NY
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language” Collection of Essays. 1981 Harvest Publications. Orlando, FL.
Pearson, Rick and Mark Silva. “Bush Backs Hastert: “President ‘Proud’ to Stand with Speaker during visit.” The Chicago Tribune. 10/13/06
Rutenberg, Jim. “Bush Joins Hastert at Rally, and Lavishes the Praise.” The New York Times. 10/13/06