Ground Zero Mosque: Word Choice Makes News

Here's a great example of word choice framing.

The Ground Zero Mosque was the leading issue on talk radio and TV network news for a while. Yet it was not an issue until it was called the Ground Zero Mosque.

When the building of an Islamic community center was first announced it didn’t get much news time. It was not meant to be primarily a mosque; there were already two storefront mosques in the neighborhood.

A Lexis-Nexis search shows the first use of the term Ground Zero Mosque was during an interview on the Fox News “O’Reilly Factor” in December. The term doesn’t show up again in the mainstream media for several months following. It was kept alive by political bloggers. FInally in May it became an issue the media couldn’t ignore. In its stories the AP called it an Islamic Center, but in picture cutlines it was referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque, and that makes a much stronger headline than “Islamic Center in the Neighborhood of Ground Zero.” Soon all the media were calling it the Ground Zero Mosque. It conjured up the image of minarets rising in the ashes of the World Trade Center.

But the term is wrong on several counts. It’s not at Ground Zero, and it’s not a mosque, though it will contain one. The building it is replacing is not called the Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory. There is no Ground Zero Starbucks. There are two churches within half a block of Ground Zero, and they aren’t called Ground Zero St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church or Ground Zero St. Paul’s Chapel.

And there is no part of the federal or state government that has jurisdiction over building in the neighborhood. The city and local community organizations that had to give approval did so. How did this become a nationwide issue that even the President felt compleled to comment on? I think it’s probably because of the term “Ground Zero Mosque”.

But now it has played itself out. On August 16 Michael Calderone, political media writer for YahooNews!, posted an article tracing the history and use of the phrase. By August 19 the AP issued a memo to its writers and affiliates telling them to avoid the phrase.

So the issue is dying down, but it makes a great example of how the right word choice can make news, if it serves someone’s purpose. Word choice framing is powerful.

Is there a better way for the media to frame political issues than liberals vs. conservatives?

The airwaves and newsprint are full of discussions of political issues, but those discussions are almost always couched in terms of a liberal point of view vs. a conservative point of view. This “liberal/conservative” lens does not provide a clear view of the decisions we need to make as a people.

There are other ways of framing issues. Here’s a suggestion - a way of looking at questions that I have found useful. As with so many ideas, it is found by studying our founding fathers.

Liberals and conservatives also faced off on issues in the early years of our country. Notably, Alexander Hamilton was a conservative, and he argued that our young nation needed a strong central government to get things done. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal who believed that personal freedom needed to be protected, and strict limits on government would be the best safeguard. As a liberal, Jefferson thought that most governing should be handled locally, while conservative Hamilton thought a central government would be more efficient. So these two founding fathers were considered liberal and conservative, but in much different ways than today’s political figures. They understood what the real debate was about when discussing any issue - government control vs. personal freedom.

Over time, the definitions of liberal and conservative have evolved. Now Webster’s definition, as we have previously seen, does not fit the beliefs of many who use them as labels. The theoretical terms on which we build our political two-party system remain poorly defined, and the system often doesn’t serve the issues we must discuss.

So what are the real differences today between liberalism and conservatism? How do they compare in terms of government control vs. personal freedom?)

Let’s look at the extremes. Communist systems (extreme “left wing”) and fascist systems (extreme “right wing”) look very similar to the average citizen because they both come down on the side of heavy government control. Both are unpleasant to live under and wouldn’t be accepted by freedom loving Americans.

So why not go with no government; total personal freedom?

That doesn’t work. Look at any place remote enough that it can’t be reached by the power of a strong central government. Afghanistan, Cambodia, Congo, Columbia, all show that where there is no government presence, something will develop to fill the void. And it won’t serve the people.

So unlimited government control looks bad; no government control looks bad. We need balance between government control and personal freedom.

We have a democratic government, which means it’s our job as citizens to find that balance, or select leaders who will find that balance for us. And balance gets to the heart of most contentious issues.

For example, conservatives argue for equal opportunity; liberals argue for equal outcomes. Both sides argue fairness. Neither side are villains. We need to find a balance.

Conservatives argue for the sanctity and government protection of human life at some times and not others; liberals disagree on when life should be protected and when government should butt out. We as a society need to decide upon balance points.

Since 9/11, some conservatives argue that the government needs more power to keep us secure; liberals say we could lose important freedoms. Both sides are right; there are dangers both ways. The balance point has changed and we need to decide where it should be today.

Over the last two decades the government stepped away from controlling economic markets. In the last year even some conservative economists have conceded that the invisible hand has not done a good job and new government regulations are needed. We need a new balance point.

These balance points are never going to be easy to determine. They will change as national and world conditions change. But we will not find them if we begin discussing every issue by choosing sides, demonizing those who think differently, and wrangling for political advantage.

Politicians and political parties won’t change things. Answered problems can’t help them in their quest for power. The pundits won’t change things. Loudly debating issues is how they make a living. The journalists in the mass media would find it difficult to change things; they’ve covered issues this way for so long. It’s what they know.

But - what would happen if one news program, or one newspaper, or one news magazine, decided that it would cover issues not by contrasting what liberals say with what conservatives say, but by looking at what the shared goals and values are, and using them to frame discussions of issues. Imagine if they looked at what the possibilities are - what actions the government might take, and what implications those actions would have on our personal freedoms, rather than how the issue fits with pre-defined ideologies.

Suppose that same media outlet refused to label people, but just presented their ideas. Would that shed more light? Would it result in more substantive debate of issues?

Government control balanced with personal freedom is just one alternate way of framing issues in the news. There are plenty of other theories that could be useful. We have, as a society, settled upon one way of examining and discussing issues. It polarizes us, and doesn’t work well unless you’re a politician seeking power or a journalist looking for a shortcut.

We can do better.

Do you have any ideas for alternate ways news media could frame issues?

Let’s hear them.

What’s the difference between liberals and conservatives?

There’s little difference between liberals and conservatives. The both want the government to control some parts of our lives and stay the hell out of other parts. They just disagree about what parts.

The words “liberal” and “conservative” each have quite a few meanings. Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, tells us “conservative” means: ...1. conserving or tending to conserve; preservative, 2. tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes to these...

But wait. There are Democrats who want some traditions and institutions preserved, and plenty of Republicans who would like some traditions and institutions changed. And a common charge, at least from conservationists, is that conservatives don’t conserve and preserve.

The dictionary defines “liberal” as... 2. giving freely; generous 3. large or plentiful; ample, abundant ... 5. tolerant of the views differing from one’s own, broad minded; specif., not orthodox or conventional 6. of democratic or republican forms of government...as distinguished from from monarchies, aristocracies, etc. 7. favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif., favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual, progressive...

But there are people who label themselves “conservatives” who are both broad-minded and generous with their money and time to causes that help others. There are “liberals” who are intolerant of views differing from their own, and who give little private support to social causes. And the most conservative Americans support democracy and personal freedom.

So do the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean anything today?

Conventional wisdom says that conservatives believe in people taking responsibility for their own lives and keeping government out of the way. Conventional wisdom says that liberals are concerned with social justice and believe that the government is a good tool to achieve it. But conventional wisdom has it wrong, for a couple of reasons.

First, conservatives like the idea of government involvement in some issues if it preserves traditions, and liberals hate government in people’s lives in some issues if it involves personal freedom. Fairness is an issue for both liberals and conservative.

Second, people taking responsibility for their own lives and the government protecting everyone’s rights are not opposite sides of a political spectrum. In fact, they work together quite nicely.

If you look at history, the far left - communism, and the far right - fascism, are not opposites. Hitler’s Germany, Musolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s Soviet Union; In theory they may have been different, but in practice the far left and far right looked very much alike. The vast majority of people in this country wouldn’t like either.

In fact I believe that the majority of people in this country share many beliefs and values. And finding common ground is the first step to really communicating. Yet we begin discussion of major issues by choosing up sides. Liberals vs. conservatives.

We have many issues to grapple with. We have decisions to make that will determine the kind of country we will have and the kind of lives our children will live. Yet we are framing our discussions of those issues in terms of liberal ideology vs. conservative ideology; a way that almost ensures we will not come to agreement.

There must be a better way. Do you have any suggestions?

I will share one next time.

Why do politicians love the liberal/conservative frame?

The news media is stuck in the mindset that all coverage of political issues should be framed in terms of liberals vs. conservatives. One reason is because politicians like it that way.

Imagine you are seeking political power. In a democracy, you gain political power by convincing people to support you. They need to care enough to donate money, work the phones, and eventually to vote for you. You must convince them that you will support their positions on issues they care about.

When an issue is solved, when consensus is reached, it no longer has the ability to divide us as a people, and is no longer a source of power for you as a politician.

I’m not saying that people in government intentionally avoid finding solutions to problems. The majority of politicians are well-meaning. But if you’re always looking for how an issue can be used for political leverage, you may overlook answers that can achieve consensus.

Political parties depend upon contentious issues to draw people to their way of thinking, and into supporting their party. Politicians who are “team players” are useful to the parties. Politicians that don’t line up on the correct side of every issue are portrayed as “mavericks” and “independent thinkers.” Party leaders consider them unreliable. So as a politician, making a decision based on your own conscience and beliefs can be damaging to your position in the party. And without the support of the party and party leaders, your political career could be brief.

So issues discussed in terms of liberals vs. conservatives are easier to understand, easier to cover journalistically, and provide a source of power to political leaders.

Our media and our politicians have bought into the liberal/conservative mindset because it works - for their purposes.

But it doesn’t serve the rest of us, the citizens. It doesn’t serve the purposes of uniting us as Americans and finding useful answers to the issues facing us.

And what exactly is the difference between a liberal and a conservative?

Seriously, what’s the difference? I want to hear your ideas.

Liberals and Conservatives: what do those terms mean?

Why do the media frame issues in terms of liberals vs. conservatives?

We seem to believe “the best way to explore an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover the news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as 'both sides'; the best way to show you're really thinking is to criticize and attack.”

• Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture (1998)

Political news in this country is nearly always broadly framed as a contest between liberals and conservatives.

News is a mass produced commodity. It’s a big business that needs to produce headlines every day, and report news that will attract viewers, listeners, or readers for advertisers. Covering issues requires time, study. and knowledge of history. Understanding issues requires context.

Using the liberal/conservative mindset makes journalism easier. All you need is a moderator who looks (or sounds) good and a couple of good talkers, a “liberal” and a “conservative”, and let them debate. That also provides the illusion of balance. And people shouting at each other is better for ratings than charts and graphs and substantive discussion.

Issues can be hard to get a handle on, but everyone understands a contest. So rather than cover an issue, cover how the political parties, the liberals and conservatives, are lining up on the issue. How are politicians using this issue to their advantage? How they are spinning it? How might voters align themselves on this issue in the next election?

This kind of news coverage is inexpensive, it can help ratings if the talkers are provocative or entertaining enough. For news producers and talking heads alike, it’s a win-win situation. The only losers are people who are interested in the issue itself.

All media buy this framework. During the last presidential election campaign I was taking a media class, and did a study of NPR coverage. For one month I measured how much coverage was race and tactics versus substantive issues. From September 1 to October 1 2007 Morning Edition and All Things Considered had twelve campaign stories for every one issue story. And for the most part issue stories made it only when a candidate made the issue the story.

Journalists are working to do a job on deadlines and budgets. The liberal/conservative frame works for them. And it works for politicians, too.

More on that next time.

Help, My News Has Been Hijacked!

In the next few days I will make several posts that all fit together. I will start by commenting on the one big problem with the current American news media that everyone is aware of. In the next post I will explain why I think the news media has the problem. Following that I will explain why politicians like the media screwed up. And, for my final post of the series, I will propose a way to change the media for the better.

In every step I would like feedback. Let me hear what you think.

And here’s the first one:

Help! My News Has Been Highjacked!

Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are talented, ambitious men. They have both built successful careers through personal and entertaining forms of political commentary. They are good at what they do, which is to entertain people who agree with them by ridiculing opinions different from their own. Each reveals the truth as he sees it. One calls himself a conservative, the other identifies himself as a liberal, but they both do essentially the same thing.

Neither man is going to change many minds. You can’t convince people of something while you are ridiculing their positions or lampooning people they admire. People who disagree with them aren’t listening to Rush’s radio program or going to Michael’s movies. Both men are “preaching to the choir.”

And that’s okay. They attract their audiences, and that, when all is said and done, is their only job.

The problem is that more and more news outlets seem to be buying into the same way of framing and debating issues.

Fox News and MSNBC have discovered that a one-sided, consistent editorial stance makes for good ratings.

Other cable news channels feature liberals and conservatives shouting each other down. Radio talk show hosts spar with guests and listeners who call in. Talking heads discuss what an issue means to the political parties and their quests for power as much as what the issue means to the people of America. Politicians approach issues like kids choosing up sides for a baseball game.

Every important decision that we Americans, as a people, must make is framed as a contest between liberals and conservatives. Issues are discussed as if there are only two possible ways to look at them. And anyone who disagrees with you is (a) hopelessly ignorant, (b) incredibly naive, (c) power hungry, (d) money grubbing, (e) evil, (f) fascist, (g) communist, (h) socialist, or (i) all of the above.

Why is this happening? I’ll share some ideas on that next time.

A Turd in the Punchbowl is News

Check any college journalism textbook for a list of what makes a story newsworthy and you’ll get something like this:

Timing – It’s got to be current. Who cares what happened last week or last year?

Significance or Impact – The more people it affects, the more it is news. A car crash that kills one is not as big a story as a bus crash that kills twenty.

Proximity – The closer it is, the more it’s newsworthy. An armed robbery on another continent is no big deal. One down the street is.

Prominence – Few people care if I break my leg. If George Clooney breaks his, a lot of people care.

Human Interest – If it’s funny or sad or offbeat, people want to know about it.

Here’s another concept that shapes the news that journalism texts don’t mention:
a turd in the punchbowl.

The Toyota recalls were the top news for weeks, until the political fight over health reform knocked them off the media front-page. A check with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website tells us that it wasn’t the largest recall in history. The problems they addressed haven’t played a role in the most deaths. And it’s not like sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) is a rare concern. The February 9 issue of Popular Mechanics reported that the NTSA got around 24,000 SUA complaints in the last decade, and looked into less that 50 because most are untraceable, unrepeatable, or end up being driver error. The number of complaints on Toyotas didn’t even go enough above the statistical average for the NTSC to notice them.

So why was the Toyota recall such a big news story? One reason is because Toyota was a punchbowl with a clean reputation for safety and reliability, and this problem was a big turd plunked in the middle of it.

I remember years ago when I was doing public relations and marketing for a small, private liberal arts college affiliated with a church. A couple of chemistry majors set up a lab in their dorm room and began making recreational drugs – and distributing them to friends and acquaintances. When a local high school kid took too much and needed attention, they were discovered and arrested. Every area television station had a camera crew on campus the next day. This was at the height of the meth lab and homemade drug era. Labs were discovered every week. Faculty and staff asked me why this one was getting so much attention. The answer was simple: a private, church affiliated school was a punchbowl, a perceived safe place. This story was a turd in that punchbowl.

The same thing goes for international news. Back when the Abu Ghraib prison story broke, political commentators who supported the war effort were lamenting the fact that the USA was being besmirched by all the reports. The other side was blowing up innocent people, torturing opponents in far worse ways, even beheading prisoners. Why, they asked, was Abu Ghraib such a big news story?

Because Al Qaida and the like blow up innocent people all the time, and then take credit for it. They torture people they have captured and announce it to the world. They not only behead people, they sometimes do it on camera. In essence, they proudly proclaim “We are a toilet.” A turd in a toilet is not news.

But the USA tells the world “We believe in rule of law and human rights.” “This is the way to be,” we say. “Come drink from our punchbowl and the world will be a better place.” So when the USA deposits a ripe one in the middle of its punchbowl, through torture or secret prisons or cozying up with human rights abusers, it’s news whether we like it or not.

The Roman Catholic Church has dropped a few big ones in recent years. And they haven’t learned the lesson that you have to thoroughly and publicly clean your punch bowl or the story will live on and on.

Can you think of other examples of “turd in the punchbowl” news?

Do you agree or disagree with my assessment of how this factor shapes coverage?

Let me know.



And on an unrelated note-

I often wonder if other people’s news media usage has changed as much as mine has in recent years. It looks like it has.

Here’s a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism posted March 1, 2010.

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/understanding_participatory_news_consumer

It appears that these days many people are getting their news for multiple sources.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspapers, radio, and national newspapers. Some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day. Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day.”
The study also shows that more people are active news sharers rather than just passive receivers.
“To a great extent, people’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads. For instance, more than 8 in 10 online news consumers get or share links in emails.”

Do you get your news from multiple sources?

Which ones? Why?

Do you share news links on Facebook or other social networking sites?