Who Decides

Who Decides?

(b/4 reading this please excuse my poor grammar)

I despise O’Reilly to the point that when I watch his show I feel the need to strangle him, and I have been watching Fox News’s claim of “we report you decide” for years and would like to finally put what I think about it in writing. Adding all this up I came to create my own mutant topic. The rhetoric and propaganda of Fox News displayed through Bill O’Reilly.
The famous slogan of Fox News is “we report you decide”. This in my opinion means that media should just state the facts and nothing else with them, after the people read the facts they should be able to come to sensible conclusion on their own. However, an objective form of media like this leaves too much up to the consumer and the consumer in general does not want to seek out an opinion, he/she would rather have the opinions told to them and then they could just choose one. In order for this form of media to be proper, both sides of the story would have to be said without any particular bias on either side.
According to Fox News this is how they run, they state both sides and then let you decide. However, they completely ignore the importance of stating both sides without bias towards either one, as it says to in the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was created in 1949 by the FCC, it said that news corporation must devote a certain amount of time to public issues and must state contrasting views. Fox News has taken this doctrine and claim this is how they relay their news, unfortunately, they take this with a grain of salt. Fox News’ soul intention of giving the democratic view is to shoot it down and legitimize the republican view.
Rupert Murdoch is the owner of Fox News, why is this important? Rupert Murdoch is famously a strong right wing conservative Christian, who is very active in politics, and he also is very interested in profit. These two facts explain why Fox News gives us the news the way they do.
Fox News is famous for being absurdly bias to the current party that their shareholders request them to be, this is a result of its owner demanding that his company not say anything against the government. They also will do anything to gain viewers, this why you will see Fox News tend to stick to the cheap stories that give a kind of a gut check reaction rather then a well-researched objective story, which lets you come to your own conclusion. For example, they would give a story about the Jennifer Aniston break up over a government policy issue.
What does this make Fox News? A giant propagandist profit seeker, when one watches Fox News it is very rare they will see a negative story on Bush. Fox News will use its best efforts through rhetoric to bring up the republican party. For example, they will cut into a democrat’s speech, say “Breaking News”, and then show a speech by Bush.
This was showed best during Bush’s re-election campaign and the throughout the war on terror.
Fox would have a count down of the days until Bush was re-elected, this would have been a problem if they were saying “204 days until the election” but when a news corporation that’s slogan is “we report you decide” counts down the days till a partisan party is re-elected it looks like they have done the deciding for us. They would also constantly bash Bush’s opponent John Kerry. Fox News spent three weeks on his flip-flop ordeal; they made the fact that he threw out his Viet Nam medals away into a scandal. When Kerry went on a skiing vacation Fox made it seem as if he was having an affair, and they even said that Kerry looks French and someone who looks French should not be our president. During the election, Fox News gave people decisions before they could decide. Fox News became a source of attack politics, which I thought was a job that was only done by politicians.
Even worse then this was the creation of fear and creation of an enemy almost immediately after 9/11. Two things that stuck out in my head were the anthrax scare and the weapons of mass destruction/ Osama and Saddam connection.
The anthrax scare was a brilliant form of propaganda, four people in total were affected by it, but fox made it seem as a threat to all of America. Fox would have constant coverage of the anthrax scare that they created, and they would say the best advice we can give is to stay inside and do not check your mail or anything sent to you. This created a major fear for the people and who else can save them from this fear than the mighty government.
The next thing they did also a classic propaganda tactic (most famously used by Hitler) was the creation of an enemy, since Osama was no were to be found going after him was impossible, but not doing anything after a tragedy such as 9/11 is unacceptable thought Bush. This is how the Osama and Saddam connection was created, and when the weapons of mass destruction. Fox News led the coverage on this, they served as the puppet of Bush here, and Fox did not even entertain the idea of this connection or claim being false. The psychology that Fox created here went this, that if you are not supporting America your supporting terrorism, because this is in fact a war on terror and if your not for it you must be against it. This played a major role in America believing the false connection and claim that were the reasons why we needed to go to war with Iraq.
These are just some of the propaganda tactics that Fox uses on a daily basis to support their party; however, their biggest strength is their mass audience. Rupert Murdoch owns News Corporation, which owns many cable and satellite televisions, newspapers magazines, and internet companies ect. This mass audience equals up to an approximate 4 billion viewers. Rupert Murdoch gives every news outlet he owns talking points for the day, an example of this would be “Today Bush is having a debate with Kerry; a main topic will be abortion, so lets legitimize Bush’s views on abortion.” This conservative opinion is now brought to billions of viewers, which is a major display of a lack of deciding and in my opinion is very scary.
The biggest problem is the result of all this is a severe loss of democracy. In my opinion, one of the great things about our democracy is that it is a society in which people formulate their own opinions and this diversity of opinions should shape our government. Since we run under such an institution, we do not expect to be affected by political propaganda because it should not exist in our realm.
That is why Americans are blind sided everyday Fox News, their slogan says, “we report you decide” which gives you the impression that you are getting a clean story and to clean opinions that are equally covered. This is the expectation that the average American goes into before he reads the news, so when Fox News blatantly advocates for the republicans most people don’t think that’s what is happening because the expect to receive the news in the way that their slogan says its should be delivered.
Fox News’ goal is not that their viewer will be knowledgeable citizen rather their goal is that the citizen watching will become a supporter of the government. Their replacement of substance with advocacy is a major tragedy in journalism and in democracy. I hope that someday this news giant will fall and it will not take a discovered lie about the government to wake up the democracy.
A great example of Fox’s bias is the O’reilly factor. O’reilly has a show on Fox in which he represents his and fox’s strong righty pro-bush opinion against who ever he is interviewing. O’reilly has gained a reputation of being loud provocative and not afraid to say what is on his mind. This is what made him famous and he is become a public icon because of it. He is looked at as a very smart man because in most of his interviews he totally destroys his opponent.
However, his critics (such as myself) have different things to say about him. First of all the majority of “liberals” he goes against are either very week liberals who cant hold their argument well or are friendly “liberals” who agree with many things that Bush said and just argue on a couple of issues. Fox’s goal of any debate on their show is for the conservative to look good and the liberal to look bad. For example Hannity and Colmes, just their sheer appearance portray what Fox wants one to think of the two opinions, Hannity is the conservative who is relatively good looking and is a presence when he speaks is with a certain authority, Colmes is the liberal who is a smaller soft spoken guy and usually loses his arguments. This is form in which fox tries have for all their debates, especially with O’reilly.

When I watch O’reilly I usually tear my hair out for several reasons, two of the many reasons are his rhetoric and his and Fox’s g-d like perception of Bush (its amazing how everyday they find new ways to glorify him). The reason why these two bother me is because he always uses the rhetoric to help bush come out on top, and many of his arguments are won because he creates facts or cuts off his opponent in the middle of a statement. Another major tactics he uses is emotion, which is a major player in rhetoric; he says an outlandish thing when he is losing an argument to distract his opponent. The most famous from of rhetoric he uses is his shut up tactic (very professional), when he does not like what he is being said he tell the guest to shut up.
In short, when you are a liberal going against O’Reilly usually you will endure a lot of yelling, abuse, and a lack of opportunity to make your point. Even if you do make your point after you leave the show he will make his point at the end of the show so it will be the last thing the viewer hears
Here are some classic examples of the typical O’Reilly factor and what happens when its not the typical O’Reilly Factor
The first one is the story of Jeremy Glick. Jeremy Glick’s father died on 9/11, but he took a different approach to his loss rather then participates in this blind blame game created by our fine government. Instead, he participated in the signing of an anti-war petition, which was put in as a full-page ad in the New York Times; in this ad, they compared innocent deaths in 9/11 with the innocent deaths in Viet Nam, Baghdad, and Panama City.

This was obviously a shock to O’Reilly since a family who lost a member was not pro-war. The first point he made was a guess which if was right he would have treated like a fact. He said to Glick “I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed”, this was a guess and nothing else, and many times O’reilly will make something up and use it for his argument, luckily here that did not work. Glick said in response to this that here were many families of the 9/11 victims who signed this advertisement. The part that really started the heavy battle was when Glick rightfully accused O’reilly; “You evoke 9-11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialist aggression worldwide.” This was the main issue he wanted to bring up on the show and he succeeded in getting his point across which most O’Reilly guests do not, so it became very interesting to see the rhetoric O’Reilly used while he was under attack.
Then his response to this was “I support the 9/11 families!” and “That’s a bunch of crap!” (very professional). Then when Glick tried to explain himself by making a parallel to an experience of September 14, unfortunately this parallel was never heard because O’Reilly used his famous cut off tactic. First O’Reilly said, “I’m not going to debate this with you”, which is very interesting because that is the whole point of his show, to debate!
He then tried changing the topic by saying “For the Record” “You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.” Glick said in response to this “Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan”

After this, O’Reilly used the misconnection of every person in Afghanistan to the Taliban for the famous propaganda tactic of creating the enemy. If your not with us your with them. When this came up O’Reilly said that the Afghan people killed Glick’s father, and that it was horrible that O’Reilly cared more about this than his own son. Glick quickly answered back that Al Qaeda killed his father not Afghanistan, and that there is no reason to kill everyone there for an act of a group.
Then Glick Tried to state what he said at the very beginning of the interview that Bush Sr. with the CIA and the trained hundred thousand radical Mujahadeen trainees, to combat and to overthrow the democratic government in Afghanistan, and how this can be equated with his father’s death.
However, O’Reilly was quick to shoot this down; his response to this was “I hope your mother is not watching this because you — that's it. I'm not going to say anymore”, after this anything else Glick tried to say O’Reilly said his favorite 5 words “Shut Up” Cut The Mike”. O’reilly said that out of respect for Glick’s father he is not going to “dress you down anymore”.
O’Reilly here showed a serious lack of professionalism, a complete mental breakdown, and his classic uses of rhetoric. The bottom line is that he did not actually expect Glick to be the opponent he was, since O’Reilly cant be the weaker one he had to cajole himself out of this situation. Therefore he first yelled which form my experience is the first sign that one is wrong because whenever someone is right they don’t need to prove their point by yelling shut up, it is common knowledge in psychology that when someone yells in a argument they are angry because they don’t have a point.
The lowest point of this argument was when O’Reilly started using Glick’s dead father to defend himself; it was completely insensitive and really served no purpose in the argument. It makes you think that if O’Reilly claims that he has helped the 9/11 victims’ families so much than wouldn’t he understand that bringing in Glick’s dead father to the argument for no real reason other than to change the topic is a little insensitive?
What bothered me more than anything was what O’Reilly said after the interview. He said, "Jeremy Glick came on this program and accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11.” He completely distorted what Glick said, in fact Glick wanted to sue but he looked into it and his legal advisor told him that since O’Reilly lies so much he can be declared a pathological liar, and he doesn’t know when he is lying therefore he wouldn’t be responsible.
The slogan says “we report you decide” then it should be applied to interviews too. If you at the end of debate you, say which side is right and wrong then the whole purpose of it is defeated. The point of a debate on a news channel should be to show the two sides of an argument and let the viewer decide which one he/she likes. When O’Reilly talks about the interview afterwards and says he is right then the whole point of the debate was pointless! However, this is something I have become accustomed to when I watch Fox News, which is that they report and tell you what to decide.
The next two examples are just one of the many examples of O’reilly using senseless equations, absurd rhetoric, and false facts to prove his point .O’Reilly said during a gay marriage dispute that he couldn’t care less what gay’s do and if they want to get married they should head up to Canada were it is legal. The gay rights person he was interviewing said that homosexual love is just as meaningful as heterosexual love, and if a gay couple wants to get married, the court should allow it. Although O’Reilly said he did not care about the issue, he said that if the courts let gay marriage happen then what stop someone form polygamy or “marrying a duck”.
What O’Reilly did here was very interesting, he said he did not care but then he said the courts should not allow it. Why did he do this? First, you can never be pro gay anything on the Fox Network. Since Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch who is a devout Christian and major Bush supporter, so being pro gay anything aside for there banishment from America would go against the views of the owner, and if you want to keep your job you better watch what you say on a Christian network. Secondly, Fox is constantly accused with good reason of being conservative, so when O’Reilly said he is could not care less what gays do it was the closest thing to a Fox anchor having a liberal view.
I also found the wording O’Reilly used to be very interesting, He said if gays could legally get married then what has to stop someone from polygamy or marrying a duck. Now why did he say polygamy or marry a duck, since he said polygamy he should have said bestiality to be consistent. This answer is very simple; rhetoric is the ability to use language effectively and is often used in propaganda. When O’Reilly says polygamy it doesn’t really stick in person’s head because most people don’t know what it means and its not looked at as such bad thing in country that has many people having affairs. However, when he said duck what was the first reaction someone has to that? I would assume nausea that is why it sticks in the viewers head after the debate. Now every time they see a duck they will think about how absurd it would be to marry it, and then they will think that gay marriage shares the same absurdity.

He then said this in a gay parenting dispute. The woman he was interviewing said that statistics show that a gay couple can parent a child just as well as a heterosexual couple; she had her proof on paper right in front of O’Reilly. However, O’Reilly had a better proof (that was sarcastic): Mother Nature. He said that it is not natural for a child not to have a male parent and a female parent; it is not what mother nature intended for the world. He said that the first two parents were a man and a woman, and that was to be parent mold forever. It is not the norm of society to no not have a male and female figure in their life, therefore this must mean that gays would be worst parents then heterosexuals

This made no sense at all, but it does again show how Fox News is a blatant Christian news network. Now let us look into what he said. He says that it is not what Mother Nature intended, and it is not the norm of society. Well lets first acknowledge the brilliant conclusion and reasoning he brought up, according to him that since something that was not done at the beginning of time isn’t what mother nature intended for.
The conclusion he drew form this was that since the first parents were man and a woman all must be man and woman otherwise they would not be good parents. I found this very hard to understand because there are millions of single parents and millions of what O’Reilly would call “normal parents” who are terrible parents. O’Reilly did not seem to address this whatsoever, but then again when you make up a fact its little hard to prove it. The thing that bothered me most was what I said at the beginning of this paragraph. Who are O’Reilly and Fox News to declare what the normative mold of parenting should be? If they read the bible that is fine but it should not be brought to define what is normal for society. America is a diversified country in their religious beliefs, this is why we have separation of church and state, because it s not fair that a country should decide for its people what their belief in g-d should be. The wonderful results in this are that there is no religious persecution; a person cannot be punished if he goes against his fellow Americans religion, and my favorite is that that our country is run as a secular society. When Fox News or O’Reilly declares a norm of society from the bible, it kills one of the great benefits of the separation of church and state. If the world was, a place was everyone would despise his fellow because his fellow goes against his religious beliefs we would not have a functionally democracy or society. However this is not the concern of the Fox News network, they go by their Christian theory of we are right you are wrong and nothing else, they are slowly killing what was once a fine democracy and it is a horrible thing to watch.
My last example is of when O’Reilly interviewed Michael Moore who was the producer of the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, among many things in the documentary Michael Moore said that called Bush a lair because there were no weapons of mass destructions found in Iraq. When Moore went on the show the first question O’reilly asked him was that, “You in your movie call Bush a lair, do you think you owe our president an apology?” Moore’s obvious response to this partisan questions was no. He said that Bush said that there were weapons of mass destruction and there no weapons of weapons mass destruction, so we see that bush said something was true and turned out to be untrue, this is a lie.
O’reilly however had a different view on the situation he said that Bush was misinformed so that is not a lie, he then said that since bush didn’t know he was lying it is not a lie, which in Moore responded to as pathological. Then Moore asked O’Reilly his question which was what would you answer to the parents who had their children killed in this war of a lie? O’Reilly said that he would tell them that they died bringing down a dictatorship, but Moore says that is not why we went to war this went back and forth for a while. The last thing they argued about was when Moore asked him if he O’Reilly would sacrifice his children to America for this war, he responded in saying I would sacrifice myself, Moore kept on asking of he would sacrifice his children and O’Reilly said he would sacrifice himself. O’Reilly ended the interview by saying this just shows you that there are two sides to every story, I have my side, you have your side, and we leave it up to the viewers to decide.
Although many things in this interview bothered me such as the evasive answering O’Reilly did and his suggestion that Moore should apologize to the president, one thing particularly wanted me to go to the Fox News station and tell O’Reilly in his famous words to “Shut Up!”
At the end of the interview, he says, “this just shows you that I see the world my way and your see the world your way and we let the audience decide, and that’s the fair way to do it. This as I said earlier is a great way to end it and this is a model in which I think the media should run by, however O’Reilly severely tarnished the deciding part when he commented on the interview.
He said that no matter how good the evidence was that Bush did not lie Moore failed to acknowledge it. He said Moore is a “Bush Hater” and you can never get a “Bush Hater” to admit that Bush did not lie; he says that that is “blind ideology” and blind ideology is never good on either side.

What O’Reilly does here is equal to punching a blind person in the face (good rhetoric? See I did gain form O’Reilly). O’Reilly continued an argument when his opposition was not there, this is completely unfair to his opposition because he cant defend his view if he is not there and it is even more unfair to the viewers of Fox News who’s ability to decide was revoked once O’Reilly re-stated his argument after his opponent was gone.
As O’Reilly said “this just shows you that I see the world my way and your see the world your way and we let the audience decide, and that’s the fair way to do it” When one side is missing and the other side is still said the ability to decide is gone, because you are only being told one thing. Again, this has become the norm of Fox News; they tell you the news and then tell you what they think about it, leaving you with only with their opinion after the broadcast.
Through four examples I gave on the O’Reilly show we can see the failure of Fox News to deliver their slogan and their failure as journalists. Fox News is an advocate of the Republican Party and will use as much propaganda and rhetoric as possible to shape the opinions of their viewers. They pull you in with the cheap gossip stories and then will give you a breaking news story about a Bush speech. As a result of their profit, they cause other networks to imitate their cheap news. Fox News is slowly killing democracy and journalism as we know it and if nothing is done soon by the citizens this problem will grow into one that will not be fixed.

Spin

Orwellian Politics of Spin

In our nation’s capital, the expression “what’s in a name” does not just have an answer, it has entire infrastructures of pollsters, researchers, PR experts, and “name mavens” behind it, why? Simple, because in Washington you are only as good as your last bill is, and your last bill is only as good as people (your constituents) think it is. In order for your constituents to think this policy is good, the trick is to make sure they do not think at all.
This is the objective of my thesis; bills good or bad never really are never prone to objection. Most of the time there names back you into a corner to think any opposition to it is incomprehensible. A lot of the times these names can have great laws inside of them, a lot of the them can have laws that have nothing to do with them, and a lot of the time they can have very laws many people wouldn’t be favor if they knew about them. However most don’t know any of this, what they do know is if they oppose this extremely positive named policy they will look like a very bad person, not only that but even contemplation seems to be a negative given the fact this name is so positive any contemplation over it one can assume you favor the negative. The main point I am trying to make is this, one feeling towards a policy usually is not made based on its substance rather its name, and this is what I will try to prove in my paper.
It is a given that we are in a democracy and one of the wonderful things about a democracy is that although the every citizen is not in office, those who are in office must cater to what the citizens want, if they do not accord with the citizens desires than the citizens of that country will not re-elect them. This is a firm belief in our American democracy, and why shouldn’t it be? We live in a democracy.
However, this is a very common and naive belief of the majority opinion in America. This belief is naive because these politicians like anyone else in America need money to get and stay where they are, if they stray away from their big backers than they do not get any campaigning money for the next re-election. Sometimes it is just selfish, a politician may be very much in favor of a policy and needs a way to make everyone else in favor of this policy, either way in both positions these two categories must find a way to please two different peoples with the same thing.
How do they do this? Can politicians survive without catering towards the public? Moreover, even if they do, how do they make sure their constituents like their legislative activities? What if the citizens do not want what his backers or what he wants? How do our politicians choose whom to displease?
Fortunately, for our politicians they have figured out a way to get both. Politicians have realized that if they think of a name that will please the eyes than they can put whatever they want in the policy itself. Using this crafted talk and coercive bill naming, politicians do not need do be controlled by anyone but themselves and there backers. They just need a happy name that will immediately make the common person think of it in terms of good and bad, once this limited thought processes is induced it is very uncommon one will choose the bad.
In his classic book “1984” by George Orwell, he refers/coins a new term called “Doublethink”. “Doublethink” is onomatopoetic linguistics at its finest. “Doublethink” is when one believes two contradictory beliefs for the sake of practicality or sanity. The next famous term he coins is called “Newspeak”, which in short was a new English language that would trim down every word and its synonyms, verbs, nouns, to make it in its simplest form.
In Orwell’s essay, “politics and the English language” he referenced several critiques on politician’s speeches and writings that lead to an ultimate misunderstanding. In the famous critique he said that modern day writers are too lazy to put in the work to provide sufficient understanding, therefore they use metaphors and big words leaving the reader with a distorted simplistic understanding/interpretation of the text.
I have always felt that the term “Doublespeak” stemmed from these ideas mentioned by Orwell, “doublespeak” is the art of making a phrase to hide or misrepresent its real meaning. It is a tool commonly used by governments, militaries, business, even people in normal conversation.
Being the fact that my father worked in advertising I grew up with “Doublespeak”, my father would always be thinking of names and/or a product message that would give it a deceiving edge. After he would come up with the winning name, he would laugh when he heard his friends boasting that they got the “EB Model TV” which only meant extra brightness.
I understood how this kind of system works rather well given my background, but applying it anywhere else was unthinkable. This conviction as many are in life was very off base, through out time there have been many bills passed by politicians that have very unobjectionable policy names that disguise it’s real meaning, the government knows that a good name for a bill means the average citizen will assume the bill is good and emulates its title. Because of this naivety of the American citizens, politicians have special groups to name bills, and have actually gotten very creative with word acronyms too, the result of this are bills such us the “Partial Birth Abortion Act”, “The Patriot Act”, “The No Children Left Behind Act”, “The Clear Skies Initiative” and much more.
In my opinion the greatest strength of these positive policy names is not the way it disguises the policies true meaning, rather it is in limited amount of emotions it evokes, The name of the bill must able to evoke an emotion that is a hundred percent positive or negative. If a policy name fails to do this, than no matter how irrelevant its name is to its content it has failed its purpose.
To reiterate what I said earlier more in depth, the reason why limited emotions towards a policy name are so crucial, is because to have a successful deception of perception, the name must trigger the common citizen to have a simplistic but logical, harsh response to any opposition to the policy. Whether he/she thinks it , is convinced by friend , or merely overhears it in a conversation from far, the immediate thought a constituent must have when hears opposition must be that they are bad and this is good, no middle ground, positive or negative.
Here are some policy names that are great examples of the desired reaction to policies and their oppositions to them, by those who name them.
The first policy example I will give is the ever so famous (another proof to Orwell’s 1984 prophecy: Big Brother!) . “The Patriot Act”, If one opposed this bill which was passed a little over a month after 9/11, they were sure victim to a response along these lines of this, “How could you oppose this bill, Are you not a patriot? If your not a patriot then you must be a terrorist! Another example is the “Clear Skies Act”. If one opposed this policy, a response such as this would be his inevitable destiny, “Do you not want clear skies, this policy is cleaning the pollution in the sky, and how could you oppose this! Another example is the “No Children Left behind Act”, Do you want to leave behind the children, what kind of person are you?
(It very much disturbs me to be able to give the lead in that will end this paragraph of examples, but it’s the best way to do it) There are many other examples I could give (that was the disturbing part) that show this, but the point was proven after the first policy example, the rest were just for emphatic purposes , but just in case I will reiterate this point more simply(if that’s possible). The most important part to this name is emotion it gives off to the common person, the bill is more contingent on the person feeling positive towards the goal of the policy and/or have a negative feeling to what this bill is trying to stop. A “gut-check” reaction is what they want because it lacks any serious thought and has a quick decision.
With names like these, it makes it very easy to get favorable public opinion on any policy because the public does not know enough to realize that the name might not mean the bill. In this paper, I intend to prove this theory, and the reason why its so damaging to our already not so strong democracy.
Not only is it a threat but it salts an already very bad wound in our country; political participation. It is widely known that many Americans know very little or nothing about politics, this is bad because less people participate in a system that is contingent on participation. Nevertheless, it is not so terrible because they don’t know anything and don’t bother anyone, they don’t vote or protest , they know nothing and couldn’t care less, partly because of apathy and partly because it is a major pain to keep up with politics.
However in nowadays with all the technology out there, one can say we live in a heuristic crazed society, everyone ones to know “what’s what” as fast as possible. Now this “uninformed majority” are slowly changing into a misinformed majority, simply because they realize in a society filled with shortcuts how easy it is to “know what’s going on”. This is very scary in my opinion, because it was once that they did not care and were non-factors to politicians. Now politicians take advantage of this heuristic crazed society, and unobjectionable bill names are more common than ever, even for bills that are good. They have make a these name so that citizens can formulate a political opinion with in a matter of seconds, all they have to see the name of the policy and without really even thinking about it they make a strong conviction whether it is good or bad.
Aside for the quick decision policy opinion American’s have grown accustomed to being a major problem, these names are very troublesome to me for another reason. This other reason is an effect of the my first problem but is still a major problem in its own right, when one makes such a quick decision based on a positive or negative name officially its their decision but essentially it is not at all their opinion. Their decision is like a reflex, similar to when the doctor hits you on the knee and your leg pops up. You see the name and given its strong negative/positive rhetoric, that is the one most will align with.
I am not so sure what it means for our democracies future, but I do know that if people do not start actually knowing what they are in favor of one day the repercussions will be significant. In this paper, I will show this problem my giving direct examples from the policy names themselves.
The way I will prove this naming issue is by giving three different policy names , all have obviously have different laws in them, but all three have a common way achieving their goal of favorable public opinion. The first step I will take with each policy is by giving a clear systematic analysis, in this analysis, I will first describe the purpose of the bill, and then I will give its negatives and positives (if there are any). To make it all come together I will end the thorough analysis by explaining how the particular name gives a “knee jerk reaction” to a certain negative or positive emotion and how it hides the negatives that would destroy the policies public perception if widely publicized. After each policy’s analysis, I will present an interview I had with either friends or family. The purpose of this interview is to prove my analysis of the policy I just gave correct, by showing how it affects the common American.
In this interview, I gave them the name of he policy that was previously analyzed and ask them to tell me what is the purpose of this bill and whether or not they approve. After they tell me their perception, I tell them the real meaning of the bill, and the reason for its deceiving name. The results I have to admit were quit funny at first but the humor quickly diminished when I once again realized the eventual consequence of these coercive names that scare me so much, Americans are slowly losing any real say they had in public policy, and don’t even know it.
The first bill I will analyze is “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban”. Before I explain this bill, I feel it is necessary to give a quick overview to the abortion issue in America. Ever since it was put on the table in the early seventies , Abortion has been a hot button issue that has waylaid many a political career.
If this were ever turned into a Broadway musical, the stars would be “Pro-Life” and (actually “versus” is a better description”) “Pro Choice”. “Pro Choice” is called that because that’s precisely what they are about—a woman’s right to chose what happens to her body. Choice is at the very core of our democracy. This country was founded on an electoral process that gives people the right to choose their “rulers”. Given the strong “American” message associated with “Pro Choice”, the immediate question becomes; “What will the right do to counter (spin opinion their way) a message as strong as that? Clearly they can’t call themselves “Anti Choice” or “No Choice”.
Fortunately thanks to their “spin-meisters” working overtime (they actually do have them and it comes out of your tax dollars) they didn’t have to. Anti Choice became “Pro-Life”— the term usually associated with religious extremists or as their also known members of the Republican Party.
As this group feels a baby is its own person, aborting it is prohibited based on the biblical ban on murder. They also leverage this by combining it with their legendary staunch position against contraception. Why? To prohibit pre-marital relations.
“Pro Choice” counter’s this altruistic “Pro life” position by pointing out a baby isn’t until it leaves the womb—especially during the first 2 trimesters when its not even fully formed, In short, “Pro Life’s” baby is “Pro Choice’s” “Fetus”. As this fetus happens to reside in the woman, it should be her choice to determine its “future” as its part of her body. Case in point, if the fetus did somehow detach from the umbilical cord, it would die.
Thanks to the groundbreaking case known as Roe Vs Wade, “Pro Choice” was leading this debate for quite a while, but this was no longer the case with he enactment of this new policy. As a good Christian, Mr. Bush was never a fan of the “Pro-Choice” mindset—as to him its killing and killing is wrong.
With a name like “Partial Birth” it brings to mind images of unborn babies—not developing, often unidentifiable fetuses, but actual babies, and while we American’s may be dubious with regards to killing suspected terrorists and their neighbors, we’re very protective when it comes to our babies.
Now the Republican Religious Conservative right will be quick to point out that the PBAB only takes effect after the second trimester, which begins in the eighteenth week of a pregnancy. If a doctor performs an abortion any time after this point he will be given a jail sentence because it seems that the woman has reached the point of no return with her body. They will also point out that this “protects” the majority of abortions as they take place in the first trimester.
Though they will conveniently neglect to mention that it abandons woman who for whatever reason (economic, psychological, un-educated) missed the first trimester cutoff. Because of this new ban, these women lose the ability to choose to have an abortion.
What would be the public opinion if this bill were called “the second trimester abortion ban” or “The abortion ban of all fetuses’ in their 18th week and on”, would it be as favorable, would the decision be so quick, I seriously doubt. When the “knee jerk reaction” is taken out of the name, it does not necessarily change ones opinion but it defiantly adds a thought process to it deeper then the policy being good or bad.
To prove this I interviewed a friend of mine who happens to be pro-choice, his name is Aaron Konstam. I asked Aaron if he was in favor of this ban, than I asked him what he actually thinks this (partial birth) bill means. Aaron said he was in favor of this bill because the baby is clearly almost alive, he told me partial birth is “like in the last month, what kind of sick person would abort a baby in the ninth month!, I know your liberal but have some limits man!!”.
As Aaron is a very “analytical” type, I pegged him as someone capable of seeing through this “smokescreen”, and while he did not, he did see my point once I explained the reality of the situation to him
First, he apologized for calling me a sick liberal, and then he said, “If I had known that partial birth meant a fetus, of course I would be against it. Why would they call it “partial birth”? When it’s such a loose yet harsh term, nobody would think it means a fetus!” Who is going to think that’s actually a fetus?”
Once I clarified things for Aaron, and he had a better understanding, he was pleased to be enlightened about the specific policy naming, but he told me that he was rather dissatisfied that he cannot just look at bill names anymore and get the same immediate simple understanding. Now if he wants to get a clear understanding of the policy he might have to actually research.
The next bill that I will present is the “No Child Left Behind Act”, what this policy does is stress accountability. The children will be tested in their English and Math skills once every year, these tests will be given to every child in every school. If a school is deemed a failing school certain revisions will be made, if a child is failing in one of these “failing schools “ for two years, then this child’s parents will have the option to send their child to a higher level school in another district, all transportation and tutors will be taken care of by the government. Another addition to this accountability idea is by making reforms on the teachers, this makes the teachers take certain state tests in order to qualify for the job, they also all must have certain masters and BA’s in any topic they teach.
Aside for the fact that very little money has been given to this reform, in my opinion the whole problem started from the name. This Bill was made as a responsive deterrence to the age-old education problem in America, Bush said that it was his greatest priority during his first presidential campaign and was a big plus in his public perception.
I have to honestly say that all in all the whole idea of setting a standard academic level for all states to maintain isn’t the worst idea I have ever heard in my life, but at least give it a name that somewhat resembles the policy. The name “The No Child Left Behind Act” make any incumbent look like a hero for make such a legislation, furthermore can you imagine saying “I don’t support the no child left behind act” its social suicide, people would think you hate children, or don’t care about the underprivileged America ect… Maybe if they looked at the policy and your reasoning based on this policies reforms one would not be subject to such harsh response when opposing such a name, for example if the policy was called the “ Student accountability act”, I don’t think such a quick opinion can formed.
This is best shown in this next interview; I made a call to my Uncle Menachem Ash who is corporate lawyer for a company called IDT. I asked him very simply do you have any idea what this Policy means and are you in favor of it? He said to me “how stupid do you think I am? This bill simply means that the government will give more money to schools so that teachers put an emphasis in children going to college and funding tutors for children who cannot afford them. They will take kids off the streets and put them in classrooms, by making more after school programs and getting involved in the children’s lives who do not have it so easy at home. You thought I didn’t know what this meant, its one of the major reasons why I voted for Bush”. I really could not gloat here because I was fooled the same way as he was maybe worse. When I told him what it does he asked me; “What is so good about that bill, I wouldn’t want it, they should be spending money to create better academic options for underprivileged children who do not excel in school, not give them tests to show that they are failing, I already know this.”
Clearly my uncles feeling towards the bill changed dramatically and maybe it would have effected his voted for, who knows. But I do know that this bill gives off a much better impression of what it is able to do than what it actually does, and that it only gives off one impression, which makes the public think that anything against it is not different but bad.
This next policy I will present is called the “Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005”, it was not passed, but its name is great example for the purposes of this paper. This Bill has so many subsections of law that a paper itself can be written on them, given the fact that this paper is not for a purpose of such I will Highlight a couple of the laws I felt were quit interesting.
The first provision is that if a person is in the observer of drug use and does not report he will be subject to a two-year term in jail. If someone gives drugs to a previous offender even if he is un-aware that this person is a previous offender, he can be subject to a five-year jail sentence. In addition to these laws, the bill lengthens sentences of previous drug restrictions significantly.
On the other hand, it has many obvious positive laws against drug dealers, and even harsher punishments for those who deal in drug free school zones. It also gives elongated sentences to those who deal drugs to minors, or employ them to deal drugs.
Though with a name like this it has a certain defense to its opposition that is so strong that most cannot even thing to utter a word against it, for example; Do you not want to defend Americas most vulnerable? A name like this makes it almost impossible to oppose, therefore only leaving one option, which is to align with the policy, because this is not the kind of name one wants to say he/she opposes.
Now although this policy has many laws that come down very strict on those who deal drugs, it also puts many Americans in a position they would choose not be. I know I would not want to be responsible for reporting a drug user to the authorities, maybe if it was a dealer but even that, it is not my job to catch the bad guys and I not should be penalized for not doing so, however this requirement would be put on many and most with out even knowing.
A better example would be this, lets say a parent catches his child shooting up heroin, I have a very strong conviction this parent would much rather send his child to rehab then to jail, but if he doesn’t he goes to jail, maybe they can go together. I am not saying that these extra requirements would one hundred percent change ones opinion on whether or not they are in favor of this bill, but giving this information certainly gives one more options relative to their previous choice which was; do you want to protect the children from drugs? The answer to this question was either yes or no, and nobody wants to be the “drug dealer” who says no, would all these people say they are in favor of this bill as fast if they actually knew something about the policy other than it protecting children from drugs?
To prove my point I asked someone who cares very much about protecting her children from drugs, my mother. I asked her very simply if she knows the definition of this bill, and if she is in favor of it? She answered “The name is a little unspecific, but I think it means more drug free school zones, and metal detectors in schools, and I certainly want to keep you guys far away from drugs”.
When I told my mother the definition of the bill, and the fact that if she sees someone doing drugs and doesn’t tell she would get arrested, she said “ O wow, a bonus, I should have told on this person, it’s a good thing they add in these kind of things into the bills”, my father quickly interjected “What! I am not going to jail if you smoke! I didn’t do anything!”
As I said before not everybody would change his or her minds, but some definitely would, and that really makes you think. What kind of policies would be made if the majority of the public would actually look beyond the name? What kind of name would they have, what would happen to incumbents who bank on these bill names to make everyone happy?


From these three policies that I have presented, and analysis of the issue, it shows a very clear and scary norm for policy making, which is that the less the public knows and thinks about the policy, the more they likely they are to be in favor of the policy. It is never easy for a politician to list all of his/her incentives in a policy to the public, because they might not approve of it, and not approving of the policy leads to the ultimate consequence of public not approving of them come re-election time, thus resulting in these strong names.
The language of these bills has erased the original norm of democracy, which once meant politicians making policies that are in accordance to that of the public. Now they make policies that accord with them that have names that accord with the public and I don’t want to sound pessimistic, but I don’t believe there is any real solution to this. Other than the public becoming citizens that are more informed, which is unlikely in our heuristic crazed society, Americans have no defense against this. This sheds light onto the tragedy I mentioned in the beginning, which sounds more clear and sensible now. With this recent increase of policy names that give no room for opposition, the only choice is left is to support this bill, and it is just so easy the former uninformed citizen has evolved into a misinformed citizen. The problem with this is that, when the same people are misinforming you, they are essentially controlling you.







Bibliography

While many of these sources were not directly used in a reference way, they all helped me formulate my thesis, my analysis, and my view regarding political spin/rhetoric/propaganda (what is the difference anymore?) as a whole, doing this paper would have been impossible without the way of approaching political spin/rhetoric/propaganda these books gave me, I referred back to many ideas and basics of political spin/rhetoric/propaganda and just rhetoric in general, among other things, so although I may not have directly quoted or referenced these books, they all helped me take the approach I did.
Works Cited
Goodrum, Charles, and Helen Dalrymple. Advertising in America; the First 200 Years:. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Harry N Abrams Inc, 1990. 1-288.
Govtrack. government. 16 Apr. 2007 .
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 3RD ed. Vol. 1. New York: Free P, 1965. 1-222.
Martin, : David N. Romancing the Brand. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: American Management Association, 1989. 1-215.
Orwell, George. 1984. Large Print Edition ed. Vol. 1. New York: Ulverscroft Large Print, 1985. 1-428.
Orwell, George. "George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946." Mtholyoke. 14 Apr. 2007 .
O’shaughnessy, Nicholas J. Politics and Propaganda:. The University of Michigan Press Edition ed. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan P, 2004. 1-264.
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Lawrence R. Jacobs. Politicians Dont Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratoc Responsiveness. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 2000. 1-425.
Yankelovich, Daniel. "Pols and Polls." Editorial. The American Prospect 1 Sept. 2000: 1-4.
Young, Frank H. Technique of Advertising Layout. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: Crown, 1947. 1-185.