Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

How to Read A News Article � A Necessary Reminder

by Carolina Cositore

We have been told so often that our mainstream press is supposed to be unbiased and balanced that, although both neocons and progressives often accuse the same media of partiality to the other side, the truth is we want to believe they should try to present the news in an impartial and balanced way, because they tell us so.

This is poppycock. A writer can no more use only neutral, evenhanded words and sentence structures than a painter could only use gray. It can be done, but the result gets boring very quickly. Many nouns and verbs, and most adjectives and adverbs, are for the most part far from impartial. Words communicate ideas and images; creating a positive or negative impression to a greater or lesser degree, based in part on our subconscious processing and our cultural background.

We cannot expect reporters with their personal history, quirks, political viewpoints and experiences to give us an evenhanded, disinterested story. And we cannot expect their editors, answerable to boards of directors, stock holders and advertisers to allow them to do so even if they try.

We can hope they, and their editors, will tell the truth and be open about their partiality. Until that day comes, perhaps in this millennium, it behooves us to review the most common propaganda techniques -- more familiar to us in advertising, but applicable in straight news today more than ever -� forewarned is forearmed.

In 1938, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis presented "instruments of persuasion" in the hope that people in the United States would not be victimized by techniques used by Hitler, Mussolini, et.al.

In reviewing some of these propaganda techniques, this article will use a recent piece published in Reuters: "Ch�vez Calls Bush 'the Devil' in UN Speech" by David Stout.

Name Calling. Name-calling is to say something nasty, but general, about someone to arouse prejudice by labeling the target something that the public dislikes in order to provoke a knee-jerk reaction. Often, name-calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, "He's a pen-pushing bureaucrat." "She's a liberal."

In the Stout article: "Mr. Ch�vez, a left-wing populist who tried to seize power in a coup six years before winning election in 1998�."

Beware of labeling�even if you agree with it.

Transfer. Transfer uses the power of association to "transfer" a good or bad feeling about something to another, to link the two in the subject's mind. Positively, it is why beautiful women and sleek wild animals sell cars.

In the Ch�vez story: "The moment may not become as famous as Nikita Khrushchev's finger-wagging, shoe-thumping outbursts in the General Assembly in the cold-war era, but it still produced chuckles and some applause in the assembly hall." [Why the comparison with Khrushchev's UN appearance?, because it is negative and often ridiculed in the US.]

And again: "Mr. Ch�vez has courted {please note courted =wooed, cozied up to, rather than befriended} Fidel Castro and the leaders of Iran and Syria, [well yes, but actually Mr. Chavez has made a couple of recent world tours and befriended quite a number of world leaders. This is a double whammy; transfer of the negatives of Iran, Syria and Cuba in many people's minds and card-stacking because it was not just these three�see card stacking below].

Use of transfer should be a red alert to read the article especially carefully.

Card Stacking. "Stack the cards" of facts against the truth. Use under-emphasis and over-emphasis. Omit things. Card stacking frequently uses selective omission; what it says is not untrue, but it omits important information.

The Reuters piece: "The Venezuelan leader also had sharp words for the United Nations, which he said is `antidemocratic� and `doesn't work.�" [Not only Hugo Chavez is criticizing the UN, Secretary General Kofi Annan has made similar statements and this criticism was in the final document of the 118 nations of the recent NAM Summit, two-thirds of the UN].

The only protection against card stacking is to get more information, preferably from sources other than exclusively from the US or Europe. Fortunately, there is a plethora on the Internet translated into English.

Glittering Generalities. are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. Sort of the opposite of name-calling, when glittering generalities are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved: "defense of democracy" "peace"

Stout:: "Mr. Bush spoke on Tuesday about Iran's nuclear ambitions and how they might be curbed, and about his broader visions for the Middle East � visions that Mr. Ch�vez saw as insincere, ridiculous or both."

This obviously combines the glittering generalities�note how no mention is made of the US determination to "curb" Iran by force in opposition to all of the other Security Council members, nor the content of Mr. Bush�s vision, in light of his encouragement and support of Israel�s invasion of Lebanon.

The transfer here is that Mr. Ch�vez, by contrast, is not illuminated by the glittering generalities.

We must consider the merits of the idea itself, separate from specific words.

There are other propaganda techniques beyond the four used in this article of course, testimonials present the idea from someone whom a lot of people respect or idolize and thus expect them to take that person's word for it, whatever it is. The band wagon encourages everyone to conform, to join in, to belong to the group. "Everybody believes this, so what's your problem?"

Plain folks is an attempt to convince that the views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person. Often used with the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes, but used negatively as well to ridicule with an egregious insult, using incorrect English in translation for example.

Finally and most difficult to discern unless we are alert, there is the ordinary, everyday choice of words, with their nuances. Alleged, supposed, suspected, assumed, hypothetical, theoretical, said, believed or rumored�any one could be used to describe a fact that is unproven�the choice is telling.

Lawyer and attorney are synonyms and both are correct descriptions of a profession, but neutral? The word lawyer calls up certain ideas in addition to legal representative: shyster lawyer, ambulance chaser, "come the revolution, we'll kill all the lawyers"� slightly negative. The word attorney on the other hand, carries a certain cachet: erudition, seriousness, famous movie courtroom heroes, Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" was definitely an attorney (Clarence Darrow), not a lawyer.

The point is that even without overt propaganda techniques, sentences present ideas and ideas are subjective. Everyone has a point of view and this comes through in writing as in speech. Just as we move from conscious awareness of overt racism and sexism to recognizing nuances of prejudice that might have gone unnoticed before, so we can learn to be more discerning of the author's attempt to influence us with his or her choice of words in ordinary reporting.

Moreover, we can read honest news sources that write the truth from a candid point of view.



*Carolina Cositore is a rewriter and journalist for Prensa Latina, SA, a truth-telling international news agency with a pro-people, anti-unilateral view of the world. http://www.prensa-latina.com/