The Disease of Right-wing Framing

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19969/

 

The Disease of Right-wing Framing

By Robert Cole, AlterNet

 

Posted on September 23, 2004,

http://www.alternet.org/story/19969/

 

Here is a recent New York Times headline of an article describing a

George Bush stump speech in Michigan: Bush describes Kerry's health

care plan as a 'government takeover.' The San Francisco Chronicle

republished the very same piece, except its headline read: Bush blasts

Kerry's 'enormous price tag' for health care.

 

What's wrong with this picture?

 

To begin with, an unsuspecting reader might be led to think –

mistakenly, at that – that John Kerry's health care proposals amount

to nothing less than the creation of a socialized national health care

system.

 

Then there is the more alarming fact that both of these headlines help

further President Bush's partisan slams against John Kerry. These

influential media outlets lent credibility to George Bush's false

claims by using the same language – or to be more accurate, 'frames' –

of the White House spin machine.

 

By repeating, verbatim, these frames in the context of objective news

reporting, big media ends up serving the agenda of those it claims to

cover without bias.

 

The end result is a further degradation of journalistic standards of

fairness and an increasingly misinformed public – and therefore, the

erosion of the informed choices required to ensure a healthy democracy.

 

The phenomenon of the media assimilating right-wing language within

their own reporting often goes unnoticed by the average reader, making

its effects all the more insidious. And this appropriation isn't

limited to large-circulation publications, but can be found across the

spectrum of local and regional press outlets.

 

During the recent Republican National Convention, a leading Northern

Michigan newspaper headlined Bush's nomination address thus: 'Bush

Pledges Safer World, Hope.' The subtitle in smaller print beneath

read: 'Acceptance Speech Draws Kerry's Fire.' The message conveyed to

the reader is that the incumbent promises to fulfill the cherished

dreams of all Americans – over the objections of his opponent. In

other words, Kerry is challenging not just Bush's speech, but also the

ideals of a 'safer world' and 'hope.'

 

That most news outlets have also failed to hold Bush adequately

accountable for his dangerous and reckless foreign policy or domestic

policies that have favored the privileged makes such framing all the

more damaging.

 

This veil of doublespeak has been draped over the realities of the

candidates‚ respective health care plans time and again. In the most

recent of his many visits to swing state Michigan, Bush charged that

Kerry proposes " a massive, complicated blueprint to have our

government take over the decision-making in health care. " In fact, two

of the core elements in Kerry's plan are simply to give small

businesses a tax credit to buy health insurance for their employees,

and to expand state coverage for the under and uninsured. This is a

far cry from nationalized health care.

 

As for big government meddling in the health-care choices of the

individual? It was Bush administration lawyers who backed the HMOs

before the Supreme Court when they wanted to effectively limit

patient's choices, including the freedom to see specialists of their

own choosing.

 

The White House has also steadfastly worked to deny American citizens

the right to buy cheaper imported drugs from Canada. In contrast,

Kerry's plan would require the government to negotiate better prices

with pharmaceutical companies and restore the right of Americans to

import affordable prescription medications.

 

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney further inflated the price of

Kerry's plan – putting it at a whopping $1.5 trillion – at a recent

town hall meeting in Iowa. Here is a measure of just how wildly

exaggerated that figure is: even the report Cheney cited for this

figure, by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute

(where Lynn Cheney once worked) says Kerry's " spending could exceed $1

trillion over ten years. " To paraphrase an old robber baron's

expression, " A half a trillion here, a half a trillion there, and

pretty soon you're talking about real money. " But half a trillion is

real money, and to tack it on falsely onto an already misleading

figure arrived at by one's own ideological allies is outrageous.

 

Of course, Cheney did not mention that the AEI report also concluded

that the Bush plan " has been criticized for not doing enough for the

uninsured, and that might be a fair criticism. "

 

To help clear the Orwellian fog of the right, it is helpful to get an

accurate sense of just what Kerry is proposing (of course, his plans

have yet to be tested against the economic realities his potential

presidency might encounter).

 

In addition to requiring federal negotiation for lower drug prices,

reinstating the right of the individual to import cheaper drugs and

offering tax credits to small businesses to foster employee health

plans, Kerry would increase funding for safety-net programs like

Medicaid and reimburse businesses for some of their most costly or

catastrophic cases. While his estimated price tag of some $635 billion

over ten years may be optimistic, the consensus of leading economists

and healthcare experts places it at far below the $1 trillion-plus

cited by the administration.

 

Kerry plans to pay for his plan by rolling back tax cuts for people

earning more than $200,000 per year, reducing health care

administration waste and redundancy, and taking advantage of the

savings foreign drug imports would provide. His proposals would cover

between 25-28 million of the roughly 44 million Americans who are

currently uninsured.

 

Bush, on the other hand, offers a combination of tax credits for

businesses and individuals to boost personal savings that could

potentially be applied to Health Savings Accounts for the individual,

and the creation of Association Health plans for small businesses.

While the idea may sound good in theory, the results may be

disastrous. Bush's approach to " helping " the uninsured is but another

step toward ending tax-supported healthcare entirely and " drowning it

in the bathtub " – the same fate radical right wing operative Grover

Norquist has vowed for all U.S. social programs.

 

Projections by the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury

Department, leading academics, and some of the Bush administration's

own experts reveal that Bush's plans would extend coverage to no more

than 6 million people and possibly as few as 2 million over the next

decade. How's that for promising " hope? "

 

The larger impact of each candidate's health care plans – and the real

motivations behind them – become easily apparent after an even cursory

examination of the hard facts. But most Americans don't make the

effort to understand the facts behind the rhetoric, and rely instead

on the media to do their research for them. Sadly, the icons of the

massively corporate Fourth Estate seem to have abdicated their

responsibility to do their homework and dig deeper for the accurate

picture. Worse, they have now taken to passively or actively borrowing

the right wing's language to frame their own " objective " analysis.

 

The corpocracy now controlling the ship of state has long understood

the power of language in grabbing the hearts and minds of the public.

David Corn, in The Nation, says:

 

One cliché among Washington commentators has long been that the

Republicans are the Daddy Party (the warriors, the tough-on-crime

guys) and the Democrats are the Mommy Party (the gang that worries

about health care, education, and such.) Bush (is) striving to be both

Ma and Pa. Seeking the holy grail of most presidents – a strategic

political alignment – Bush is attempting to turn the GOP into the Both

Parents Party, which smites enemies abroad and then tucks you in when

the economy falters.

 

Some of us see the ugly reality behind this hollow conservative myth.

What, then, must we do to counter its toxic pervasiveness?

 

Cognitive linguist George Lakoff gives this admonishment to journalists:

 

Reporters have an obligation to notice when they are being taken

for a ride and they should refuse to go along. It is a duty of

reporters not to accept this situation and simply use those right wing

frames that have come to seem natural. And it is the special duty of

reporters to study framing and to see through politically motivated

frames, even if they have come to be accepted as everyday and commonplace.

 

But it's not just reporters but also citizens who have this duty. It

is time for us to reframe the health care debate. We need to create

new terms that better describe the truth of the progressive vision:

Not " big government takeover " but " efficient, universal coverage " ; not

" enormous price tag " but " publicly supported health care " ; and above

all not " wasteful government handouts " but " the foundation of a

healthful and secure nation. "

 

It is only when we learn to speak in the right language – rather than

the language of the right – that the progressive movement can begin to

regain the ground ceded to the conservatives, and empower our vision

of equity and justice.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19969/