Thoughts on language, perception and media

[marct]

A very interesting piece on how language is used in media was just posted by Yonatan Mendel on the London Review of Books site. Basically it is an analysis of the discourse in the Israeli media surrounding their reporting on Palestinian issues.

I do not want this blowing up into some type of anti-fill-in-the blank type thread (and I'll lock it if it does ), but I do think that his piece is an excellent one to base a discussion on the use and abuse of discourse, media, etc. in structuring perceptions. In that vein, I'd be interested in seeing what people think about it.

Marc

[CR6]

I do not want this blowing up into some type of anti-fill-in-the blank type thread (and I'll lock it if it does )

Marc

I am ANTI your draconian restrictions on the exercise of free speech in the blogosphere, you jackbooted cyber-thug!

Okay, seriously, I view a nation's media as a reflection of popular mood in a lot of cases, despite the entreaties of some (such as the Shorenstein Center's Marvin Kalb) that the press be "detached, unemotional, cool skeptical, determined.” As such I'm not surprised that Israeli media language paints an "us vs them" word picture when discussing IDF operations.

Acknowledging that cross-cultural analogies suffer from inherent flaws I find a 2005 Parameters article by William Darley instructive on this point. He writes that in the US at least, “public support for wars is not so much an act of intellectual deliberation as it is a collective emotional reaction to events due to what Clausewitz described…as a ‘latent hatred and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind, natural force.' ” It's easy to see the media reflecting that emotional reaction in its reporting, at least until a government looses the support of the public due to what is seen as incompetence or indecisiveness. At that point, as the public mood cools, the change may be reflected in the language of media reports.

This idea is further reflected in an essay by Daniel Hallin and Todd Gitlin entitled “The Gulf War as Popular Culture and Television Drama”. They wrote that 80% of the US' biggest newspapers increased circulation in GW1 and that both cable and network television news outlets saw ratings spike during the Persian Gulf crisis; and demonstrated a link between popular approval of President GWH Bush (exemplified by the President’s 89% approval rating at the start of the air war), and pro-war media coverage. Part of me believes that this reflects the fact that the press is also a business, thus newspaper circulation and television ratings largely factor into how a story is presented to the public, and what stories are selected to air at all. If running pro-war stories sells paper or air time, the story will be run.

[marct]

Hi CR6,

I am ANTI your draconian restrictions on the exercise of free speech in the blogosphere, you jackbooted cyber-thug!

Oh, drat - and I was just starting to polish them !

Okay, seriously, I view a nation's media as a reflection of popular mood in a lot of cases, despite the entreaties of some (such as the Shorenstein Center's Marvin Kalb) that the press be "detached, unemotional, cool skeptical, determined.” As such I'm not surprised that Israeli media language paints an "us vs them" word picture when discussing IDF operations.

I'm not surprised by it either. I don't think that it is possible for the press to be "detached" in all issues, partly for exactly the reasons you pointed out relating to both business and popular support.

Acknowledging that cross-cultural analogys suffer from inherent flaws I find a 2005 Parameters article by William Darley instructive on this point. He writes that in the US at least, “public support for wars is not so much an act of intellectual deliberation as it is a collective emotional reaction to events due to what Clausewitz described…as a ‘latent hatred and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind, natural force.” It's easy to see the media reflecting that emotional reaction in its reporting, at least until a government looses the support of the public due what is seen as incompetence or indecisiveness. At that point, as the public mood cools, the change may be reflected in the language of media reports.

I agree that there is definite reporting of public emotions but, at the same time, I have to wonder when it crosses from reporting the public emotions to controlling the public emotions and perceptions. Maybe that question is unanswerable .

Years ago, I had the pleasure of having dinner with Richard Henshel who did a lot of work on self-fulfilling prophecies. It struck me at the time, and has been floating around in the back of my mind ever since, that language / discourse is a form of that. For example, is the constant use of the verb "respond" a reflection of policy, a "perception" of emotion, a reflection of beliefs in the real reasons for why things happen, something else or all of the above?

[wm]

Marc,

I have no quantitative research to bear this out, but what the hey; arm chair philosophizing has a long and distinguished history.

I would not be surprised that a read of the Palestionian press would have the same kind of slant, mutatis mutandis , as that reported to be found in the Israeli press, and for good reason.

When we start doing things to other folks that we are, arguably, averse to doing under normal circumstances, we need to have tools to overcome/mitigate/avoid that sense of aversion and to justify or downplay the moral breaches we may feel the practices commit. One such tool is to paint one's adversaries in a bad light, which justifies one's less than sterling conduct toward them. I suspect you have heard the line justifying extreme forms of punishment for those who commit heinous crimes, "He forfeited his right to treatment as a human being," or something similar. This is an example of the first type of tactic. Because even this form of negative labeling of others is at least a little unsettling to us, an alternative is often used. Descriptions of one's own actions are made to sound as inocuous as possible so that one so not have to admit to being a partry to wrongdoing. At one point I remember we stopped talking about killing the enemy and talked instead about "servicing targets."

Each of these tactics are present in the author's description of the "norms" the Israeli press follows when reporting on Palestinian "affairs." The BBC uses another interesting tactic on its web page--potentially offending words or phrases are put in single quotes, as in: Malayasian journalist 'murdered' in E. Timor.

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

I have no quantitative research to bear this out, but what the hey; arm chair philosophizing has a long and distinguished history.

True - just ask Chomsky .

I would not be surprised that a read of the Palestionian press would have the same kind of slant, mutatis mutandis , as that reported to be found in the Israeli press, and for good reason.

That's a very good point and an analysis I would like to see. I suspect you are right on. I have a friend over there doing some research right now; when he gets back, I'll drag him out for a few beers and pick his brains.

When we start doing things to other folks that we are, arguably, averse to doing under normal circumstances, we need to have tools to overcome/mitigate/avoid that sense of aversion and to justify or downplay the moral breaches we may feel the practices commit. One such tool is to paint one's adversaries in a bad light, which justifies one's less than sterling conduct toward them.

Hmmm, yes, that would be another part of the cultural-emotional "circuit" that CR6 was mentioning ("anger against he opponent"). I can certainly see it becoming a discursive loop that is mutually reinforcing.

I suspect you have heard the line justifying extreme forms of punishment for those who commit heinous crimes, "He forfeited his right to treatment as a human being," or something similar. This is an example of the first type of tactic. Because even this form of negative labeling of others is at least a little unsettling to us, an alternative is often used. Descriptions of one's own actions are made to sound as inocuous as possible so that one so not have to admit to being a partry to wrongdoing. At one point I remember we stopped talking about killing the enemy and talked instead about "servicing targets."

Yup; that rhetorical tactic is pretty well know both on individual stigmatization ("he is an animal" therefore not human) and on the group level.

Each of these tactics are present in the author's description of the "norms" the Israeli press follows when reporting on Palestinian "affairs." The BBC uses another interesting tactic on its web page--potentially offending words or phrases are put in single quotes, as in: Malayasian journalist 'murdered' in E. Timor.

Sounds like a variant on newspeak .

[wm]

Sounds like a variant on newspeak .

So does that mean my post was a doubleplusgood or a doubleplusungood in your estimation?