They may not be able to increase the number of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim to anything close to a tipping point. Or it may be that Obama, with his message of hope, his ability to communicate effectively, or even his controversy about the church he has attended for decades, may have inoculated him from having this piece of fiction become fact in people's minds.
Sen. Obama was shown the cover image by a reporter covering the campaign on Sunday, and while seemingly taken aback, he declined to comment.
But the Obama campaign quickly put out a release condemning the magazine cover. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said in a statement: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Unfortunately the impact of this image will extend far beyond the reading audience of the New Yorker; cable news and the right-wing media noise machine will amplify the derogatory image to millions more. And the New Yorker of course will reap enormous publicity, clearly translating to increased sales and notoriety for the brand, and for corporate owner Conde Nast -- one of the largest and most powerful media companies in America.
But the publicity could very well backfire. Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt's attempt at satire seems so arrogant and indulgent in its insensitivity, and so out of touch with political and media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs, that it just might make a lot of people angry, including some subscribers. The cover turns the magazine into a potential Molotov cocktail, to be gleefully tossed by Fox News and the conservative blogs, into the already combustible tinderbox of race and Muslim stereotypes just below the surface of America's public discourse. (Remnick has since done an interview about his decision to run the cover.)
John Aravosis at America Blog writes:
A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, and Barack Obama basically a terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin Laden on the wall). ... And this is funny? Is the New Yorker so out of touch that they don't realize that much of America, or at least too much of America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife?
I'm sure the New Yorker thinks they're actually poking holes in the myth by making light of the stereotypes. Yeah, and tell us how this pokes fun at the stereotype? It reinforces it. And yet again, you'd never see them try anything like this with John McCain. God forbid you even ask a question about John McCain's experience, the media will destroy you. But paint Obama and his wife as America-hating flag-burning violent terrorists, and it's funny.
Jake Tapper of ABC News adds:
"Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East Side liberal -- no matter how superior they feel their intellect is -- should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing.
""This is as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish," says a high-profile Obama supporter, "and I suspect that other Obama supporters like me are also thinking about not subscribing to or buying a magazine that trafficks in such trash."
Lindsay Beyerstein, who blogs at Majikthise, makes an important point in emphasizing that:
"Our national discourse is impoverished when it comes to racially loaded images like the New Yorker cover. When I saw the cover, it was clear to me that the cartoonist was trying to covey a true and important point: All the Obama myths, like his Muslim father, fit together into a coherent and poisonously racist wingnut caricature. These aren't just random rumors. The anti-Obama mythos is a continuation of the ugly narratives that conservatives have been spinning since the civil-rights movement and before. That said, if you put those images on the cover of a national magazine, you're helping Fox spread those sick memes -- whether you intend to or not. It's easy to say "my work means what I mean it to mean, and if you don't get it, that's your problem" -- but it's never that simple. If you're approaching an assignment from a position of incredible privilege, say as a cover cartoonist for the New Yorker, you can't just write off the unintended consequences of your expression. If you insist on doing so, maybe that is racist."
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post added on Sunday on his CNN media show Reliable Sources that the cover is arguably "incendiary." In the end, it is shocking how the experienced editors of the New Yorker don't have the remotest idea of how framing the Obamas in this way completely reinforces the negative and harbored feelings that they are absurdly trying to satirize. This is satire run amuck, and it is a perfect example of how antiquated notions of journalism can play a role in provoking the worst of stereotypes and off-the-wall fantasies.
Remembering What Happened to Gore and Kerry
Back in the 2000 presidential campaign, conservative operatives successfully framed the idea that Al Gore was a fabricator (no need to mention the myths because they were untrue and don't warrant repeating). But the stories wouldn't have stuck without corporate media aggressively running with the disinformation about the tall tales, repeating them so often that most people eventually just assumed they were true.
In 2004, it was John Kerry's turn. He was pegged for a flip-flopper early on -- as if no politician ever changed their mind about complex issues -- and again, with the media endlessly repeating the charge, it stuck. And to help seal Kerry's fate, he got "swift-boated" with never-proven allegations about his war hero status, and the success of that story planted seeds of doubt in some voters.
Fast-forward to the present. So far neither the conservatives nor the McCain campaign have been able to negatively frame Obama in a way that has stuck. Hillary Clinton and partner Bill were not ultimately successful either. But that hasn't been for a lack of trying. Charges suggesting Obama is weak on defense, untried under pressure, inexperienced, and even a male chauvinist a la Geraldine Ferraro, haven't succeeded. It may be that Obama is a far more nimble politician than his predecessors, that Gore and Kerry's painful lessons have been well learned by the Obama team, or that the media for whatever reason haven't yet ganged up on Obama as they did in the past. Or probably some combination of all three.
Thus far the attempt to raise questions about Obama's religion represents the most persistent attempt to create a false narrative about him. So it was pretty shocking recently when I saw "Barack Obama is a Muslim and other stories" as the headline of the lead article on Salon. Maybe Salon is still sweet on Hillary. But one wonders why this headline and message? It does heavy lifting in support of the frames that Obama is a closet Muslim -- not a Christian -- with a secret agenda. It's the same message that Fox News, right-wing talk radio and conservative pundits have been pushing for months. Questions about Obama are consistently linked to Fox's repetition compulsion connecting Obama with the word "madrassa" -- which happens to mean school -- and are now planted firmly in the media's psychology as school "for terrorists in the making."
Meanwhile, the image below accompanied the headline.
Apparently, Salon was making it easy for you, the reader -- just like when you were a kid -- to take a cut-out of a stereotypical Muslim and paste it right onto Obama. Even Fox News hasn't been that clever in terms of their efforts to stain Obama with associations to his father and to his name.
The White House and conservatives have dominated the media and public discourse over the past eight years, achieving remarkable success in winning much of their agenda, despite significant majorities opposing their ideas, as measured in opinion polls.
Conservatives have accomplished their hegemony, in part by effectively using and repeating simple, powerful language, and having it persistently echoed in the corporate media -- and even in progressive and independent media. No doubt, their biggest success has been creating the dominating frame, the "war on terror." They've successfully transformed the criminal acts of a small group of freakishly successful hijackers into a perpetual war which has become the fundamental message of Bushism, since 9/11. The "war on terror" provided the context for the hugely unpopular occupation of Iraq, the diminishing of civil liberties, and the establishment of a vast new domestic security apparatus. The media repeated the frame of the "war on terror" as though it were an inevitable response, a factual truth, and not a political frame that ideologues constantly pushed to justify an enormous shifting of priorities in the United States and around the globe.
Conservatives understand the power of a "frame," which linguistically is a conceptual structure used in thinking -- and in reality is how we come to think of images, ideas and viable narratives associated with words and phrases.
There are many dozens of conservative frames and phrases with which we are familiar. We often don't notice how they creep into our own consciousness and get repeated by us: Democrats want to "cut and run" in Iraq; "partial birth abortion" in reproductive rights; gay marriage will "destroy the family"; "the death tax," etc.
None of these frames would be successful without the generous and repeated help of the corporate media, which have perpetuated the myth of John McCain as a "maverick," with his "straight talk express," despite the fact except for a few exceptions, his record is very conservative, and he has changed his position incessantly, as this video from Brave New films and the recent article by Steve Benen, "John McCain -- 61 Flip-Flops and Counting," clearly document.
This framing-language success by the conservatives is pretty well known. But even that awareness doesn't stop us from often integrating conservative talking points into our own language, becoming language carriers ourselves. Now of course, the New Yorker might say about its cover or Salon might say about its headline, "Oh, our readers are too smart," or "We were being ironic," or "provocative to prove a point." But the fact of the matter is that many more people will see that headline and register it in their brains than will read the story alone.
Elements of a Frame
There are some basic rules about frames that editors and writers might want to think about, if they are interested in avoiding persistently reinforcing conservative language and ideas. The fundamentals include: every word is a frame; evoking a frame reinforces and strengthens that frame; negating a frame, i.e. attacking it, reinforces that frame; and finally, words defined within a frame evoke the frame.
OK, maybe that sounds a little like gobbledygook -- what does this all mean? In his New York Times best-seller Don't Think of an Elephant (disclosure: I wrote the introduction to the book and was a strong advocate for the title), George Lakoff basically boils it down to, "When I tell you, 'Don't think of an elephant,' you can't help think of it." (The most famous version of this concept is Richard Nixon insisting, "I am not a crook.") So the word elephant is a frame -- i.e. it conjures up an image of an animal with a trunk. If you repeat the word -- "I love elephants," or want to dismiss it: "I never want to think of an elephant again," you strengthen the elephant frame. And when you say for example, "Sam picked up the peanut with his trunk," you immediately know that Sam is an elephant: words defined in a frame, invoke the frame.
So yes, I learned these basic concepts from Lakoff, who had a period prior to the last presidential election when he was very influential among Democrats. He spoke to senators when they went on retreat, and he was championed by heavy hitters like George Soros. But like many "flavors of the month," he lost some of his cache. He was replaced in 2006 by Drew Westen, a psychologist whose focus on the role of emotion in "determining the political life of the nation" is the new hot thinking that Democrats and liberals have more recently embraced.
Lakoff and Westen both have their critics, as does any newish thinking that goes against conventional wisdom and many decades of habits. And some suggest they may take some leaps from the research to make their case, although they would vigorously debate that assertion. But the point is that Lakoff and Westen have important things to teach us that are fundamental to politics and communication, and their work is very compatible.
It is not necessary to agree with all of their research, assertions and speculation to appreciate the basic points of their thinking. But if one is interested in going deeper, Lakoff's new book is The Political Mind, not to be confused with the well-received book by Westen: The Political Brain.
Getting back to the New Yorker and Salon: It's not my intention to pick on them alone -- although the Obama headline and image were pretty blatant. My objective is point out that often progressive and independent media -- perhaps because we imagine that our readers are different than normal people -- frequently undermine progressive messages, or more likely reinforce conservative messages.
I believe that the words and images editors and writers use to frame their stories is what most people will take away from the articles, especially since many people get their news from just glancing at the front page and cover story. Headlines, subject lines and teasers are the most powerful and visible communication tools to connect immediately with readers. With journalism on the Web, a split-second medium, some readers spend only brief moments on sites or on articles, merely glancing at headlines and teasers.
The lead, or opening paragraph, of the story is also important, but a lead is only as good as its opening headline. If the lead paragraph never gets read because the headline or teaser doesn't effectively communicate, some great journalism and information can be wasted.
A recent morning I saw this headline on a story ready to run on AlterNet titled, '"Dykes, Whores or Bitches': One in Three Military Women Experience Sexual Abuse." And this article was from a feminist organization. It was not helping the cause. We changed it to "Misogyny is Rampant in the Military; One in Three Military Women Experience Sexual Abuse." Another recent headline was cued up: "Limbaugh Wins Big in Elections." Was that true? And if so, why were we announcing it? A simple tweak: "Limbaugh Wins as Biggest Manipulator in Elections."
A few weeks ago, on one day, I read in rapid-fire order, the following headlines on the Huffington Post: "Bush Compares Obama to Nazi Appeasers." "McCain Crosses New Line: Obama Unfit to Protect the Country." "Progressive Media Group Ditches Ad Effort to Appease Obama." In each case the language connects Obama with a negative -- being an appeaser, needing to be appeased, being unfit for office. These headlines are doing the conservatives' work for them.
What is interesting is that Bush never mentioned Obama's name in that speech in Israel, cited in the first headline. But the Huff Po frame was essentially the same headline with which editors across the world fell into lockstep. Those conservative framers are tricky and very happy to see Obama's name spread around the world connected to the word appeaser. They didn't even have to make the direct charge. But the media was all to willing to do the work for the Bush machine. The alternative headline AlterNet used: "In Israel, Bush Lays Down Some Serious Fear-Mongering."
One recent frame in an article AlterNet was considering was "Right Wing Sets its Sights on Oprah Religious 'Cult.'" This frame was produced by a progressive religious site. It gives away the power of the headline to the right wing, enabling it to frame Oprah as a cult. A cult? Scientology is a cult; the fundamentalist Mormons in Texas are a cult. Oprah is a highly successful TV entertainer who weaves a kind of spirituality lite that seems generally positive for her huge audiences; she hardly qualifies as a cult. After seeking the article, thinking that the headline would be controversial and attract a lot of readers, we realized the error of our ways and decided not to post it.
One essential point is that drawing attention to negative frames and reprehensible media figures, even in an attempt to answer them, can have the effect of reinforcing them. It is almost always better to frame one's own positive message and not mention the bad frame or framer.
Many right-wing personalities court controversy because it sells books, raises ratings and keeps them in the public eye. To achieve the visibility, they often say outlandish things, and the media, including progressives, leap to highlight or answer the ridiculous notions. Often the best tactic is to simply ignore those hungry for attention, not to succumb to the urge to always respond and repeat their frame. There is one infamous familiar female media figure who could use some neglect. In 2006, I wrote an article titled: "The Tall Blond Woman in Short Skirt and Big Mouth" or TBWSSBMI. I pleaded with everyone to ignore this person. I trust it is easy to figure out who she is. The article got more than 150,000 views, and hopefully more people started ignoring her. But who knows? Even my effort reinforced the frame, since the mere mention of her characteristics, just as in the case with the trunk and the peanut mentioned earlier, put the image of her in people's minds. So mum is the word.
As the presidential campaign moves forward, there will be many attempts by each campaign to define the candidates with a phrase or an image that will link to a story that could be believed by significant numbers of voters and plant seeds of doubt. For example, it's been reported that some number of voters -- 10 percent or more -- already think Obama is a Muslim, a notion that presumably would affect voters when they went to the polls. At this point in his campaign, 10 percent, more or less, is a manageable number.
It may be that after trying so hard, and meeting resistance from advocates like Brave New Films and the "quick on its feet" Obama campaign, that the Rupert Murdoch-Fox News-Wall Street Journal-Limbaugh right-wing echo chamber may have lost some of its clout.