Nygarrd Notes
Greetings,
This week I focus on a single issue. Or, rather, a series of things that have appeared in the press that, together, illustrate a subtle variety of propaganda. That illustration is the “issue,” I guess. By going so extensively into this particular media pattern, I have the same goal that I often have: To help Notes readers to develop good thinking and reading habits.Long-time readers know that I never accuse the media of conspiring, or of intentionally misleading. But I do think the media often function as conduits for propaganda. Whether it is intentional or not is far less important, in my mind, than the fact that it happens, and why it happens, and how we can protect ourselves from it, and how we can actively counter it in our own political and educational work.
That’s what I’m up to this week. That’s often what I’m up to, come to think of it. Looking ahead, there are a lot of things on the agenda that I want to discuss as soon as possible, but first we’ll take a look at the year we’re winding up. In the spirit of reflection, next week I expect to have the Nygaard Notes Year In Review 2004. That’s always fun. And maybe a collection of the “Best of the ‘Quotes’ of the Week. People seem to like those, too.The days are getting longer now in the Northern hemisphere, and the nights shorter. Let this be a metaphor for our times.
In solidarity,
Nygaard******
1.“Quote” of the Week
The December 13th New York Times (All The News That’s Fit To Print!) had a major article on the front page about a “bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad.” A debate, that is, about how much official lying it should do. The headline read: “PENTAGON WEIGHS USE OF DECEPTION IN A BROAD ARENA; Value of Disinformation; The Nation’s Credibility is At Risk, Military Critics Contend.”That headline, itself, could be the “Quote” of the Week, as could any number of other selections from this amazing article. But I think the best comment was the 11th paragraph. “Best,” in the Nygaard Notes world, means that a quotation strikes me as some combination of informative, unintentionally revealing, unbelievable, or knee-slapping hilarious. The following “quote” fits several of the criteria, but stands out in particular for the reporter’s willingness to quote anonymous “officials” – in an article about official lying – reassuring us that they are not now lying, nor are they considering lying.
“During the cold war, American intelligence agencies had journalists on their payrolls or operatives posing as journalists, particularly in Western Europe, with the aim of producing pro-American articles to influence the populations of those countries. But officials say that no one is considering using such tactics now.”
Of course not.******
2.Mind-Reading and Propaganda: The Amazing Powers of Journalists
The job of a reporter is to report what they see and hear. Correct? How about if they can read the minds of public officials? Should they report what they see there? I’m joking, of course, but it is not at all uncommon for reporters to “report” things that they could only know if they were reading minds. And, when you see such “reporting,” you should be aware that you are reading propaganda or, as it is commonly called these days, “spin.”There are many examples to be found, from the simple and obvious to the more subtle. This issue of Nygaard Notes takes a look at four examples of mind-reading and related supernatural powers of elite journalists, all from recent months.
Example #1: “Aiming To” Do... something. Inside Cheney’s Head
In the Washington Post of July 20, on page 6, this headline appeared: “Cheney Urges Cap on Malpractice Awards; Proposal Aims to Improve Health Care.” Note the phrase “aims to.” How does the reporter – Ceci Connolly, in this case – know what the proposal “aims to” do? She can know what the proposal says. And she can ask knowledgeable sources to predict what it WILL do, or is LIKELY to do. But, as for what it “aims to” do, that is known only to the person proposing it, and perhaps to those supporting it.To understand the difference between observation and speculation, let me suggest a radical idea: sometimes the true “aims” of a political leader are different than the stated “aims.”In the current case, for example, here’s the opening paragraph: “Vice President Cheney, with a swipe at his Democratic trial-lawyer counterpart, yesterday blamed rising health care costs on ‘runaway litigation’ and promoted a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards as the central tenet of the White House program to improve access, affordability and quality of care.” Then we hear from other Republicans who support the bill, who agree – surprise! – that lawsuit abuse is the root of the crisis in medical care in this country.The reader had to go down to paragraph 10 to read a different opinion, which comes from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office: “An analysis by the CBO said the malpractice bill would benefit physicians and the government but would reduce private health insurance premiums a scant 0.4 percent.”It’s not until the end of the article that we read this comment from Martin J. Hatlie, “president of the Chicago-based Partnership for Patient Safety, which advises hospitals on safety improvements:” “The solution that organized medicine and the White House are supporting is a fix for the doctors to some degree. It helps keep their premiums down. It does nothing to advance the quality of care, nothing to advance the safety of care, nothing to more fairly compensate claimants or address the other really significant problems in the current medical-legal system.”So, does the reporter actually know what the Bush proposal to limit medical malpractice suits “aims to” do? No, she only knows what Bush and his supporters say their “aim” is. Those are two different things, and a good reporter would not get them confused.
Example #2: “Meant To” Do... something. Inside Republican Heads
On October 13th New York Times (All The News That’s Fit To Print!) ran a long article on the front page of the business section headlined “Bush Health Savings Accounts Slow to Gain Acceptance.” Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs, for those who do not know, are tax-free savings accounts that people can draw from to pay for out-of-pocket medical bills. If you don’t spend your tax-shielded money on health care, eventually you will be allowed to spend it on pretty much anything you want. It’s a tax shelter, in other words. As proposed by George W, families can set aside up to $5,150 per year in these accounts. The Bush Treasury Department says that HSA’s are “intended to improve access by making health insurance more affordable, particularly for those with very low incomes.”The Times article elaborates on this official motivation for the proposal. The fourth paragraph states, “The [HSA] plans...are meant to provide basic, high-deductible insurance while letting people accumulate money tax-free to be spent on medical services or saved to pay for future health care needs.” Also note the 19th paragraph, which tells us that “The health savings accounts are meant to help reduce wasteful spending by involving consumers more directly in weighing the costs of alternative types of care.”So, that’s what these accounts are “meant to” do, eh? How would one know this, unless one was a mind-reader? What we do know is what the Bush administration says is motivating the proposal. But let’s think about this for a minute.The official poverty level for a family of three in the United States is currently $15,670. Let’s imagine a family of three living just above that level, so they are not officially “poor.” Let’s say they make $16,000 per year. OK: The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Minnesota is about $9,400 per year (over $13,000/year in California). Add $165/month for utilities (really bare bones!), and that’s another $2,000 per year. If the family could manage to eat for $3.00 per day each, that would add up to $3,300 per year. We’re up to just about $15,000 now, and I haven’t said anything about transportation, or non-health insurance (fire, theft...). Nor have I mentioned recreation, like the occasional movie, or baseball game. Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “In 2004, [health insurance] premiums reached an average of $9,950 annually for family coverage.”It must be comforting, indeed, for the “very low income” family described here ($16,000 per year, by the way, is about 50 percent higher than the current, full-time minimum wage) to know that the Bush plan will allow them to “accumulate money tax-free” to buy health insurance. There’s some “access” for you! And aren’t we all grateful that such families will be encouraged to “reduce” their “wasteful spending” on health care?To their credit, the Times balanced out their mind-reading in this case with a quotation from Princeton University economist and health policy expert Uwe E. Reinhardt. In the very last paragraph of the article, we read that Mr. Reinhardt “said that the new plans were ‘a bum deal’ for people with chronic illnesses. But ‘for chronically healthy people,’ he said, ‘it's another 401(k) savings account, and Wall Street is licking its chops at the prospect of managing the money.’”That’s a good quotation. But by stating earlier in the article that the HSA plan is “meant to” provide access to insurance and is “meant to help reduce wasteful spending,” the reporter implies that any other outcomes will be unfortunate errors, rather than the predictable and/or intended results of uncaring policy. That’s some serious “spin.”
Example #3: “Intended To” Do... something. Inside Bush’s Head
On September 3 the NY Times reported on the speech President Bush made in accepting his nomination by the Republican Party to run for a second term. The Times reported that “Under the rubric of an ‘ownership society’ intended to promote individual power and responsibility as well as to give people more of a direct financial stake in the economy, he also made a case for tax incentives to help people save for health insurance costs and for efforts by government to encourage homeownership.”More mind-reading there. Did you catch it? The reporters claim to know what the “ownership society” is “intended to promote.” What they actually know, and should report, is that some people say that this “ownership society” (whatever that may be) is “intended to” do what Bush said, and some other people say that this “ownership society” is code for an all-out attack on the last vestiges of the New Deal of the 1930s.I, myself, think this “ownership society” thing goes beyond that to an attack on the reforms made during the Progressive Era, which came before the New Deal (we’re talking here about the 1890s into the 1920s). The legal and political reforms of the Progressive Era were, in part, a response to the outrages committed by the notorious “robber barons” of the time. I suspect that the aims of those promoting what they call the “ownership society” are motivated in large part by a desire to restore some of the lost privileges that they believe should accrue to our modern-day robber barons. (One of the key reforms enacted during the Progressive Era, for instance, was the income tax. See what I mean? I’ll have more on the “ownership society” and the income tax, and related ideas, in a future Nygaard Notes.)
Example #4: “In The Interest Of... something. Inside Anonymous Heads, and Down the Memory Hole
Sometimes what appears to be mind-reading is not really that at all, but is something far worse, as in this example.On July 13 the NY Times headlined a 1000-word report “Doubts on Informant Deleted in Senate Text.” The news report told the tale of certain deletions that had been made from “a year-long, bipartisan Senate investigation” of intelligence lapses leading up to the war in Iraq. The report noted that “About one-fifth of the 511-page report still has not been made public, despite objections from both Republican and Democratic senators. As in the case of the Iraqi defector, the deletions were the result of objections raised by American intelligence agencies in the interest of protecting sources and methods...according to American government officials who have read the classified version of the Senate committee's report.”There you go: “in the interest of reporting sources and methods,” reporter Douglas Jehl says. That’s a defensible reason to keep something secret, isn’t it? But wouldn’t reporter Jehl have to be a mind-reader in order to know the reasons motivating those mysterious “American government officials” who made the deletions? Otherwise, how would he know the noble “interests” that prompted the deletion of 20 percent of a report of such major national interest? I thought this was an example of mind-reading, until I remembered another article, from the same paper, that ran three days earlier, on July 10.That article, part of a whole section about the Intelligence Committee report, was headlined “C.I.A. Deleted Large Sections, Officials Say.” In it, a different reporter – Neil A. Lewis – tells us that “The deletions have renewed a debate about whether Central Intelligence Agency officials were trying to suppress certain information to avoid embarrassment.” Hmm... a debate about the motivation for deleting huge segments of a public document, you say? Someone is debating whether the deletions were made “to avoid embarrassment” or “in the interest of protecting sources and methods?” That sounds like an important debate. But within three days it had disappeared from the Newspaper of Record, leaving only the one version remaining and consigning the important “debate” on the subject to the dustbin of history.Where’s a mind-reader when you need one?!A good reporter will distinguish between observations of verifiable facts and blind acceptance of the self-serving public relations of public figures. But not all reporters are good ones, so when you see or hear phrases like “aims to” and “intends to” and “are meant to,” or when you see or hear that some public agency is doing something “in the interest of” something, pause for a moment. Take a moment to ask yourself some questions, like, “Who says?” and “How do I know what they really ‘aim’ to do?” and “Are there other opinions on the nature of their true intentions?” If the reporter didn’t balance out their stenography of the official line with some answers to questions like these, then it might be worth your while to tune in to some other media.**********
If you have received this issue of Nygaard Notes from a friend, or by accident, or through some other bizarre quirk of inexplicable fate which leaves you with no useful return address, be aware that you can receive your own free subscription by asking for it in an E-mail sent to Nygaard Notes at
I would like to continue to provide this service for free. You could help by making a voluntary contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00) You can donate online by going to the Nygaard Notes website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ Then just get out your credit card and follow the instructions. Of course, you can always just send a good old check through the mail. Make checks payable to “Nygaard Notes” and send to: Nygaard Notes, P.O. Box 14354, Minneapolis, MN 55414. Thank you!--
Jeff Nygaard
National Writers Union
Twin Cities Local #13 UAW
Nygaard Notes
http://www.nygaardnotes.org
This week I focus on a single issue. Or, rather, a series of things that have appeared in the press that, together, illustrate a subtle variety of propaganda. That illustration is the “issue,” I guess. By going so extensively into this particular media pattern, I have the same goal that I often have: To help Notes readers to develop good thinking and reading habits.Long-time readers know that I never accuse the media of conspiring, or of intentionally misleading. But I do think the media often function as conduits for propaganda. Whether it is intentional or not is far less important, in my mind, than the fact that it happens, and why it happens, and how we can protect ourselves from it, and how we can actively counter it in our own political and educational work.
That’s what I’m up to this week. That’s often what I’m up to, come to think of it. Looking ahead, there are a lot of things on the agenda that I want to discuss as soon as possible, but first we’ll take a look at the year we’re winding up. In the spirit of reflection, next week I expect to have the Nygaard Notes Year In Review 2004. That’s always fun. And maybe a collection of the “Best of the ‘Quotes’ of the Week. People seem to like those, too.The days are getting longer now in the Northern hemisphere, and the nights shorter. Let this be a metaphor for our times.
In solidarity,
Nygaard******
1.“Quote” of the Week
The December 13th New York Times (All The News That’s Fit To Print!) had a major article on the front page about a “bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad.” A debate, that is, about how much official lying it should do. The headline read: “PENTAGON WEIGHS USE OF DECEPTION IN A BROAD ARENA; Value of Disinformation; The Nation’s Credibility is At Risk, Military Critics Contend.”That headline, itself, could be the “Quote” of the Week, as could any number of other selections from this amazing article. But I think the best comment was the 11th paragraph. “Best,” in the Nygaard Notes world, means that a quotation strikes me as some combination of informative, unintentionally revealing, unbelievable, or knee-slapping hilarious. The following “quote” fits several of the criteria, but stands out in particular for the reporter’s willingness to quote anonymous “officials” – in an article about official lying – reassuring us that they are not now lying, nor are they considering lying.
“During the cold war, American intelligence agencies had journalists on their payrolls or operatives posing as journalists, particularly in Western Europe, with the aim of producing pro-American articles to influence the populations of those countries. But officials say that no one is considering using such tactics now.”
Of course not.******
2.Mind-Reading and Propaganda: The Amazing Powers of Journalists
The job of a reporter is to report what they see and hear. Correct? How about if they can read the minds of public officials? Should they report what they see there? I’m joking, of course, but it is not at all uncommon for reporters to “report” things that they could only know if they were reading minds. And, when you see such “reporting,” you should be aware that you are reading propaganda or, as it is commonly called these days, “spin.”There are many examples to be found, from the simple and obvious to the more subtle. This issue of Nygaard Notes takes a look at four examples of mind-reading and related supernatural powers of elite journalists, all from recent months.
Example #1: “Aiming To” Do... something. Inside Cheney’s Head
In the Washington Post of July 20, on page 6, this headline appeared: “Cheney Urges Cap on Malpractice Awards; Proposal Aims to Improve Health Care.” Note the phrase “aims to.” How does the reporter – Ceci Connolly, in this case – know what the proposal “aims to” do? She can know what the proposal says. And she can ask knowledgeable sources to predict what it WILL do, or is LIKELY to do. But, as for what it “aims to” do, that is known only to the person proposing it, and perhaps to those supporting it.To understand the difference between observation and speculation, let me suggest a radical idea: sometimes the true “aims” of a political leader are different than the stated “aims.”In the current case, for example, here’s the opening paragraph: “Vice President Cheney, with a swipe at his Democratic trial-lawyer counterpart, yesterday blamed rising health care costs on ‘runaway litigation’ and promoted a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards as the central tenet of the White House program to improve access, affordability and quality of care.” Then we hear from other Republicans who support the bill, who agree – surprise! – that lawsuit abuse is the root of the crisis in medical care in this country.The reader had to go down to paragraph 10 to read a different opinion, which comes from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office: “An analysis by the CBO said the malpractice bill would benefit physicians and the government but would reduce private health insurance premiums a scant 0.4 percent.”It’s not until the end of the article that we read this comment from Martin J. Hatlie, “president of the Chicago-based Partnership for Patient Safety, which advises hospitals on safety improvements:” “The solution that organized medicine and the White House are supporting is a fix for the doctors to some degree. It helps keep their premiums down. It does nothing to advance the quality of care, nothing to advance the safety of care, nothing to more fairly compensate claimants or address the other really significant problems in the current medical-legal system.”So, does the reporter actually know what the Bush proposal to limit medical malpractice suits “aims to” do? No, she only knows what Bush and his supporters say their “aim” is. Those are two different things, and a good reporter would not get them confused.
Example #2: “Meant To” Do... something. Inside Republican Heads
On October 13th New York Times (All The News That’s Fit To Print!) ran a long article on the front page of the business section headlined “Bush Health Savings Accounts Slow to Gain Acceptance.” Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs, for those who do not know, are tax-free savings accounts that people can draw from to pay for out-of-pocket medical bills. If you don’t spend your tax-shielded money on health care, eventually you will be allowed to spend it on pretty much anything you want. It’s a tax shelter, in other words. As proposed by George W, families can set aside up to $5,150 per year in these accounts. The Bush Treasury Department says that HSA’s are “intended to improve access by making health insurance more affordable, particularly for those with very low incomes.”The Times article elaborates on this official motivation for the proposal. The fourth paragraph states, “The [HSA] plans...are meant to provide basic, high-deductible insurance while letting people accumulate money tax-free to be spent on medical services or saved to pay for future health care needs.” Also note the 19th paragraph, which tells us that “The health savings accounts are meant to help reduce wasteful spending by involving consumers more directly in weighing the costs of alternative types of care.”So, that’s what these accounts are “meant to” do, eh? How would one know this, unless one was a mind-reader? What we do know is what the Bush administration says is motivating the proposal. But let’s think about this for a minute.The official poverty level for a family of three in the United States is currently $15,670. Let’s imagine a family of three living just above that level, so they are not officially “poor.” Let’s say they make $16,000 per year. OK: The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Minnesota is about $9,400 per year (over $13,000/year in California). Add $165/month for utilities (really bare bones!), and that’s another $2,000 per year. If the family could manage to eat for $3.00 per day each, that would add up to $3,300 per year. We’re up to just about $15,000 now, and I haven’t said anything about transportation, or non-health insurance (fire, theft...). Nor have I mentioned recreation, like the occasional movie, or baseball game. Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “In 2004, [health insurance] premiums reached an average of $9,950 annually for family coverage.”It must be comforting, indeed, for the “very low income” family described here ($16,000 per year, by the way, is about 50 percent higher than the current, full-time minimum wage) to know that the Bush plan will allow them to “accumulate money tax-free” to buy health insurance. There’s some “access” for you! And aren’t we all grateful that such families will be encouraged to “reduce” their “wasteful spending” on health care?To their credit, the Times balanced out their mind-reading in this case with a quotation from Princeton University economist and health policy expert Uwe E. Reinhardt. In the very last paragraph of the article, we read that Mr. Reinhardt “said that the new plans were ‘a bum deal’ for people with chronic illnesses. But ‘for chronically healthy people,’ he said, ‘it's another 401(k) savings account, and Wall Street is licking its chops at the prospect of managing the money.’”That’s a good quotation. But by stating earlier in the article that the HSA plan is “meant to” provide access to insurance and is “meant to help reduce wasteful spending,” the reporter implies that any other outcomes will be unfortunate errors, rather than the predictable and/or intended results of uncaring policy. That’s some serious “spin.”
Example #3: “Intended To” Do... something. Inside Bush’s Head
On September 3 the NY Times reported on the speech President Bush made in accepting his nomination by the Republican Party to run for a second term. The Times reported that “Under the rubric of an ‘ownership society’ intended to promote individual power and responsibility as well as to give people more of a direct financial stake in the economy, he also made a case for tax incentives to help people save for health insurance costs and for efforts by government to encourage homeownership.”More mind-reading there. Did you catch it? The reporters claim to know what the “ownership society” is “intended to promote.” What they actually know, and should report, is that some people say that this “ownership society” (whatever that may be) is “intended to” do what Bush said, and some other people say that this “ownership society” is code for an all-out attack on the last vestiges of the New Deal of the 1930s.I, myself, think this “ownership society” thing goes beyond that to an attack on the reforms made during the Progressive Era, which came before the New Deal (we’re talking here about the 1890s into the 1920s). The legal and political reforms of the Progressive Era were, in part, a response to the outrages committed by the notorious “robber barons” of the time. I suspect that the aims of those promoting what they call the “ownership society” are motivated in large part by a desire to restore some of the lost privileges that they believe should accrue to our modern-day robber barons. (One of the key reforms enacted during the Progressive Era, for instance, was the income tax. See what I mean? I’ll have more on the “ownership society” and the income tax, and related ideas, in a future Nygaard Notes.)
Example #4: “In The Interest Of... something. Inside Anonymous Heads, and Down the Memory Hole
Sometimes what appears to be mind-reading is not really that at all, but is something far worse, as in this example.On July 13 the NY Times headlined a 1000-word report “Doubts on Informant Deleted in Senate Text.” The news report told the tale of certain deletions that had been made from “a year-long, bipartisan Senate investigation” of intelligence lapses leading up to the war in Iraq. The report noted that “About one-fifth of the 511-page report still has not been made public, despite objections from both Republican and Democratic senators. As in the case of the Iraqi defector, the deletions were the result of objections raised by American intelligence agencies in the interest of protecting sources and methods...according to American government officials who have read the classified version of the Senate committee's report.”There you go: “in the interest of reporting sources and methods,” reporter Douglas Jehl says. That’s a defensible reason to keep something secret, isn’t it? But wouldn’t reporter Jehl have to be a mind-reader in order to know the reasons motivating those mysterious “American government officials” who made the deletions? Otherwise, how would he know the noble “interests” that prompted the deletion of 20 percent of a report of such major national interest? I thought this was an example of mind-reading, until I remembered another article, from the same paper, that ran three days earlier, on July 10.That article, part of a whole section about the Intelligence Committee report, was headlined “C.I.A. Deleted Large Sections, Officials Say.” In it, a different reporter – Neil A. Lewis – tells us that “The deletions have renewed a debate about whether Central Intelligence Agency officials were trying to suppress certain information to avoid embarrassment.” Hmm... a debate about the motivation for deleting huge segments of a public document, you say? Someone is debating whether the deletions were made “to avoid embarrassment” or “in the interest of protecting sources and methods?” That sounds like an important debate. But within three days it had disappeared from the Newspaper of Record, leaving only the one version remaining and consigning the important “debate” on the subject to the dustbin of history.Where’s a mind-reader when you need one?!A good reporter will distinguish between observations of verifiable facts and blind acceptance of the self-serving public relations of public figures. But not all reporters are good ones, so when you see or hear phrases like “aims to” and “intends to” and “are meant to,” or when you see or hear that some public agency is doing something “in the interest of” something, pause for a moment. Take a moment to ask yourself some questions, like, “Who says?” and “How do I know what they really ‘aim’ to do?” and “Are there other opinions on the nature of their true intentions?” If the reporter didn’t balance out their stenography of the official line with some answers to questions like these, then it might be worth your while to tune in to some other media.**********
If you have received this issue of Nygaard Notes from a friend, or by accident, or through some other bizarre quirk of inexplicable fate which leaves you with no useful return address, be aware that you can receive your own free subscription by asking for it in an E-mail sent to Nygaard Notes at
I would like to continue to provide this service for free. You could help by making a voluntary contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00) You can donate online by going to the Nygaard Notes website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ Then just get out your credit card and follow the instructions. Of course, you can always just send a good old check through the mail. Make checks payable to “Nygaard Notes” and send to: Nygaard Notes, P.O. Box 14354, Minneapolis, MN 55414. Thank you!--
Jeff Nygaard
National Writers Union
Twin Cities Local #13 UAW
Nygaard Notes
http://www.nygaardnotes.org
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 9:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home