Government
Hype, Spin, Puffery, and Lies: Should We Be Scared?
By Lane Jennings
Media mythmakers keep the public ill informed.
sked what he would do to improve a government, the ancient Chinese sage
Confucius answered that his first measure would be "to correct language." He
meant that if words don’t mean what they seem to mean people cannot put any plan into
action as intended. The state of language at the dawn of the twenty-first century appears
to be more confused than ever--thanks in large part to the enormous influence of
television, radio, and print media over what we buy, desire, and believe.
In The Media Mythmakers (Prometheus Books, 2003), Benjamin
Radford, managing editor of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine offers hundreds of
examples of deceptive practices in journalism, advertising, political activism, public
relations, and charity appeals. The real danger to the public, he insists, comes not from
outright lies about events or individuals, because in most cases facts can ultimately be
proven and mistakes corrected. But the emotional power of images, sound bites, and slogans
can exert deep and lasting influence on our opinions and behavior as consumers, voters,
and citizens.
The detailed coverage of violent crimes dominating local TV news shows
seldom includes any larger context. The cumulative impression left in the minds of viewers
is that violent crime is rampant and on the rise. As a result, many people live in fear
and many more support the idea of ever-larger police forces, tougher laws, and bigger
prisons without considering the actual crime rates in their community or across the
nation.
Dramatic incidents like the sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area
in the fall of 2002 receive so much media attention that, again, the actual numbers of
people affected and the likelihood of such attacks being repeated anywhere else become
wildly exaggerated in people’s minds. In the media-fueled emotional state following
such spectacular disasters, the effort and expense of turning schools into locked
fortresses or putting cameras on every street to monitor suspicious individuals can seem
insignificant compared to the hope of keeping our children safe from harm. Yet truly
effective measures require clear thinking and clearly worded policies that citizens--not
only lawyers and politicians--can understand. Too often the long-term future implications
of new anticrime laws and policies are not even considered in the rush to feel safer (or
appear to be responsive to public concerns) by taking rapid and visible action.
Misleading practices by advertisers are another subject of public
concern. Governments have long limited ads for alcohol and tobacco products and examined
claims by drug companies, car makers, food suppliers, and toy manufacturers to protect the
public health. But advertising uses emotional appeals to shift the viewer's focus away
from facts. Viewers who do not take the trouble to distinguish between provable claims and
pleasant but meaningless word play end up buying "the sizzle, not the steak" and
often paying high.
Pressures from government on the media are less direct in the United
States and most Western nations than in countries where the tradition of a free press and
public access to information is not well established. Pressures in the West tend to be
more economic (will sponsors or owners/stockholders object to a particular topic or
reporting slant?) and legal/subjective (will some individual or group protest or file a
lawsuit based on what we air or publish?).
The best defense against misleading ads and sensational news coverage is
not tighter controls on the media, but more education and more critical judgment among
media consumers. Just as we train children to be wary of strangers offering candy, to
count change at a store, and to kick the tires before buying a used car, we must make the
effort to step back and judge the value of news stories, press releases, and
advertisements, and master the skills required to separate spin from substance.
In his book, Bradford places special emphasis on the danger of reacting
emotionally to news stories, dramatic gestures and speeches, and pictures in ads. He would
have us ask such questions as:
- Who is speaking or writing this? Are they getting paid? Do they have some
other personal interest in telling this story?
- On the Internet, can you identify the ultimate source of a claim or
report? What makes this item or site believable?
- If poll results are mentioned, find out what question was asked. And what
evidence is there for believing that the people who answered this question fairly
represent the public as a whole.
- Is this speaker or writer offering facts or just opinions?
- Finally, do you really care about the subject? The mere fact that an
event occurred may not justify the attention it gets from a particular news show or
reporter. On the other hand, an item that gets little attention may seem to you much more
significant than the lead story. Trust your own sense of priorities and develop them by
comparing how a particular story is treated by different media outlets.
To keep options for the future open in your own mind, it is useful to
make sure that you don’t rely exclusively on one single source of news or information
about any topic. If you regularly watch the major broadcast networks for news, check out
CNN or PBS or Turner cable occasionally as well. If you read a weekly U.S. news magazine,
look in your library for similar publications produced outside the United States for a
different slant on world and national events. Don’t be afraid to watch and enjoy
entertaining commercials on TV, but don’t forget to consult consumer magazines,
online sites, or public library sources for more objective information on the products
advertisers urge you to buy.
Any living language is sure to constantly grow and change. Stretching
the old meaning of words and creating new ones is part of the process. But critical
reading and listening, and the ability to separate emotion from reason is crucial to
making effective choices as a citizen and a consumer. And the closer a particular choice
is linked to long-term future outcomes, the more important these skills become.
Sources: Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and
Advertisers Mislead Us by Benjamin Radford. Prometheus Books. 2003. Check price/buy book.
"The Limits of Media Power" by Robert J. Samuelson, The
Washington Post (October 2, 2003).
Other recommended readings:
Confucius – The Analects [Arthur Waley tr.] (1938)
Darrell Huff – How to Lie With Statistics (1954)
George Bernard Shaw-- "Spoken English and Broken English" (1936)
George Orwell-- "Politics and the English Language" (1946)
