Funday Framing Foxtacular!

Back in the days before newsroom culture got the attention of real sociologists, like Herbert Gans and Gaye Tuchman, we had to grow our own. Lots of the early work was done by old news hands, generally under the influence of the Chicago school, who went to PhD camp and came back to try to explain to the outside world what sorts of things went on between the occurrence of "news" and its appearance on newspaper pages. And lots of it holds up well today -- David Whyte's "The Gate Keeper," for example, and Warren Breed's "Social Control in the Newsroom," to which we turn for today's lesson.






When you look at how "bias" can be expected to filter down from the boardroom to what you see or read, it's tempting to think of a diabolical publisher with his (for male is what he almost always is) finger in every decision and his touch on every headline. Fat chance. Few publishers can write even one headline,* let alone the dozens a rimster will knock out in a shift, and they have other stuff to do besides intervening in the multiple scores of decisions made around the newsroom.

More to the point, as Breed** explains in detail, intervention isn't necessary. Journalists learn what's supposed to go in the paper -- what "news" looks and sounds like, and how "policy" shapes its presence or absence, at their particular shops -- through a complex system of nods, nudges, winks, and implications. So if your question is "Wow, did Murdoch himself order that Hillary hed onto the FoxNews.com front page this morning?" the answer is "No. Inept, patently fabricated stories get to the Fox front page of their own accord!" Staffers learn by imitation. They learn by watching news budget meetings -- not because the policy line is laid down there, but because it's implied in the discussions of "reliability of information, newsworthiness, possible 'angles' and other news tactics" (1955, p. 329). They learn by seeing what gets in and what doesn't. Murdoch can sleep in on Sundays because the folks unlucky or junior enough to draw that shift know what looks like news through Fox-colored glasses.

In other words, it didn't take much thought for someone to green-light the Hillary story mentioned here. It's somebody else's, so we can say "Report says" instead of "We say." It has that respectable international patina (despite the occasional charming tendency of the British press to, oh, make stuff up when there's nothing interesting to report). And it's "campaign" news -- or at least, it looks enough like campaign news to get past the checkpoint.

Needless to say, "Report: Dumped Cat Could Come Back to Haunt Hillary Clinton Campaign" is a crock from start to finish. There is no "report." There's a commentary in the Sunday Times, a Murdoch property that has longer sentences and fewer Page Three Girls than the Sun. The "some" who "believe" the Socks tale could thwart Clinton don't exist; that's spun from one commentary in the Atlantic. Mostly, the Times article used some rented snark to hang a week's worth of anti-Hillary laundry. Somebody at Fox has learned the lessons well.

* Rolfe Neill of Charlotte, whom Charles Kuralt pointed out in one of his books as the guy who taught him how to draw a page, is an honorable exception.
** Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces, 33, 326-335.

You provide the pictures ...

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yester-year, when unscrup-ulous news organi-zations would find a story to cook up, then fab-ricate a breathless "reaction" to it, then report on how the reaction spread, and so forth until the mob was at the castle gates with pitchforks and torches. Yes, it's the yellow journalism of the 21st century, and it's the Fair 'n' Balanced Crowd showing the way again!

This one first arose yesterday, and there are some good lessons in the basic blocking-and-tackling of propaganda therein:
1) Never invent facts; stick to inventing the implications that go around them.
2) Try to put a new layer of attribution between yourself and the original factoid every news cycle. (If you start with "Senate challenger says Foghorn has it off with goats comma sheep," you want to move as soon as possible through "Foghorn denies goat, sheep charge" to "Voters react to Foghorn denial" and "Poll shows denial costing Foghorn support.")
3) Force multiplication is your friend! Once the commentators start commentating, you have two streams of input to feed the reaction stories.

Enough theory, though: Let's wrap up News Judgment Week with a look at some practice!

Our story surfaces on Thursday, as Fox pumps some air into a low-bore AP piece that has Obama referring back a comment he'd made the day before in a TV interview. And the lede makes pretty clear it's a second-day story: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he no longer wears an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Fox is cheating with the hed, "Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin," but it's cheating on the syntax rather than the facts. In hed dialect, the present tense signals events in the "immediate past," or roughly the time since the most recent publication. Hence the second-cycling of, say, crime stories; when one news cycle (morning papers) uses "CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBED," the next cycle gets "CLUES SOUGHT IN ROBBERY" because the immediate past has rotated a notch. The hed you expect is on the order of "Obama explains lapel-pin comments," because the immediate past doesn't cover stuff that happened five or six years ago, but "violation of hed pragmatics" isn't the same as "liar, liar, pants on fire."

The real fun starts with today's follow-up, whence the illustration above is drawn. (The News Sociology Department would also like to point out that allotting staff resources to a story you'd originally taken off the AP wire signals a ratcheting-up of its perceived importance, and three Fox hands have a share of the byline on this puppy.) Again, there's nothing strictly false in the hed ("Candidates Have Their Say on Obama's Decision Not to Wear Flag Pin"). The reefer to the video ("VIDEO: Barack Obama Decides Not To Continnue Wearing a Flag Pin on his Lapel") is pragmatically misleading -- the immediate-past deal works for other forms of display type too -- but not technically false. "SPACE AVAILABLE"? Well, all that says is that "space is available"; it doesn't actually say "and the sinister green flag of Islam would look just peachy here," does it?

And the lede -- well, who's to tell the difference between a journalistic cliche and a bit of deliberate distortion?

Barack Obama may choose not to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, but many of the presidential contender's political rivals say they wouldn't leave home without one.

"Many," eh? Let's see:

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton told FOXNews.com Thursday night that she sometimes wears a pin to show her patriotism. “Wearing a flag pin, flying the flag, pledging allegiance to the flag, talking about the values that are important to America, teaching your children about what a great nation you have, standing up for those values, speaking out … there’s just so many ways that one can demonstrate patriotism,” Clinton said at a Chicago fundraiser.

A spokesman for Joe Biden told FOXNews.com that the Delaware senator "always wears a flag pin." It wasn't clear whether Dennis Kucinich wears a pin, but a spokeswoman told FOXNews.com that the Ohio congressman does "does carry a mini copy of the Constitution in his pocket."

So far, it's one sometimes, one always and one -- well, the Kucinich Desk is welcome to check in here, but it sounds as if Dennis is rather pointedly suggesting that he falls back on a Higher Power.

No comment from Edwards, Dodd or Richardson. On the Party O'Lincoln side, McCain's in the "not daily" camp, with an aide saying his service record speaks to the issue quite adequately, thanks. Tancredo says he wears one "to show he’s proud to be an American" (which, of course, effectively dodges the frequency question). Huckabee's camp says he always wore the flag pin when he was governor (ibid, but he doesn't have to wipe the foam from around his lips). Hunter is "proud to wear an American flag pin as much as possible and on any occasion." No callbacks from Paul, Giuliani, Romney or Thompson.

So it looks like the confirmed "don't leave home without it" camp is down to Joe Biden and a cast of ... well, many. (For that matter, pace the frontpage cutline, only one of the candidates seems to have "sounded off" on Obama's decision.) But the lede's assertion isn't false in fact; we've just established a new context for the facts and moved the debate from what Obama said to what people said about what he said. And sure enough, by noon, the Streicherettes had begun to chime in. Pure-play textbook -- almost like watching Phil Ford run the Four Corners again, innit?

Somebody on the Obama campaign needs to buy the senator a copy of "The Virtue of STFU-ness." For the rest of us: The past isn't history. Hell, it isn't even past.

Ministry of Truth

This just in from Commissar Murdoch's New York Post, in case you hadn't heard yet how you were supposed to think about Monday's events:
Here's the news story referred to from the front. Some excerpts:

Calm and unflinching, the four-star U.S. commander in Iraq impressed even hard-core war critics in Congress yesterday, announcing that some troops can begin coming home this month, 30,000 can return by next summer, and even more joyous reunions are on the horizon.
Gen. David Petraeus, delivering his long-awaited report with commanding skill, said there's been "substantial" progress in fighting al Qaeda and sectarian violence that justifies the first troop drawdown of the four-year war.

The low-key but firm Petraeus - in his Army green laden with medals for his star turn under sparkling chandeliers - used color-coded charts and graphs to show a skeptical joint House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that the current troop surge met its objectives "in large measure."

Even Democrats who despise the war policy were deferential in the face of the top-notch general's even-keeled demeanor and impressive rows of shiny silver stars, four to a shoulder.

"He's one of the best," said Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who ran proceedings in the ornate hearing room and ordered a succession of protesters ejected when they shouted their anger at the war.

... The no-nonsense military leader didn't specify how soon or how large the later reductions would be. But he presented a chart that visualized only five brigades remaining - about one fourth of the current force - and most of the troops in a "partnering" role with Iraqi security.

The general said he had briefed higher-ups in the chain of command but wrote his report himself. "It has not been cleared by, nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or Congress," he said of his testimony.

Even on an editorial page, this would be suspect; as a rule, we ought to stop being impressed by the shininess of any particular row of stars by age 11 or so. On a newspage ... well, let's bear in mind that the real fault line in mainstream U.S. journalism isn't between "left" and "right" media. It's between the professional media (which extend roughly from the notional political center to the center-right) and the armed propaganda wing of the Bush administration. The grownups have their own sets of biases and blind spots -- sometimes amusing, sometimes outright dangerous -- but they also have some course-correction and self-righting mechanisms. At the Murdoch properties, the blind spot is the mission; you might as well expect Fox News to admit that the earth is round.

Wait'll Ernie Pyle hears about this

The vigilant gang over at Fox has caught the Hollywood panty-waists making light of America again! Here's the dominant art from early afternoon (until the before-and-after of Osama's new beard look was ready).

What Hollywood is doing, of course, is plotting to geld this American icon by turning him into some sort of internationalized UN-loving do-gooder. Take it away, Fox:

Say it ain't so, G.I. Joe.

The popular all-American comic-book military man and action figure dating back to the 1940s is undergoing a significant transformation for the Paramount Pictures-distributed "G.I. Joe" film, which begins production in February and is scheduled for release in summer 2009.

No longer will G.I. Joe be a U.S. Special Forces soldier, the "Real American Hero" who, in his glory days, single-handedly won World War II.

Christski. G.I. Joe was Soviet infantryman? Is to reel the mind.

In the politically correct new millennium, G.I. Joe bears no resemblance to the original.

At this point, it's fair to point out that he hasn't borne any resemblance to the original for quite some time. Here's a "Private Breger" by Dave Breger, who originated the "G.I. Joe" strip in Yank in 1942. By one account, Breger had to pick a new name for the strip because "Private Breger" was already in commercial syndication, so ... the rest is history. (Mildly exaggerated at the OED, which dates Breger and Joe to 1842, but history all the same.) By 1945, Joe was well enough known to provide a title for "The Story of G.I. Joe," about Ernie Pyle in North Africa.

Now, Pyle's troops -- not to mention Bill Mauldin's, to drag in another draftsman* who became known for his wartime drawings -- were not Special Forces by any stretch of the imagination. One would like to think they might dispute the Real American Heroes bit too (which title didn't come along, G.I.-Joe-doll-wise, until the beginning of the Reagan administration anyway). But Fox has other points to make:

... Joe's transformation, however, isn't sitting well with diehard fans and military types.

"I find it outrageous that they'd want to drop everything American" from the character, said conservative blogger Warner Todd Huston, who wrote about the rumors this week on Newsbusters.org and his own blog. "That's nuts."

Retired Army Col. David W. Hunt, a FOX News military and terrorism analyst, called the scheme to make a whole new Joe "a shame."

"G.I. Joe is a U.S. guy," Hunt said. "What are we going to call it — Global Joe? International Joe? It's kind of stupid. It's ridiculous that they're doing that."

Hmm. Bit of a sourcing stretch from one chickenhawk and one colonel on the Fox payroll to a groundswell of red-blooded outrage, but there you have it. On to the potted history:

The comic-book character and toy line have already undergone an evolution of sorts since Joe first won the hearts of American little boys — and some little girls — beginning in 1942 with the comic strip and in the early 1960s with the action figure.

... In the post-Vietnam War era in the 1970s, Hasbro decided to downplay G.I. Joe's military theme by renaming the line "The Adventures of G.I. Joe" and recasting Joe as the leader of an adventure team charged with espionage missions and fighting evil.
But in the 1980s, the toy company Hasbro made G.I. Joe more of a superhero and added a host of other action figures, expanding the line to include characters that made up a team of international operatives. (So the, erm, damage has already been done? On Reagan's watch, no less!!)

Now some critics say the globalization of G.I. Joe has gone too far.

Really? Which?

"G.I. Joe is not an international hero. That's crap," said Col. Hunt. "They don't have to water it down. That doesn't make sense."

Gee. Let's close our eyes and guess who the other critic might be!

For blogger Huston, who played with G.I. Joe as a boy, transforming the entire character into an amorphous task force in the movie feels like a hit to his childhood memories.

Uh, Fox? Gang? Guys? Did y'all know your angry chickenhawk plays with dolls????? Just asking.

Huston believes it's the latest example of Hollywood's hostility toward all things American, and he said he probably won't go to see the film if the existing plans are executed.

"It's the last spit in the face of our military," Huston said. "The doll was G.I. Joe, the government-issued guy who was a hero and American. It was celebrating this one heroic soldier. They want to take even that away."

Suppose we should point out that it was America-hating Hollywood that turned Pyle's Captain Waskow into "Captain Walker"? Or would that be rubbing it in?

One tends to think that Pyle would have a low tolerance for Fox's yip-yip-yip-to-war attitude. Given Mauldin's political proclivities, it's more than fair to guess he would too. So let's give Willie and Joe the last word:

We calls 'em garritroopers. They're too far forward to wear ties an' too far back to get shot.

* Yank also published the wartime work of Bil Keane, he of the Family Circus. Some days one is gladder than others that one didn't go the media history route, isn't one?

(Yeah, the title is stolen from Mauldin too, in case you're wondering)