Propaganda: How to spin yourself through a terrorism case by B Blake
January 26th 2014
"It's just modern government. Over the past 20 years the media has intensified - become 24 hours a day. So you have to try to be smarter, sharper and quicker off the mark than you used to be"
Alistair Campbell, former 'spin doctor'
Alistair Campbell, former 'spin doctor'
The secrets of spin: the dark arts
Political and social propaganda and its associated measures to influence media coverage is more typically known as 'public relations' or 'spin'. Whist traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, spin is far more sinister and often employs the use of disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Entire companies exist that deal solely with issues governments may require 'spinning' using media experts often referred to as 'aides', but more commonly known a 'spin doctors'.
Various underhand techniques are involved that can include:
- Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking) and selective timed release of those facts, choosing a 'good' day for announcements, etc.
- Non-denial denial
- Non-apology apology........ matters and incidents often being 'regrettable', for example.
- Using loaded phrases
- Ambiguity: incorporating unclear phrasing in a speech that makes any exact meaning hard to pin down: useful when intending to appear to be addressing an issue or question, whilst ensuring evasion.
- Burying bad news: announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular one.
- Misdirection and diversion: including making specific announcements/releasing information deliberately timed to coincide with an issue or event, knowing media coverage will then either overshadow that event or steer public attention away from it.
- Admitting to certain 'weaknesses' or mistakes in order to cover up a much larger one or some other type of wrongdoing not yet exposed. This is usually accompanied by jargon and statements that appear accusatory or apologetic, but actually mean very little, such as 'Mistakes were made' or 'lessons were learned' or 'going forward', although no admission as to who actually made those mistakes is made, or indeed what lessons were ever learned, or specific details on what will happen 'going forward'.
Whilst the overt campaign to spin Dzhokhar Tsarnaev into a 'guilty Jihadi-motivated terrorist' has been in full swing for many months, the covert campaign has been more subtle, although equally gaulling. Various tactics and techniques have been employed that, if you know the secrets and language of spin, are actually very easy to discern.
Spinning Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: 'not guilty'
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's plea hearing on July 10th 2013 had been long anticipated, not least by the world's news media. Tsarnaev's plea of not guilty to all charges in a 30 count indictment was virtually guaranteed to be headline news and as such, become the subject of much public discussion and debate. Was it simply a ploy? Was he really innocent? Was it possible that the so-called 'mountain of evidence' against him was not as comprehensive as the public had been led to believe?
Regardless of the reasoning behind Tsarnaev's plea, it became evident that individuals connected to the case were very ill-at-ease with the prospect of informed public debate on the matter, but the spin-doctors had prepared ahead. It came as no surprise then, that July 10th was also the date Ed Davis (Police Commissioner for Boston at the time), Richard Serino (former director of FEMA) and Kurt Schwartz (Under-secretary for Homeland Security and Emergency Management in Massachusetts) appeared before a Congressional hearing and gave evidence about 'lessons learned' from the Boston marathon bombings. If one were ever in any doubt as to the true motivations of government that day, one only had to read the language of the opening pre-scripted statement for insight: spin, and plenty of it.
Regardless of the reasoning behind Tsarnaev's plea, it became evident that individuals connected to the case were very ill-at-ease with the prospect of informed public debate on the matter, but the spin-doctors had prepared ahead. It came as no surprise then, that July 10th was also the date Ed Davis (Police Commissioner for Boston at the time), Richard Serino (former director of FEMA) and Kurt Schwartz (Under-secretary for Homeland Security and Emergency Management in Massachusetts) appeared before a Congressional hearing and gave evidence about 'lessons learned' from the Boston marathon bombings. If one were ever in any doubt as to the true motivations of government that day, one only had to read the language of the opening pre-scripted statement for insight: spin, and plenty of it.
'A little less than three months ago, the city of Boston suffered a horrific terrorist attack during the 117th Boston Marathon. The attack claimed the lives of three observers and injured nearly 300. As the events of April 15th unfolded, we wrestled with the fact that we were witnessing the first successful terrorist bombing on US soil since the September 11th terrorist attacks. Just as we did in the aftermath of 9/11, we must learn from the Boston Marathon bombing.
That is why this committee has set out to unearth the lessons-learned from this act of terrorism. At a future time, this committee will look at whether this tragedy could have been prevented.
However, today’s hearing will focus entirely on the emergency response to the events that occurred on April 15, 2013'
That is why this committee has set out to unearth the lessons-learned from this act of terrorism. At a future time, this committee will look at whether this tragedy could have been prevented.
However, today’s hearing will focus entirely on the emergency response to the events that occurred on April 15, 2013'
The stage was set for a gushing account of the admirable successes of emergency services on the day in question, interspersed with a wealth of patriotic phrasing and language. After all was delivered, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it transpired that very few 'lessons' actually needed to be 'learned'. The question of what lessons were actually learned and by whom was rendered moot.
The intent was clear: diversion and misdirection. The public is now well-versed in the catalogue of government successes in 'defeating terror', so was there any real need to hear it yet again, on that particular day ? No, but they were told again anyway.
This effectively buried any in-depth media analysis of the issues surrounding Tsarnaev's not guilty plea, diverted attention back to the horrific atrocity perpetrated months previously, and reinforced the jihadi narrative and the new war on 'home-grown terror' that inevitably followed. As intended, it played solely to the government's own strengths in combating the perceived challenges it faced on April 15th. The many 'heroes' of the marathon bombing were once again thrust into the media spotlight, leaving coverage of the important issues surrounding Tsarnaev's not guilty plea to simply fall by the wayside.
It wasn't until the following day, July 11th, that the Congressional bun-fight over issues relating to alleged intelligence failings over the marathon bombings began. Ed Davis once again testified, this time about matters far less favourable and far more difficult to spin: his experience of 'information sharing', or more precisely, the lack thereof. The revelation and subsequent reporting - that somehow the bombings could have been prevented - created more than enough fallout to permanently bury any meaningful debate over the outcome of Tsarnaev's plea hearing: that he had pleaded not guilty, and why?
Mere coincidence? Take another look at the opening statement from the previous day:
The intent was clear: diversion and misdirection. The public is now well-versed in the catalogue of government successes in 'defeating terror', so was there any real need to hear it yet again, on that particular day ? No, but they were told again anyway.
This effectively buried any in-depth media analysis of the issues surrounding Tsarnaev's not guilty plea, diverted attention back to the horrific atrocity perpetrated months previously, and reinforced the jihadi narrative and the new war on 'home-grown terror' that inevitably followed. As intended, it played solely to the government's own strengths in combating the perceived challenges it faced on April 15th. The many 'heroes' of the marathon bombing were once again thrust into the media spotlight, leaving coverage of the important issues surrounding Tsarnaev's not guilty plea to simply fall by the wayside.
It wasn't until the following day, July 11th, that the Congressional bun-fight over issues relating to alleged intelligence failings over the marathon bombings began. Ed Davis once again testified, this time about matters far less favourable and far more difficult to spin: his experience of 'information sharing', or more precisely, the lack thereof. The revelation and subsequent reporting - that somehow the bombings could have been prevented - created more than enough fallout to permanently bury any meaningful debate over the outcome of Tsarnaev's plea hearing: that he had pleaded not guilty, and why?
Mere coincidence? Take another look at the opening statement from the previous day:
'At a future time, this committee will look at whether this tragedy could have been prevented.
However, today’s hearing will focus entirely on the emergency response to the events that occurred on April 15, 2013'
However, today’s hearing will focus entirely on the emergency response to the events that occurred on April 15, 2013'
Read: 'Today's hearing will focus entirely on portraying the government in a positive light and remind the public that we will defeat the evils of terrorism on their behalf, whether those alleged terrorists are guilty or not'
'At future time' was actually just one day - 'We'll get to the tricky stuff tomorrow'.
'At future time' was actually just one day - 'We'll get to the tricky stuff tomorrow'.
Death penalty arguments and important discovery issues subject to more 'dark arts'
Following its success at stamping out comprehensive coverage and the resulting public analysis on the issues arising from Tsarnaev's not guilty plea, the government increased the spin significantly for his next important hearing on September 23rd, at 10am.
Attorneys for Tsarnaev stated in court that the government had failed to provide a substantial amount of key evidence that had been requested months previously, and that this had prevented the defence from submitting a proposal arguing against the possibility of the death penalty for Tsarnaev, should he be convicted. Prosecutors rejected this notion and persisted in arguing that all submissions must be made to Attorney General Eric Holder by October 31st regardless.
What better way to divert attention from probable prosecutorial failings and arguments over life and death than hold an official 'announcement' at precisely 10am, followed by an immediate televised press conference at Boston Police Headquarters?
Attorneys for Tsarnaev stated in court that the government had failed to provide a substantial amount of key evidence that had been requested months previously, and that this had prevented the defence from submitting a proposal arguing against the possibility of the death penalty for Tsarnaev, should he be convicted. Prosecutors rejected this notion and persisted in arguing that all submissions must be made to Attorney General Eric Holder by October 31st regardless.
What better way to divert attention from probable prosecutorial failings and arguments over life and death than hold an official 'announcement' at precisely 10am, followed by an immediate televised press conference at Boston Police Headquarters?
Ed Davis, Police Commissioner for Boston resigns:
'Ed Davis was thrust into the national spotlight on April 15 when twin explosions near the marathon finish line killed three people and wounded more than 260. Over the past seven years, Ed Davis has served the people of Boston with integrity, a steady hand, and compassion. During some of our City’s most trying days, Commissioner Davis worked relentlessly to protect the safety of all our citizens.
Mayor Merino, at Ed Davis resignation press conference
Mayor Merino, at Ed Davis resignation press conference
“It is time to go,” Davis said today, his voice trembling slightly, during a news conference at police headquarters.
“I feel very positive about leaving on my timeline,’’ he said. “I leave the department on my own accord. I wanted to clear the deck for the new administration.’’
The result? Just as planned, the 'heroes' of the marathon bombings once again graced the pages of every newspaper and tv screen, and public officials were universally congratulated over their successes at dealing with the 'act of evil' that struck their city.
Tsarnaev's hearing, which actually generated some very thought-provoking and significant questions concerning the workings of the justice system, was instead relegated to inconsequential reportage and barely featured on the tv news.
So far, the government's self-serving attitude coupled with its blatant attempts at spinning the State vs Tsarnaev have been palpable. Consequently, they have left themselves open. So what will be next on the Tsarnaev agenda?
Tsarnaev's hearing, which actually generated some very thought-provoking and significant questions concerning the workings of the justice system, was instead relegated to inconsequential reportage and barely featured on the tv news.
So far, the government's self-serving attitude coupled with its blatant attempts at spinning the State vs Tsarnaev have been palpable. Consequently, they have left themselves open. So what will be next on the Tsarnaev agenda?
The release of Keating's report timed to coincide with Tsarnaev death penalty announcement?
Eric Holder is due to announce his decision on whether prosecutors should seek the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, upon conviction, by January 31st. Whatever the outcome of Holder's decision, it's bound to generate media interest and therefore inform public interest and any resulting dialogue. So again, is it just coincidence that this is also the time U.S. Rep. William Keating has decided to make public his 'findings' from his 6 month inter-continental investigation into Tamerlan Tsarnaev's alleged links to terrorists from Dagestan and any intelligence issues arising from it?
No.
The death penalty is an extremely emotive issue whether you agree with it in principle or not. No matter what the decision, there will be many who will be outraged. The government knows this, but the spin-doctors will doubtless prescribe some manipulative ploy to mitigate the fallout. Keating's report looks like a strong candidate to be deemed more 'worthy of discussion' than Holder's death penalty decision, with its purported 'new insights' into Tamerlan Tsarnaev's alleged activities in Dagestan, and consequent recommendations regarding security improvements.
Really? Not if you read the spin.
This was Rep. Keating's offering on the startling new revelations and insights the report will contain:
No.
The death penalty is an extremely emotive issue whether you agree with it in principle or not. No matter what the decision, there will be many who will be outraged. The government knows this, but the spin-doctors will doubtless prescribe some manipulative ploy to mitigate the fallout. Keating's report looks like a strong candidate to be deemed more 'worthy of discussion' than Holder's death penalty decision, with its purported 'new insights' into Tamerlan Tsarnaev's alleged activities in Dagestan, and consequent recommendations regarding security improvements.
Really? Not if you read the spin.
This was Rep. Keating's offering on the startling new revelations and insights the report will contain:
"I would think that Tamerlan Tsarnaev did meet with insurgents here, I believe that, although the government has not confirmed it here, I think he was not successful in whatever effort he made and that he came back to us"
So it would appear that Keating knows nothing. He 'believes' that Tamerlan Tsarnaev met with insurgents, except he's not entirely sure, so he's asked, but regrettably, could not find anyone to confirm that particular speculation for him.
Undeterred, Keating further speculates that Tsarnaev was probably 'unsuccessful' (meaning he never met insurgents - totally at odds with Keating's first sentence) so flew home again having committed no crime whatsoever.
To summarise: 'Tsarnaev went, then he came back.'
What an absolute embarrassment. It took Republican Keating 6 months to come up with that? Is the government seriously prepared to release a 'report' with a conclusion formed from such a patently nonsensical basis?
Unfortunately that's exactly what they are prepared to do, and they will do so as part of a pre-planned release, timed to coincide with Eric Holder's death penalty announcement. Spin. And if any hint were needed as to the politico/media horseplay that is about to occur, take a look at the loaded language used by Keating with respect to the 'recommendations' aspect of the report:
Undeterred, Keating further speculates that Tsarnaev was probably 'unsuccessful' (meaning he never met insurgents - totally at odds with Keating's first sentence) so flew home again having committed no crime whatsoever.
To summarise: 'Tsarnaev went, then he came back.'
What an absolute embarrassment. It took Republican Keating 6 months to come up with that? Is the government seriously prepared to release a 'report' with a conclusion formed from such a patently nonsensical basis?
Unfortunately that's exactly what they are prepared to do, and they will do so as part of a pre-planned release, timed to coincide with Eric Holder's death penalty announcement. Spin. And if any hint were needed as to the politico/media horseplay that is about to occur, take a look at the loaded language used by Keating with respect to the 'recommendations' aspect of the report:
"It will reflect on our response," Keating said. "There will be suggestions going forward"
It speaks for itself.
Todashev Report: Will it be released or won't it?
It actually doesn't matter.
On January 10, 2014 FBI Director James Comey made the announcement that he was 'eagerly awaiting the release' of the report into the FBI's internal review of the shooting of Ibraghim Todeshev, stating it would be released 'hopefully, very soon', with some estimates putting the release as soon as the end of January.
Going on past form, Comey may well be 'eagerly awaiting' just another instance of the FBI investigating and exonerating itself.
If the FBI review is released simultaneously with Keating's report the resulting media coverage of the 'double drop' is likely to far outweigh purposeful considerations as the rights or wrongs of Holder's decision, whereas if the the review is withheld once again, the same is also true. Questions will abound over 'why are they stalling again?' - either way the result is the same. The government knows this, and appears to have planned meticulously for this very outcome.
On January 10, 2014 FBI Director James Comey made the announcement that he was 'eagerly awaiting the release' of the report into the FBI's internal review of the shooting of Ibraghim Todeshev, stating it would be released 'hopefully, very soon', with some estimates putting the release as soon as the end of January.
Going on past form, Comey may well be 'eagerly awaiting' just another instance of the FBI investigating and exonerating itself.
If the FBI review is released simultaneously with Keating's report the resulting media coverage of the 'double drop' is likely to far outweigh purposeful considerations as the rights or wrongs of Holder's decision, whereas if the the review is withheld once again, the same is also true. Questions will abound over 'why are they stalling again?' - either way the result is the same. The government knows this, and appears to have planned meticulously for this very outcome.
But if you still find it hard to believe that spin can be as corrosively cynical as the examples given above, consider this previous instance involving none other than AG Eric Holder:
Eric Holder and the Department of Justice: Whipping up a whirlwind of spin
Internal Department of Justice emails obtained through a FOIA request show that Eric Holder’s closest communications aides - or spin doctors - collaborated with the left-wing spin group Media Matters for America in a duplicitous attempt to divert attention away from negative news stories that plagued Holder and the Department of Justice in 2012.
Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and various employees from Media Matters show that Schmaler, under Holder's direction, also worked with the group to systematically attack journalists attempting to report on Department of Justice scandals (most notably the Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal and subsequent enquiry into it).
The emails reveal that the DOJ regularly enlisted Media Matters to spin issues it considered potentially damaging to its public image, employing every single underhand tactic at its disposal.
Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and various employees from Media Matters show that Schmaler, under Holder's direction, also worked with the group to systematically attack journalists attempting to report on Department of Justice scandals (most notably the Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal and subsequent enquiry into it).
The emails reveal that the DOJ regularly enlisted Media Matters to spin issues it considered potentially damaging to its public image, employing every single underhand tactic at its disposal.
- They pre-planned press releases timed to coincide with other announcements or events in an attempt to bury and divert attention away from 'bad' news, whilst simultaneously doing the exact opposite with news the DOJ considered 'good'.
- They released pre-scripted statements full of nonsensical loaded language, and deceitfully planned to discredit journalists by deliberately writing untruths about them and 'planting' the stories in the news media.
- They even employed the 'limited hangout' - a technique whereby public admissions of fault or blame are conceded on a given issue, in the hope it will deflect attention away from a far more damaging 'mistake' that occurred: in plain English: a cover-up.
Spin: Manipulation and contempt for the general public
There are very few individuals who view spin in a positive light or deem it an acceptable part of the workings of government. In fact the only people who benefit from spin are those in power and the multitude of media companies that have sprung up as a result of it. But it is also too simplistic to treat the media as if they were a transparent conduit of information where spin doctors construct their 'take', and then the media simply pass on the spun communications to their audiences. The media are, like politicians and public figures, dependent upon audiences and their attitudes, and are therefore more inclined to present 'news' to the public that reflects the perceived public interest, so insuring viewing figures and sales.
Yet, this is exactly the situation that the government takes full advantage of when aggressively pushing its own agenda in the Boston marathon bombing case. The people of Boston suffered an unimaginable atrocity, so by continually promoting the 'heroes of the hour' who 'triumphed over evil', the government knows precisely the coverage it will get, versus alternative issues such as whether the defendant accused of that atrocity should have proper access to the state's case against him, for example. Few media outlets will risk potentially alienating viewers/readers when faced with a choice between the two.
A reasonable question here is: how do they get away with it? Spin-doctors, for the most part, anticipate and respond to events, but their job can be made much easier thanks to the pre-emptive strike. This form of spin is perhaps the most sinister, as it often appropriates the distinguished robes of expertise, insight, and the privileged inside track. With an unshakeable air of authority, all manner of unproven 'truths' can be announced, and repeated ad infinitum, as though the power of the mantra alone is transformative: the narrative for a particular agenda 'becomes' the truth.
To question that 'truth' is to be pro-terrorist, unpatriotic, an unhinged conspiracy theorist – a 'grassy knoll type'. It doesn't matter if what's being spun is untrue, or defamatory, or anything else. All that matters is that the narrative is accepted.
However, such a toxic and delusional framework around judicial proceedings can render a case impossible: a fair trial may be utterly precluded by an avalanche of prejudiced media reporting and the case abandoned entirely. Where would that leave the heroes and the victims of the marathon bombings? There is a whirlwind here that may yet be reaped.
And the 'truth' of the matter is, it is entirely of their own making.
Yet, this is exactly the situation that the government takes full advantage of when aggressively pushing its own agenda in the Boston marathon bombing case. The people of Boston suffered an unimaginable atrocity, so by continually promoting the 'heroes of the hour' who 'triumphed over evil', the government knows precisely the coverage it will get, versus alternative issues such as whether the defendant accused of that atrocity should have proper access to the state's case against him, for example. Few media outlets will risk potentially alienating viewers/readers when faced with a choice between the two.
A reasonable question here is: how do they get away with it? Spin-doctors, for the most part, anticipate and respond to events, but their job can be made much easier thanks to the pre-emptive strike. This form of spin is perhaps the most sinister, as it often appropriates the distinguished robes of expertise, insight, and the privileged inside track. With an unshakeable air of authority, all manner of unproven 'truths' can be announced, and repeated ad infinitum, as though the power of the mantra alone is transformative: the narrative for a particular agenda 'becomes' the truth.
To question that 'truth' is to be pro-terrorist, unpatriotic, an unhinged conspiracy theorist – a 'grassy knoll type'. It doesn't matter if what's being spun is untrue, or defamatory, or anything else. All that matters is that the narrative is accepted.
However, such a toxic and delusional framework around judicial proceedings can render a case impossible: a fair trial may be utterly precluded by an avalanche of prejudiced media reporting and the case abandoned entirely. Where would that leave the heroes and the victims of the marathon bombings? There is a whirlwind here that may yet be reaped.
And the 'truth' of the matter is, it is entirely of their own making.
Related posts:
Trial by media: How to prejudice the outcome of a pending prosecution
Death Penalty Decision: What will sway Eric Holder's judgement?
Todashev: The truth will out.......or will it?
Connections: Welcome to Spooksville
Death Penalty Decision: What will sway Eric Holder's judgement?
Todashev: The truth will out.......or will it?
Connections: Welcome to Spooksville
Recommend this:
VISIT OUR MAIN ARTICLES AND FEATURED STORIES INDEX HERE
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
