Change the Frame, capture the Narrative (useful read)

[Cosmic Kitten]

Truthout just published an interview with G Lakoff.
He's a guru of political message "framing" and cognitive linguistics.
The interview has some useful pointers worth considering.

http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/27576-george-lakoff-progressives-cannot-succeed-without-expressing-respect-values

How can progressives successfully respond to a use of fear
since 9/11 to manipulate the public?

Progressives constantly ask how to "respond" to illegitimate claims
by conservatives, whether about fear or anything else.
That is because conservatives have an effective communication system
and progressives do not, and conservative marketers better understand real reason.
To deal with illegitimate fears, you don’t wait till you have to respond.

You need
(1) to build an effective communication system,
(2) to communicate the general progressive value system,
(3) repeat the truths that reveal what is right about those values,
(4) act with courage to promote the sense of courage, confidence
and hope that allows the truth to be meaningful and powerful.

Within such a context, one can honestly and openly discuss the facts
that undermine such fears, so that the illegitimate fears don’t get
established in the first place.

[elleng]

1. Dem party has assiduously ignored him,

unfortunately.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. Yep! The 3rd Way wants the status quo.

The Red/Blue divide is not a "bug" in this duopoly system, it's a"feature".

Changing the "framing" would undermine the narrative
they depend on to practice "wedge politics".
"Triangulation" is dependent on maintaining the frames
used to crush group unity.

[sabrina 1]

9. The Third Way/Right Wing, has built a huge propaganda machine. Memos are prepared

to hand out to politicians who obediently read them on the MSM. The so-called journalists do not dare upset the 'message' by asking probing questions which would put the 'messengers' in a bad place since their job is NOT to think about the issues, but to deliver a message unchallenged. Which is why they HATE any form of Independent journalism.

When 'assaulted' by an occasional actual journalist, they are ready with smears and personal attacks. See Greenwald, Wilileaks, any Journalist who raises questions about THEIR narrative.

Labels are prepared to attach to any fact reporting journalist. 'He has an ego, all he wants is attention'. You KNOW these are prepared smears because they are used over and over again. AND they do not ever address the content of what is being said by these journalists.

Tim Russert eg, allowed Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld et al to go on MTP and blatantly lie, over and over again. He would ask maybe one question, accept the answer, then move on, leaving only the lie, 'Mushroom Clouds coming our way' for the public to try to absorb.


So taking over the media was a big part of their being able to capture the narrative.

I would not dismiss the power of the media at all. If we had had a real, Independent press, we might not have gone to Iraq. The liars would have been exposed when faced with real journalists.

But they didn't count on the Internet during their years of planning to buy up the Media.

If we had not had this medium, there would have been no challenge at all to the lies.

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. Disarm the MSM

If "media" is so powerful it is unreasonable
to try to meet it head-to-head, or to
compete against their strengths.

Where's the soft white underbelly?
People tend to focus on the talking head.
Who are the producers?

Look at the Meet the Press fiasco.
The producers, responding to ownership interests,
have shut out voices from the left and promoted
"guests" who have been wrong about almost everything.
When that approach failed in the ratings with
Left-leaning viewers, they fired the talking head
and replaced it with another compliant talking dummy...
who is currently plummeting in the ratings.
Its the producers, not the talking heads.

Deconstruct the MSM, look at how it's wired,
create messages that takes advantage of the system,
expose the techniques, and educate to inoculate viewers.

[sabrina 1]

18. I agree and the best way to do that is to boycott them. Boycotts work. A few campaigns

by Liberal Orgs who contact advertisers eg, did work, airc, in stopping some of the lies when Kerry was running from airing.

But simply turning them off, and that IS happening, their ratings are not great at this point as young people in particular, get their news from other sources.

Still, enough people depend on them for their news to keep the 'racket' going, so I'm all for any ideas that can undermine the propaganda and provide alternatives where people can fact check their 'stories'.

I still like Boycotts. Money DOES talk and no advertiser is willing to lose money if they can avoid it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. What kind of "boycott"?

It would be fine to boycott MSM sponsors.
But boycotting the MSM outlets would
create a blind spot.

Better to watch and listen to better
deconstruct the messaging.

[sabrina 1]

23. Boycotting sponsors has worked well in the past.

Boycotting outlets is fine too, they need ratings to attract sponsors and when their ratings fall, they lose money. Money IS the driving force behind all of this, so I'm for starving the beast anyway and anywhere possible.

[Enthusiast]

16. +1! Excellent post.

[Vincardog]

2. This demonstrates the flaw with fighting the capitalist system. 1) accumulate enough CAPITAL

to build a nation wide TV/RADIO system... then you might have a chance.

Wrong
1) Decide what the general progressive value message is
2) Find candidates willing to fight for those values
(3) repeat the truths that reveal what is right about those values,
(4) act with courage to promote the sense of courage, confidence
and hope that allows the truth to be meaningful and powerful.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. Why is it "wrong"?

Your premise is "fighting the capitalist system".
Is that the goal of POPULISTS"?
Additionally, your premise plays into the current
frame and narrative about how to "message" the public.
You frame the issue as a mouse fighting a gorilla.

Changing the frame and narrative do not
require enough CAPITAL to build a nation wide TV/RADIO system.
In fact, it's probably the most clumsy and top heavy
tactic we could design.

[Vincardog]

10. There will be no progress made without "fighting the capitalist system".

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. I am unconvinced that fighting the capitalist system...

has any bearing on POPULISM as a movement.
Populism is about focusing policy priorities
on people and the public interests.

In a long game, the "capitalist system"
is a vehicle for change as much as
it is destructive force.

The linked article, with Lakoff underscores
the "brain science" of which the capitalist system
has completely wired for it's benefit.
Study the plumbing, see what connects to what,
find the supplies and drains and use the system
to advantage messaging.

Picking a fight with questionable goals and
unforeseeable outcomes is a short game
more likely to fail before it's begun...
See also: Sun Tzu

[Eleanors38]

17. Good points. Progressives will never have the $$ to build an alternative

media network or system. And they don't need to have that money. If our future movement has any juice to it, the media will report or de-legitimize itself. If there is any promise to the grand, democratizing, freedom-stuff in the internet, we will make our presence felt there as well.

Frankly, despite the Google-foo of some, or the geekier-than-thou strut of others, few really know how to use this stuff for political advantage.

We create media with our works, not the opposite.

[Vincardog]

27. Agreed. By our works shall they know us.

[yallerdawg]

5. Interesting article.

Maybe we can eventually catch up with Republican think tanks.

Very interesting about why people don't vote for self-interests!

There are deep truths that are known about how brains work, how our unconscious minds work, and the effect of language on the mind and brain. Those are vital truths, because only by mastering and using them can you avoid the traps of laundry list truths, truths that don’t add up to the communication of general progressive values, truths that have given us a Democratic Party that seems not to stand for any overriding value. Lists of truths that are not made meaningful by values are destined to be ignored. Make truths matter. Wed truths to values.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. Yes, "catch up"! lol, the irony ;~/

While the left-wing is using "fact" and "common sense"
the right-wing messaging is dealing the in sub-conscious
and unconscious processes.

Kinda like the difference between
"book smart" and "street smart"

[Cosmic Kitten]

7. Make truths matter. Wed truths to values.

Its about the paradigm!
Change the frame, capture the narrative

[GeorgeGist]

8. Sounds like he's saying that ...

Dems progressives need to play offense.

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. Yes. Not just offense, but change the game.

[Doctor_J]

11. really only need#1

If liberals instead of the far right had taken over the media 25 years ago, we would still be the shining light atop the hill, instead of the largest banana republic in history. Now we're not going to get it back without a real mess, and as seen on du, even a monstrosity like heritage care can be successfully sold with the right pitch.

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. #1 is the most important step.

However, the Left was never in a position
to "take over the media" due to "ownership".

The ownership promotes it's own self-interest.
They hire editors and producers to reflect those
interests and to control the framing of issues.
The left lost any control in media messaging
when they chose to "respond" to right-wing
talking points rather than change the conversation.
The 3rd Way has been a MSM enabler all along.

[sabrina 1]

19. Don't forget, it was a Liberal President who made that ownership possible.

But I do agree that playing defense is the worst way to go and that is what the Left has been doing. So yes, change the rules, go on the offensive. I believe that is happening, see the 2014 mid terms eg. People decided that DC no longer hears them, and focused on their own issues locally where they had more power to implement them.

The fact is, the power structure now in place took decades to build. So it is going to take time to rebuild and develop new tactics such as NOT responding to right-wing/third way talking points.

The Third Way has its own anti-Left talking points, so the Left has been assaulted from the Right and from within its own party.

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. Who, Clinton?

No quibble with you personally, but...
Calling Bill Clinton "liberal" seems a stretch?
Moderate Democrat, or maybe "liberal" Republican, IMO.

Clinton's economic policies overwhelmingly benefited
right-wing political interests, including Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In fact, It could be argued that the Telecommunications Act
cemented the right-wing grip on media and message control.
Not what most would consider "liberal".

[sabrina 1]

21. True, but at the time that is how he was presented and what the Right continues to call him.

I probably should have put the word in quotes.

And I absolutely agree regarding the Telecom Act, no Republican would have gotten away with. Which is why we have the Third Way in the Dem Party, to get at least one and a half parties on board for Right Wing political interests.

Having just one party wasn't enough.

[yallerdawg]

24. A simple masterful Republican frame:

"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - 1st Inaugural delivered by R. Reagan, January 1981

This is "the frame" of truth, an absolute moral value. Covers every act by Republicans since.

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

What could be our simple message?

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. What could be our simple message?

What does the right-wing frame
Government is not the solution to our problem;
government is the problem
intend to accomplish?

First, it legitimizing the cutting of Govt services,
the social safety net, public education etc.

Second, it creates a division between constituents
and public servants. An us vs them mentality.

Third, it demoralizes people looking for "leadership"
or "support" from their elected representatives.

Fourth, once that type of thinking is internalized
people would naturally have lowered expectations
of their elected representatives.
Lowed expectations allow continued degradation
of the quality of representation.

This explanation is not exhaustive, but should serve
to make the point of what such a talking point
is intended to accomplish.

To answer your question, "What could be our simple message?"
we first need to define the intended goal or outcome of any message.
IN the most basic sense there needs to be a reconnection
between the public and it's representatives.

To that end something like;
"WE the People are the Government"
Those people in Dee Cee are working for the public interests.
If there is a problem you know who to hold accountable.
Understand that is an unfocused and possibly misguided message
absent a clearly defined set of goals and expected results.

[yallerdawg]

26. Whatever the frame, message, slogan...

it has to be tangible in action, it has to deliver.

So, a simple populist progressive Democratic frame which covers all the goals, lists and platforms...

[hotrod0808]

28. This

is a great post. I hope our candidates use it to their advantage.

[UrbScotty]

29. Howard Dean said it best at Netroots Nation this year

"Issues are important - they matter - but they are proxies for our values."