Sponsors

Abstract vs. Personal War: How the GOP Spins 2000 Deaths Email Print

By Drew Johnston
10/28/2005 09:18:02 PM EST

I'd like to preface this post by wishing everyone a Merry Fitzmas (and a Happy Fitznukah to our Jewish readers). I'm sure you've already heard about Scooter, so I'll spare you another reiteration of the details. As the indictments drag on, I'll be sure to keep you updated on the spin situation - that is, how the righties plan on excusing a series of crimes that are far more serious than the counts that got Clinton impeached. (Early reporting shows that the strategy may be the "Deny Everything" tactic. "Who is this Bill Clinton of whom you speak?")

Now, on to the actual post.

This week, we hit a landmark in Iraq - the 2000th U.S. fatality. Obviously, this was a sad occasion that was ruthlessly spun by people with more bile than remorse. Now, I know that you all watch the Daily Show, which means you've probably been watching the Colbert Report as well. (You have, right? Good. There will be a test later.) Because of this, I'm sure that most of you have also seen the egregious display that the pundits at Fox & Friends put on that day. Usual drill - 2000 deaths isn't that much, Vietnam blah blah blah not all of them were actually blown up, and etc. It's a heartless argument, to be sure, but will it work? Good question.

I have a theory on media coverage of war. There are two ways to cover war - the Abstract Method ("Two thousand? Is that all? Hardly significant!") and the Personal Method ("Think about it - four thousand parents burying their children. How tragic."). Which method you use depends on how things are going. If you supported the war and its going poorly, you try to keep the focus on the abstract, because war in the abstract sense is never as tragic as war at the personal level. Here's what you have to remember, however - in a head-to-head comparison, the personal response wins every time. In the old days, it was acceptable to be in favor of war for its own sake, but the rise of mass communication put an end to that. Now that we can actually see the horrors of war from our armchairs, it doesn't seem so nice. The first time someone sees a badly wounded soldier being carted off the battlefield, the seeds of doubt are planted.

All of this means that it's tough to be pro-war in this day and age. So how do you pull it off? Simple - you never let the people see the personal side of war. Most people lack either the time or desire to go behind the headlines, as it were. So, if you run the television network or the newspaper, you can keep people from seeing the personal, and most folks will never know they're being bamboozled.

And that's why conservatives hate Cindy Sheehan.

There's a danger in using the above strategy. It only works if the population never knows any better. If the public is allowed to see any glimmer of the personal face of war, then the abstract side looks, well, cruel. They'll keep trying to bring the focus back to those cold, impersonal numbers, but ultimately it's never the same. Maybe you can fool the hardcore bellicists, but that's it.

Think about this as the administration continues its horrible death spiral.


KEYWORDS: , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

Related Articles

Disclaimer: "Related Articles" are provided as a service to our readers (Via Google News Feeds created using this article's 'Keywords' as the search terms to generate the feed). It is important to note that if a "Related Articles" list is included with this story, the list will be updated frequently subsequent to the posting of this story and may thus contain articles with information not yet known at the time of this story's original publication.

< Why Does Bush Insist on Calling the Iraq War the War on Terror? | Bush Asks for Sacrifice? Does He Know Anything About Sacrifice? >
 Display:
Abstract vs. Personal War: How the GOP Spins 2000 Deaths | 2 comments (2 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
You've hit the nail on the head (none / 0)
Depersonalization is the key here. Why else would they not want coffins of dead soldiers photographed? Why do you think Bush doesn't attend funerals? I think it's to keep photos of the families' faces and grief away from being associated with him.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the abstract is even working. I read something around the net in the past 24 hours (too lazy to look it up) that the Vietnam analogy is actually not accurate because this is worse, if you're counting how many soldiers died in the first two years of our involvement in Vietnam compared with the same period for Iraq.

by Silly Me on 10/28/2005 10:15:22 PM EST

I'm not a number... (none / 0)
...I have a name!

Way too human for war mongers.

The Albany Project. The best damned blog about New York State politics.

by NYBri on 10/28/2005 10:36:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Abstract vs. Personal War: How the GOP Spins 2000 Deaths | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: