Don't Go Into The Light

Continuing from yesterday - here's a reprisal of the comment from DragonFlyEye that spurred this post:

LB,

Due respect, but what about what's actually going on? You make a lot of critcisms about the left, myself included, for not being entirely accurate but you gloss over the entire issue of the legitimacy of the VNR's. Truth be told, this is actually a trend started by the Clinton and not the Bush Administration. I say that to forstall the inevitable "Clinton started it" rant. The fact is that they're out there and becoming more commonly used by the Administrative Branch; irrespective of what issue or policy they are being used to support, don't you think that the trend alone is worth fighting against?

Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics. Presidential politics are generally cumulative in this way. We can, therefore, make a strong case that the next presidential administration ~ be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever ~ will undoubtably employ these types of tactics if they are not squashed. President Bush has seen fit to use signing statements to go around the Constitution and around the Congress, what makes you think he won't go around an organ *of the adminsitrative branch* which he controls?

We almost certainly disagree on a wide swath of our politics, but surely you cannot be so cavalier about institutionalizing propaganda?

First, I appreciate the caveat about the practice's history. I wouldn't have used it in that context, but it is useful to note that this is not new. Nor do I see as substantial a rise in usage as raw numbers would make it seem. Producing VNRs surely has increased in cost, the figure of twice as much compared to a similar period in Clinton's administration may not be entirely fair. This article (probably the most complete I've seen on the subject) doesn't give a comparison of the number of VNRs released, which in my mind would be definitive if one wants to discover the amount of increase during the Bush administration. Note that I'm not saying that there hasn't been an increase. I'm sure there has. But I've yet to find the right numbers to measure it. Maybe a reader could help.

Fortunately, that shortcoming in data is irrelevant to the larger issues. The arguments on the right are entirely sympathetic to the reality that this administration has a difficult time getting it's message out. DragonFlyEye is largely correct with "Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics." I would add that the page taken from the Clinton handbook wasn't the large type edition, and nobody in the White House has their reading glasses handy when referring to it.

The Bush administration has had a poor relationship with the press since the beginning of his first term. Why, I can't say. Perhaps the intensity and tone of the media coverage during the Florida recount made the administration gun shy. Regardless, this administration has kept itself at arms length from the media since its early days. As a result, the media has been more combative than it would have been otherwise - though I daresay that this is comparing two levels of relative unfriendliness.

And unfriendly the media has been, and still is. That we're discussing VNRs is in itself an indication - if the media were willing to shill for the administration, as I've seen some on the left claim, would VNRs even be necessary?

The argument on the left covers more ground - after all, they've covered the subject more than the right. The GAO report that suggested the government VNRs may not be legal gets mentioned frequently, and most of the arguments claim the VNRs constitute "propaganda".

Legality is actually the easiest to tackle. I don't buy into the notion that a VNR properly labeled as government sourced is covert. The news articles I've read all indicate that the government has been pretty good about identifying itself as the source. It seems to me that the burden falls on the stations that broadcast the VNRs without passing on that disclosure. Same goes for corporate VNRs. There are other legal issues I've seen brought up, but I'm no lawyer and have no desire to embarass myself.

Ethics comes up as the second most used argument on the left. And ethics generally involves much higher standards than law provides. While the right argues the usefulness of VNRs (after all, who could argue that warning kids to stay off drugs is an inherently bad thing?) the left argues that it's sneaky. And the left trusts nothing that this administration says or does, and tends to overwork issues like this as bigger than they really are as a result. But the argument isn't without merit just because its delivered with excessive handwringing - dressing up what amounts to a video version of a press release as if it were actually produced by a legitimate news organization is sneaky. That alone could blunt the effectiveness of the message - since the messenger in all of these VNRs employ a deceptive delivery method, why believe the message?

On the question of whether this is propaganda - my answer isn't going to satisfy. From Merriam-Webster on-line:

Propaganda - 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

The definition is so broad that any government communication, regardless of content, would fit. Yeah, VNRs are propaganda. So was Harry Reid's last press conference, and the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn. But since the word is almost always intended to have a negative effect, I find it repugnant that folks would label an anti-drug message or a farm report that way simply to cast the administration in a negative light. So I roundly reject its use in this case as inflammatory and irrelevant.

My thoughts are that the ethical view should prevail even though legally the administration may be okay. Our government has plenty of alternative methods to get it's message out. Using disguises shouldn't be among them. While I do feel for the administration's PR problems, from an ethical standpoint they'd be well advised to cease the practice. And from my point of view that applies regardless of which party is in power.

I guess that there's some common ground here after all, DragonFlyEye. And I'll post any response you may wish to offer.

I'd love to see some comments on this - I'm sure I've left plenty of room to debate. Any takers?