Manipulating the News

If you write news or broadcast radio or TV news, here is a short guide book to manipulating your audience.

If you read news articles or listen to radio or TV news, here is a list of things you might watch and listen for to avoid being manipulated.

First, the general rules:

• Portray yourself as an innocent middleman, carrying messages selected, written, and sent by outsiders. You are not a player.  You are neutral.  Conceal you personal views.  Don’t brand yourself.  Portray yourself as the neutral guy it the middle, the helper, just funneling news through the system, You are objective.
• In truth you are the gatekeeper. You are the filter.  You decide what gets through and what does not.  You are subject to no law or binding code that determines how you must select the news (like “all must get through” or “both sides must be equally reported”  or “none gets through”).  You are part of the entrenched apparatus that owns and controls the means by which news and events are communicated to everyone.
• AND -- If someone challenges your neutrality or suggests that you are manipulating the news, cry foul and counter-attack that they are killing the messenger just because they don’t like the message. Attack them; do not  examine their message.   Reassert that you are objective, that you are a neutral transport company, that you do not edit, or selectively report.

Ex:  Michael Moran, Columnist, MSNBC “Media takes heat from administration over Iraq; When the going gets tough, the messenger gets shot.”

Second,  your tactics:

Appear the Hero.  Report that you “obtained” or that you “discovered” a secret military report.   Don’t say that it was given to you by someone, or that the government gave it to you.   This creates the impression that you dug in or snuck in and got something that was being concealed from the public.  It makes  you sound like the savior, and the government the opponent at whom we all need to be digging to get at the truth it would otherwise conceal from you. 

Ex:  5-4-03 CCN radio news: “A secret military report “OBTAINED” by CNN reveals Iraqi prisoner abuse.     

Paraphrase the Opposition.  Paraphrase what the guy you don’t like says.  Then play an actual sound clip of someone advocating the position you do like.  That is, if you like one political candidate and not the other, show your guy, and simply quote or paraphrase the guy you don’t.

Cast Doubt.   If you don’t generally support the US government or military and they say something, refer to it as a “claim”, or something that their spokesman “says”, and use the intonation of your voice to cast it as something that is questionable, not credible, or requires proof.   If the enemy or other side says it, then simply state it matter of factly, with the tone of your voice giving the impression it is probably true and something that our US government or military needs to disprove.

Mince Your Words. If you support social programs use the following tactics when discussing them:

• Do not report that the programs can take forever to show they will not work.
• Allow the programs to have second and third funding without showing objective results
• Report them as successful all the way along, and if statistics show they are not, attack the methodology of the statistics, or say that it is too early to tell.
• To resist a program designed to eliminate a social program, brand it a failure and ineffectual if it doesn’t succeed on the very first try, and report each little set back along the way. Report that some say it will be too costly.   Report after the first year that program has brought no change.  Do not report that the problems caused by the social program had been built up over years and make time to cure. 
• Appeal to pity by find a single advocate or welfare recipient face to put on the screen crying that they don’t know what they’ll do, etcetera.

Word Games.  When a political figure you don’t like sticks to his principals don’t refer to him in positive terms like “principled” or “sticking to his principals” or “steadfast”, “iron willed”  or ”determined”.   Rather, use pejoratives such as “stubborn” or “inflexible,” “narrow-mined”, or  “closed-minded.”  Pick words that convey negative or doubtful meanings when describing an activity you don’t like.

Ex:  NPR 5-3-04, re the Iraqi Defense of Falluja “now being ‘cobbled together’ “(not assembled or built).

Ex:  Hillary Clinton in 2004 blamed Bush for being stubborn on Iraq and not changing his mind.   Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan were stubborn and unyielding too.

Steal The Bright Spots.

If you don’t support the larger picture, then discredit any good moral boosting story which would help it by reporting  as a equal counter-truth unsupported rumors that discredit it.

Ex:     The Jessica Lynch rescue was great.   So report an Iraqi who says it was not really necessary.   Don’t report the Iraqi lawyer who said he saw what was happening to her and risked his life to report it to us and lead us to her.

EX:  Local Florida newspaper front page one week: “Operation Matador completed.   Marines admit many got away”.   May 2005.

EX:  Local Florida newspaper front page another week:  “Large airstrike kills 40 rebels.  Militants, though, hit Baghdad hard.”  May 2005.

Quagmire Storyline.  When you don’t support a military action,  undermine moral by reporting how bad the whole thing will be for America, and reporting all of the bad news and little of the good news.   This will gradually cause the public to tire of being members of the losing team.    When it undermines military action or foreign policy you don’t like, report the situation as a huge threatening intractable problem and a sure indictor of things certain to come.  Cover it extensively.   When the military solves the problem  completely and successfully,   report it as a footnote.  Do not headline it as a huge success for the US in its efforts, as was done in WW2.  

Like it Never Happened.  When you don’t support a military action, and the commander in chief wants to address the nation about it, do not broadcast the speech.   This will assure that he cannot use the bully pulpit to talk directly to the people who elected him,  and that you control the message.

Ex:  5-24-04 President Bush Iraq Speech at 8:00pm est.  Then, so that it doesn’t look like you are doing what you are really doing use one of the following methods:

Method 1.  Recap the President’s speech on your morning news with a very brief clip from it.  Surround it with your own data so as to caste doubt in it.    Use phrases like “the president tried to lay out an exit strategy.  But….” 

See NBC morning news 5-25-04.  Do not mention that as the official voice of America, with the constitutional power to actually DO something other than talk (he can kill people), his strategy IS in fact the exit strategy.

Method 2.  Do not run clips from speech.  Instead, restate it in your own words.  Run clips from an interview with Secretary of State talking about the speech instead. Then run pre-speech poll numbers about war.

See Good Morning America. 5-25-04 at 8:00 a.m.

Method 3.   Do not air the speech.  Do not run clips of speech.  Do not run interviews or officials.  Just air your own brief mention of it without any substantive details other than a speech occurred.  Run bad more mews on bad stuff happening in Iraq.

Method 4.  Do not run speech.  The next night, run extensive 10 minute coverage of how President has “failed to stop the slide of public opinion.”  Run fresh footage of an opposing Senator (Joseph Biden) railing about meeting with NATO allies in Europe (as though that would involve them more, when they had made their position perfectly clear).  Run interviews talking about turning it over to the UN (as through they would want it or could even do it, and if so would still use our troops like they do everywhere (but don’t mention this fact)).   Run interviews about how the President is talking about the future yet the present is on fire and failing.   In short, do not run a speech where he explains his plan, and instead have your people tear his plan apart in case anyone managed to learn what his plan was through the grapevine.  That will turn the speech into a non-event.  

See CBS and NBC evening News, 5-25-04 6:30 pm

Doubtful Dispersions.  If you don’t support a government public safety announcement, or want to cause people to doubt the government’s ability in an area, place a unjustified counter-weight against the main point.  When the CIA and FBI make a public warning about possible terrorist attacks based on their best available knowledge, you find anyone with a uniform such as a local police chief who quickly and without investigating or analyzing any of what led to the warning (or even being privy to the information) says that without any specifics that the announcement it is not helpful.  Then place that as an equally weighted counter-point against the main announcement to cast it into conflict.  The point is, whatever comes from the administration, cast doubt on it.   Next, bring in political commentators to say that it is only announced for politics, not because these agencies want to protect us.  Do not mention that your network earlier criticized the CIA and FBI for failing to connect up and share information that people might have been prevented the kind of attacks they are now warning us about.

Ex: CNN  5:00 pm 5-26-04 regarding the CIA and FBI making a public warning of possible attacks and the need to locate certain possible infiltrators in a time of war.

Loaded Lingo.  Use loaded words or leading questions to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the efforts an administration you don’t like.   In May 2002, the Homeland Security Department announced a possible security that threat and they were looking for seven individuals.

Ex: ABC Evening News, 6:30pm 5-26-04: “despite all that has supposedly been done to tighten our borders….”  

Assumptions and Evidence.  Always question the facts and evidence of the camp or viewpoint you don’t like   Do not question your assumptions or your camp.   Proceed on assumptions when using information which denigrates the other camp or the viewpoint you don’t like.   Require strict proof before proceeding with anything that could hurt your side or the viewpoint you like.

Ex:  Remember the debute of touch-screen voting machines in South Florida in 2004?   Reporters obligatorily scrambled about to find one or two idiots in the crowd to whine about how they could not touch the screen correctly.   They did not question their competency, and did not point out that most of the rest of the reasonable people could, and did not point out that under the law the test is whether a reasonable person could do so.

When it is something that will hurt your candidate or cause, you must to assure proper high quality journalism investigate it carefully, taking your time to have corroborating witnesses and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Such as relying on one witness to reject the whole story.

Ex:  the total lack of interest by any of the major media in investigating what virtually all of John Kerry’s fellow soldiers and the Swift Boat Vets were saying about his true record.

When it is something that will help your candidate or cause, rush it to air  without investigations or supporting facts.  Simply report that a newspaper has reported it (as if reporting what a report has reported is news or first source), or rely on one witness to support the entire story.

Ex:  CBS reported as real a fake letter about President Bush and the Guard during the final days before the 2004 election.

Slanted Investigation.  To trash a something you don’t like (such as a proposed tax change, or a proposed military activity):

• Say you are going to conduct an investigate report on it.
• Interview people or use guests who reflect your views
• Use brief shots of suffering people, tied in some manner to the proposal.
• Have the guests, or quote your guest, as using words like “wacky” or “scheme” or “doubtful.”
• Avoid calling it a plan.
• Avoid mentioning that it offers a study period, or a possibility of working.

Branding.  Use branding to skew perceptions in the direction you would like.  Label people with the brand you want associated with them.   Do not label those you want to appear neutral or who you want to appear more normal, disinterested, objective, and more wisely listened to.  Make the guy you are rooting for seem intelligent, and give the impression the other guy is dumb. 

Ex:  covering a political event as people walk into a room.   Certain news commentators will introduce certain among those entering as “conservative” or controversial.  They do not introduce certain others as liberals, instead referring to them as “the distinguished Senator from…” or simply “the Senator from.”

EX: President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 race.  In truth, both had same grades.   Biased press gave the impression that Kerry was the intellectual and Bush the coat-tailing dullard.

Kid Gloves and Boxing Gloves.  When you interviewing a guest whose views you like, just ask polite broad questions and let them carry on. 

When you are interviewing a guest whose views you don’t like,  politely make them constantly prove their views, explain what they have done, and justify themselves.

Ex:     Larry King with Sen. Ted Kennedy in 2004 just nodding and letting him carry on.

Ex:     Larry King with Pres. and Laura Bush during 2004 election repeatedly interrupting, remonstrating, and stating “Wasn’t it as mistake …?” , “yes but wouldn’t you agree it was a mistake?” 

Shuffle Fact Deck.  In an article put the facts that are against your view at the very end.  An honorable mention.  You can also let start by stating your side, then the side you don’t like, and then let some from your side rebut and then stop.   This technique makes it look balanced, when it really isn’t.

Misdirection.  To rally people behind what you want them to rally behind, put a face on the news article with which they can identity:

SARS:  99% of affected person were in Asia; but to get us to care about it Time or Newsweek magazine put a young white women on their cover.

AIDS:  Chiefly affects minorities and homosexuals.  But it is reported as affecting whites and heterosexuals so that we feel threatened and willing to spend disproportionate amounts of money on it in comparison the others diseases that kill many times more people each year.

Homeless people:  use pictures that look like our neighbors, not truly unkempt homeless people

Statistical Smorgasbord.  If a study comes out that shows statistics contrary to what you want advocated, label it “controversial”  or find someone (you can always find “someone”)  to claim it is “flawed”.  Or interview another reporter.  Like their an expert just because they’ve been regurgitating information from experts?   Find a study that opposes it.

Juggle the Numbers.   Increase the numbers to support the position you prefer. If the estimated size of a problem you care about ranges, take the highest figure.  Suggest that it is increasing.  Do the opposite to numbers the position you do not like.

Selective Targeting.  Don’t focus on news stories about topics that can hurt your guy when he’s in office.  Cover those stories when the other guy is in.

Ex: Homelessness was supposedly rampant while Reagan was president, and everyone reported on it

Ex:  Supposedly homelessness disappeared immediately while Clinton was President, at least no one reported on it.

The Burning Caboose.  If you don’t like the President and his foreign trip is going well and there is little criticism to report,  state that fact in your opening sentence and then insert a comma or pause, and follow up with speculative worries about what could happen down the road.  After stating the issue of possible worries, interview someone about those worries.   Do not interview someone regarding the good half of your opening sentence.   That way the first half gets lost and the audience either forgets it or gets the impression that the second half is a careful analysis which outweigh the first half.

Ex: CNN on or about 2-23-05:  the president’s trip is going well;  but could concerns about difference cause worries down the road?

Tilt the Scales.  Find a quote from the other side to make it appear that the other side is of equal weight.  Don’t let on that the other side’s view is 1%.  By placing it against the 99% view, and not mentioning the qualifier, it makes it look co-equal.  This increases the validity other view.  Keep repeating it.  It become accepted as a counter-view.

Trick Photography.  When it suits your needs use a tight shot or select  a close-up still photo that makes it look like a really big crowd was there, when actually it wasn’t.   Don’t report the actual numbers for each side.   Use the same number of quotations from each side, even if one side was outnumbered 100 to 1.  This will make the side you don’t support look  no more successful, middle of the road, normal,  or normal,  than the other side.   It will appear as though they are equally normal and accepted.

Bury the Bone.  If a news event happens that does not look good for your views, don’t report it, or bury in the back of the paper or newscast if you have to cover it at all.

Reverse Cost-Benefit.

When you report on something you support, report about what will be gained through it, and do not report about the cost or the risks.  When you report on something you oppose, do the opposite.

          Ex:  John Kerry:  oh my God 1,000 lives lost in Iraq

Ex:  Pres. Roosevelt:  the great society, what a great idea!

Repetition.  The key to selling is repetition in advertising. So pick out a theme and pattern and repeat it. 

Steal their Wind.

When you have to report good news about the camp or the position you do not like, take the wind away by adding a bad news tagline. 

EX:  Local Florida newspaper front page one week: “Operation Matador completed.   Marines admit many got away”.   May 2005.

EX:  Local Florida newspaper front page another week:  “Large airstrike kills 40 rebels.  Militants, though, hit Baghdad hard.”  May 2005.

Martin C. Boire

Martin C. Boire is just another American who is well-educated, been around, seen a lot, and done a lot.

© PowerOfTruth.Com.  All rights reserved.