Frameshop | Damsels in Distress

What's the key issue to come out of the Schiavo affair?  No, it's not the culture of life or the difficulty of end of life decisions.  

The real issue is this:  the disappearance of "terrorism" as the key frame for all of American politics has gone completely unnoticed by the American media.  Instead of wondering where this important topic has gone--or wondering if it was ever really important to the Bush administration if they could drop it so suddenly--the media has shifted all of its resources to the Schiavo Affair.

[Cross posted from Frameshop]

Damsels in Distress...Again

On the night of September 10, 2001--as a dozen Al Qaeda operatives packed their bags for a trip that would change the course of history--the American public was glued to its TV set, obsessing over a young intern, whose sexual affair with a U.S. Congressman and subsequent disappearance from Washington, DC had dominated the media seemingly without end.  Were it not for news of the Twin Towers being hit, the Chandry Levy Affair would have generated a media circus to rival even the chazerai surrounding Terry Schiavo.  In the months that followed 9/11, however, the warnings and threats of terrorism framed every political issue and the Levy Affair vanished.  But since George W. Bush's re-election, those terrorism warnings have become all but a distant memory, and the attention of the American public is once again adrift:  in search of another focus, another frame, another damsel in distress.

Beyond the question of government intrusion into our private lives, the Schiavo Affair signals a return to a classic American obsession with "damsels in distress" on TV.  Even more startling, the Schiavo Affair has demonstrated the willingness of big budget media to lead with the Schiavo Affair through two weekly news cycles.  Rarely, if ever, does one story carry that much weight in the production of news, let alone the story of one person.

All of this suggests, sadly,  that the American public is once again bored with governmental politics in the same way that they were bored prior to 9/11.   And as a result, the media and our elected officials have latched onto the Schiavo Affair to generate some kind of response.

True, there have been many interesting ethical and political debates to come out of the Schiavo Affair.  But just about anything pumped constantly into the public airwaves for weeks and weeks will spark an ethical debate or two--even something as banal as a 0.5 second video of a woman's breast during the Superbowl.  

But how could it be that that the public is once again so bored?  There is so much happening in government these days that it is hard to imagine anyone not taking an interest.  

For example, the President is spending millions in taxpayer money to convince voters to dismantle Social Security.  Our children, parents, brothers and sisters continue to die in a war that was supposed to be long since over by now.   Our national reserves of unspoiled landscape--a topic so important that Thomas Jefferson devoted his life to it--are now being turned over to oil companies who will destroy them in order to produce barely enough gasoline to fill our SUVs for a year.

There must be something in all these issues  that could bring people to their TV sets!  But apparently, governmental politics is not enough.  The public is bored, again.

So what has changed?

Terror Alerts End, the Public Gets Bored

With so much focus on the Schiavo Affair, most Americans probably haven't even noticed that it's been months since we've had a terrorist alert.  

Remember how it was a long, long, long time ago--when every time we turned on the television we saw the ashen faces of John Ashcroft or Tom Ridge telling us that the there was a new terrorism threat and that we should use caution?  Well...all that has vanished.  The public concern over terrorism, driven by the re-election ambitions of George W. Bush and the political strategy of Karl Rove--it is all gone.  

Terrorism, of course, hasn't changed.  In fact, the world has more terrorists than ever as a result of George W. Bush's mishandled war in Iraq.

 The only thing that has changed is that the Bush White House is no longer framing every singe political debate in terms of terrorism and the threat of terrorism.  Remember what that was like?  

"If you support John Kerry's tax plan, a nuclear bomb will explode in your town!"

"If you vote for John Kerry, a nuclear bomb will explode in your town!"

"If you don't stop the Democrats, a nuclear bomb will explode in your town!"

Ahhh.  Those were simpler times.  

But all that is gone now, and as a result both Democrats and Republicans are having trouble holding the attention of the American public.

For example, in order to get people's attention about his Social Security scheme, the President needed to take his campaign on the road.  For anyone who is not following this Presidential road show, George W. Bush is working harder to "educate" the public on his views of Social Security than he ever worked during his re-election campaign.    And still, nobody seems to be listening.  

As for the Democrats, their efforts are also falling on deaf ears.  With the exception of a dedicated core of party activists, the Democratic effort to draw attention to the problems in Iraq or to sound the alarm about the fiscal disaster created by the Bush White House--nada.  Nobody is listening.

America's boredom with governmental politics, it would seem, is the only real bipartisan affair out there.  

When the Customer Won't Come to the Store...

In the midst of this latest round of national boredom, the lawyers for the Schindler family have been able to use the airwaves to create a story compelling enough to gain momentum and to garner the patronage of politicians desperate for attention.

Tom Delay, for example, did not seek out the Schindler family and ask them if he could advocate on behalf of their daughter.   Rather, the Schindler family's issue was one of many issues that ended up in a pile of political topics on Tom Delay's desk--along with hundreds of other urgent matters.  For months, Delay and his staff looked at the Schindler issue and dismissed it for something else they thought was more important, such as keeping their boss out of the Texas state penal system.    Then, finally, as of a few weeks ago, Delay and his staff decided that they would give the Schindler's a try.  Why?  Because they thought it would capture the attention of voters.  

And the same can be said of Jeb Bush.  And the same can be said of Jeb Bush's brother.  

What changed in America was not the condition or the story of Terry Schiavo such that suddenly, key government officials took an interest in the case.  What changed was the realization on the part of politicians that they were out of anything else that might capture the attention of the American public.  So they went with the damsel in distress.  And whadya know:  it worked.  

American Politics Again without a Dominant Frame

What's the key issue to come out of the Schiavo affair?  No, it's not the culture of life or the difficulty of end of life decisions.  

The real issue is this:  the disappearance of "terrorism" as the key frame for all of American politics has gone completely unnoticed by the American media.  Instead of wondering where this important topic has gone--or wondering if it was ever really important to the Bush administration if they could drop it so suddenly--the media has shifted all of its resources to the Schiavo Affair.

For the GOP, the Schiavo Affair seems to have generated new energy and new enthusiasm, albeit with an ambiguous outcome.    In entering the fray, the GOP did something it rarely does:  it launched a PR campaign before it had been rigorously tested by their PR firms.  As a result, the GOP leadership lined up behind the Schiavo issue--the way they line up on every issue--and the American public turned against them.

For the Democrats, the turn to the Schiavo affair was so sudden that it took them by surprise.  Completely by surprise.  Until Jesse Jackson showed up in Florida to pose with the Schindler's (yesterday), no Democrat at all had directly involved herself in the Schiavo Affair.  That Jesse Jackson is now the face of the Democratic involvement in this issue suggests that the DNC is worried that the frame brought on by the issue (e.g., the so-called "culture of life" debate) is threatening to be a good enough frame that it could get the public interested again.

But is the public really interested in what the GOP has to say?  

It doesn't seem that they are.  All that really seems certain is that the public is once again obsessed with a damsel in distress, the same way they were obsessed with Chandra Levy.  

So, while Americans pray for and politicans prey on Terry Schiavo, they should also hope that it doesn't take another 9/11 to get the public interested in real politics again.  That would be a real tragedy.  

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Bush administration condemmed in report as failing
Maybe its because a government report (see http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20050331_wmd_report.pdf )

on the potential for terrorism with unconventional weapons just came out .. (see link above)

-in which the Bush administration is clearly painted as being obsessed with issues that conflict with their oft-stated goal of protecting the American people..  In other words.. our REAL national security..

They are failing on national security..

From

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/31/politics/31cnd-intel.html

(free registration required)

Report Calls U.S. Intelligence 'Dead Wrong' on Iraq Weapons
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 31 - The American intelligence community was "dead wrong" about Iraq's weapons arsenal in large part because of an outdated Cold War mentality and a vast, lumbering bureaucracy that continues to shackle dedicated and capable people, a presidential commission said today.

"The intelligence community must be transformed - a goal that would be difficult to meet even in the best of all possible worlds," the commission said in its report to President Bush. "And we do not live in the best of worlds."

The commission said the erroneous assumption by intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein possessed deadly chemical and biological weapons had damaged American credibility before a world audience, and that the damage would take years to undo.

Only systemic changes in thinking and acting - changes that will surely bring discomfort to agencies and individuals - will bring the intelligence system to a point where it can cope with the dangers of the 21st century, the commission said. It said, too, that some recent attempts to effect change - notably the intelligence-reorganization act that created the powerful position of national intelligence director - did not go far enough.

Despite some conspicuous successes, like exposing a nuclear-proliferation network run by a rogue Pakistani scientist and gathering significant data on Libya's arsenal, America's intelligence agencies are not keeping up with the deadly threats the country now faces, the panel concluded.

"There is no more important intelligence mission than understanding the worst weapons that our enemies possess, and how they intend to use them against us," the commission declared. "These are their deepest secrets, and unlocking them must be our highest priority."

President Bush said today he agreed that the intelligence bureaucracy "needs fundamental change," and he pledged to try to bring it about. Copies of the report were distributed to members of Congress, and the lawmakers are certain to debate its findings, and what to do about them.

The false assumptions about Iraq's arsenal were not the result of deliberate distortion, nor were they influenced by pressure from outside the agencies. Rather, it said, they came about because the intelligence bureaucracy collected far too little information, "and much of what they did collect was either worthless or misleading."

Describing the intelligence bureaucracy as "fragmented, loosely managed and poorly coordinated," the commission said the government's 15 intelligence organizations "are a 'community' in name only and rarely act with a unity of purpose."

The commission, headed by Laurence H. Silberman, a senior federal appeals court judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former Virginia governor and senator, echoed some of the findings of earlier inquiries into American intelligence failures.

Like the commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which also studied intelligence lapses leading up to the American-led war against Iraq, the Silberman-Robb commission singled out some of the most familiar entities in the bureaucracy - the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation - as well as the huge National Security Agency, much of whose function is electronic eavesdropping and analysis.

"The C.I.A. and N.S.A. may be sleek and omniscient in the movies, but in real life they and other intelligence agencies are vast government bureaucracies," the nine-member commission told the president.

"They are bureaucracies filled with talented people and armed with sophisticated technological tools, but talent and tools do not suspend the iron laws of bureaucratic behavior," the commission said. "The intelligence community is a closed world, and many insiders admitted to us that it has an almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations."

The F.B.I. has made progress in shifting itself into an intelligence-gathering organization but "it still has a long way to go," the commission said. Moreover, it said, the intelligence-reorganization act leaves the bureau's relationship to the new national intelligence director, John Negroponte, "especially murky."

The Silberman-Robb panel sought to avoid a condemning tone. "We have been humbled by the difficult judgments that had to be made about Iraq and its weapons programs," it said at one point. "We are humbled too by the complexity of the management and technical challenges intelligence professionals face today."

---------

by ultraworld 2005-03-31 08:33AM | 0 recs
Interesting observation Feldman
I hadn't notice the phase shift, thanks for pointing that out. My question is where are this dedicated core of party activists and who are they? Are any of them elected officials? Why aren't they going on the talking bonehead shows?

When are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi going to let the Democratic attack dogs out?

As for the Democrats, their efforts are also falling on deaf ears.  With the exception of a dedicated core of party activists, the Democratic effort to draw attention to the problems in Iraq or to sound the alarm about the fiscal disaster created by the Bush White House--nada.  Nobody is listening.

Maybe nobody is saying anything. Allow me to reference a catalogue of my complaints with the Democratic party that I just shared with Rep. Slaughter.

Maybe the American people aren't buying what the Democrats are selling because nobody can figure out what they are selling. Before you have a brand name you can market you have to have something to brand. The Democrats have been a big fat disappointing zero this year. Why should the American people get excited about or even pay any attention to a bunch of zeros?  

Gee, I guess that explains why Reid and Pelosi and Biden (Biden?) made it so clear that Howard Dean does not represent the party on policy issues. They wanted to make sure that the Democratic party remained committed to the same nothing platform that the American people didn't buy from John Kerry. God forbid we give them anything to get excited about. It's much safer to be zeros and losers.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-31 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting observation Feldman
I think we have a long way down before the play-it-safe Democrats get tired.  
by Jeffrey Feldman 2005-03-31 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting observation Feldman
Their stamina and determination in defense of ennui has absolutely astounded me. I keep hoping that any day now they will break out in a fit of irrational exuberance over . . . something.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-31 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting observation Feldman
I think they will sooner break out in a fit of irrational snoozing!  

Oiy, it's Friday...

by Jeffrey Feldman 2005-03-31 10:48AM | 0 recs
Damsels?
Hi Jeffrey,

I'm glad you posted this: I was wondering the other idea what happened to the terror alerts.  I'm wondering what this means for the near future.  Will Iraq make people wake up?  Will a more vigorous Democratic party?

A few additional thoughts about Terri Sciavo:  I'm not sure that "damsel in distress' is the right narrative model for the Sciavo case, or at least for the GOP efforts to turn her into a martyr.

It's worth noting that, unlike a typical damsel, Terri Sciavo couldn't talk. As a result, there were multiple attempts to talk for her, or more precisely, multiple attempts to make her part of a story.  You're right that the Christian Right is intent on preserving the divine in any form of human incarnation (an embryo or a patient like Terri Sciavo).  It's striking that in both of those cases, n making their case, they speak for or more precisely, project their voice on to someone who can't speak.  In effect the Christian Right assumes divine like powers through this act: act the same time, this move is intended to give them moral authority over public policy. Thus, if the audience identifies with the fetus or Terri Sciavo, the power relations between the Right and the voiceless will mirror the power of the GOP over the audience (citizens.)

But what they didn't see was that the audience would identify with Terri Sciavo, only to her, draw very different conclusions from the Right (" I don't want to end up like her.") And that in turn made it very easy to identify with the husband, not with the GOP crusaders.

by KDMfromPhila 2005-03-31 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Damsels?
And it didn't  hurt that the right wing protesters are all certifiably insane.  

Among other things, it revealed that Bush and Bush are willing to flirt with the Christian right, but they don't want to be blamed when their "base" starts burning hospitals.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2005-03-31 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Damsels? correction
The lasst paragraph should go like this:  But what they didn't see was that the audience would identify with Terri Sciavo, only to  draw very different conclusions from the Right (" I don't want to end up like her.") And that in turn made it very easy to identify with the husband, not with the GOP crusaders.

Now the question is:  will the averae voter connect the fanatics outside the hospice with Senate Republicnas who ant to end the filibuster rule?

by KDMfromPhila 2005-03-31 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Damsels? correction
Maybe we should stage a protest where we all put put pieces of red tape on our mouths with "Delay and Frist are Cowards" written on it.  That might help people make the connection.
by Jeffrey Feldman 2005-03-31 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Damsels? correction
LOL!  The red tape is a great idea!!
by KDMfromPhila 2005-03-31 03:54PM | 0 recs
I'm not sure if
I buy the premise that the Schiavo matter reflects a return to "normalcy" in our culture . . . although you're right that the "damsel in distress" narrative is a staple of our society, I don't think it follows that this story means we're "over" 9/11.

Your assumption -- that this story is getting the amout of play it is because it's all people are interested in -- simply isn't supported. The story is as big as it is because the people at the levers of power decided to draw the whole world's attention to it. They've done this before with "damsel in distress" stories which distracted the world from real news.

The Condit-Levy matter was one example. The Jessica Lynch story was another. These are all cases which were made into highly-publicized stories because of Reep involvement. Although any one of them would have been a worthwhile story in its own right, in each case the Reeps inflated and distorted the story -- like a TV movie based on real events -- to resonate with the public and help the story drive everything else off the front pages.

Sure, terror alerts and other nonsense might serve the same purpose, but I don't see any milestone in switching emphasis. In all likelihood, this is just a hiatus in the fearmongering before the Iran campaign gets underway.

by catastrophile 2005-03-31 02:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------