The Good, The Bad, and THE MEDIA… Competitive Metaphors
May 13, 2008
Posted by Deborah Hancock
It seems you can’t open a page in the media without coming across a metaphor of conflict or competition with regard to social issues. Scholarly observers and Feminists, among others, have long pointed out that the media seems to delight in the use of violent metaphor with regard to what are essentially non-violent issues. For example, our current long-running presidential primary is seeing statements like “Increasing numbers of Democratic primary voters have become entrenched behind their candidate,” (the Associated Press) and Barack Obama “Should be respectful of Clinton if he wants her army of activist supporters to line up on his side in the general election should Clinton lose the nomination” (The Boston Herald.com.) Regarding Chris Dodd, “Dodd battled for attention and campaign contributions, and earned less than 1 percent of the vote.” (the Associated Press)
Of course the Primary is just the most easily found glaring example of this phenomenon. Business communication is also rife with examples, as are the mutterings of the “pundit class.” Here’s an example from Rush Limbaugh: (May 8, 2008 transcript) “So our {oil} production has been cut in half in 20 years. And, see, it’s been a slow bleed. That wasn’t a dramatic overnight thing, and so its impact was not immediately felt…. There’s enough American oil we could go get, 112 billion barrels, which would be enough to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years, but we have moratoriums on drilling for all this. The environmentalists are the only ones who are happy about this. This is an attack on capitalism. It’s nothing about environment. It’s nothing about saving the planet. It is an attack on capitalism and an attempt to cut this country down to size. And they’re succeeding with the help of the Democrat Party.” Chris Matthews, the presenter on Hardball, in his December 20, 2007 edition, Matthews asked: “Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate Obama’s candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there’s any chance he catches on?”
Everyday conversation is full of competitive and violent imagery, as well. Consider “I could just kill you,” “clawing their way to the top,” “that cut me to the quick,” and so forth.
Prior to research which showed that viewers tended to suffer from “compassion fatigue” when being shown public service advertisements and the like with pictures of bruised and battered women and children, 1 most advertisements that were meant to increase the public’s support for issues like the prevention of child abuse and the prevention or response to domestic violence used these negative and disturbing images. Prevent Child Abuse America, a national leader in the effort to prevent child abuse or neglect, took notice and accordingly their communications became much more focused and grounded in what CAN be done to make a positive difference in society, rather than to be focused on what we don’t want, e.g. children getting hurt.
Tom Sebok, in a paper located here: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/93-20.htm said “Social conflicts involve challenges to values, mores, customs, norms, laws, etc. Often in these conflicts participants seek to dramatize their beliefs and/or positions to make others aware of their concerns and motivate them to action. When opposing groups confront or refer to one another, they may engage in negative labeling (name-calling and insults), sarcasm, moral judging, threatening, and/or, in the most extreme cases, physical violence and/or property damage against those on the “other side.” These behaviors do not illustrate constructive confrontation of conflict. It is possible that some of these behaviors are so unpleasant that the desire to avoid them could motivate one side to negotiate with the other. However, it is also likely that, at least for some period of time, when participants engage in these kinds of behaviors, the effect is that the conflict is merely perpetuated in its current form, or escalated and made more intractable.”
Neither Mountainside Media nor this writer wants to see our clients, friends, or co-workers become victims of the annoying and potentially dangerous “Politically Correct Thought Police.” However, we do suggest that organizations, and individuals, can benefit from close attention to the way our communications are phrased and framed. It has famously been said “Fighting for peace is like making love for virginity.” This quote is attributed to George Carlin, among others.
Don’t go around saying that you are fighting for peace, if you want to be taken seriously! Or, more importantly, if you want to be effective, which is the whole point of bothering to communicate in the first place.
1 See The Frameworks Institute’s “Discipline and Development: A Meta-Analysis of Public Perceptions of Parents, Parenting, Child Development and Child Abuse” at: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/products/pca_americameta.pdf
