I can appreciate the significance of “framing” in contemporary politics, but there should be a clear difference between the terms partisans use for political gain and reporters use to convey information to the public.
This has been a problem for a while now. Republicans and Democrats alike called Bush’s approach to Social Security “privatization.” But when GOP pollsters told their lawmakers to steer clear of the word, Republicans demanded that the media stop using it too. Journalists complied. Likewise, everyone used the phrase “private account” to describe where payroll taxes would go under Bush’s scheme, right up until the pollsters said to avoid that word too. Naturally, reporters once again did as they were told and stopped using the phrase.
Now it’s happening with the “nuclear option.”
For almost two years, this wasn’t controversial. In 2003, Republican senators, specifically Trent Lott, came up with the approach. On May 7, 2003, the Washington Times reported, “The tactic would be so drastic in the usually congenial Senate that Republicans refer to it as their ‘nuclear option.'” A few days later, the LA Times reported, “Republicans have been discussing what they have referred to as the ‘nuclear option.'” A few days after that, Bill Frist’s home town paper, The Tennessean, noted that GOP senators have a “tactic they call their ‘nuclear option.'”
Notice the choice of words here; Republicans came up with the term and used it with reporters. It wasn’t Dems or GOP critics, but the tactic’s proponents who embraced what they called the “nuclear option.”
Then they changed their minds — and insisted reporters play along.
Just perusing the news from the last couple of weeks shows repeated examples of outlets misidentifying the “nuclear option’s” origins. The AP, NPR, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the LA Times’ Ron Brownstein (twice) have all framed the phrase exactly how the Republicans have asked.
[Schiavo’s] death may also intensify conservatives’ demands that Senate Republicans rewrite the chamber’s rules to eliminate the Democratic filibusters that have blocked confirmation of some of Bush’s federal judicial nominees. Critics call that the “nuclear option.”
But that’s not quite right. Everyone called it the “nuclear option” until Republican pollsters encouraged them to start using a phrase that sounded less apocalyptic. Since then, Republicans have toyed with the “constitutional option,” the “Byrd option,” “filibuster reform,” and even, according to CQ, the “Majority Rules Option.”
Frankly, I don’t care what the Republicans want to call their scheme, though the fact that they keep changing their mind is rather amusing. The point I want to emphasize here is there’s no reason neutral news outlets should jump at GOP demands to use their poll-tested phrases. Republican senators called their tactic the “nuclear option” for over a year before some focus groups urged a new tack. Why should journalists feel compelled to play along?
If Republicans send out talking points with carefully crafted language they’d like to see in the Washington Times, Fox News, Wall Street Journal editorial page, etc., fine. But there’s something wrong with the system when real reporters are, in effect, forced to use GOP phrases in straight news stories. And what’s worse, these stories attribute the agreed upon terms to Dems, even when Republicans came up with the phrases in the first place.
I know why Republicans insist on setting the terms of the debate — but I don’t know why the mainstream media insists on letting them.