|
Writing in an Age of Terror
A BUZZFLASH GUEST
CONTRIBUTION
by David Swanson
Remarks delivered at National Writers Union conference in Philadelphia,
October, 29, 2005, opening forum with Ed Herman, Danny Schechter, and
Linn Washington, on "Writing in an Age of Terror."
* * *
Obviously,
if this really were an age of terror, an age in which we were all terrorized,
there would be no writing. You can't write if
you're terrorized. I mean, you can, but your writing will have all
the clarity of a campaign speech by John Kerry, or all the relevance
of the election-year literature produced by the AFL-CIO, which refused
to acknowledge that there was a war in Iraq.
Every serious article about U.S. or global politics that pretends there
is no war in Iraq is an example of writing in an age of terror. Every
article that pretends the war is not a blatant violation of international
law and a crime against humanity is an example of writing in an age
of terror. But that sort of writing, during other wars, predates the
commandment from Bush to feel terrorized.
What's new about writing in this age, I think, stems from the rule
that you must be either with or against the anti-terror crusaders being
led by George W. Bush. You must be with Bush or with the terrorists.
What seems possibly new from this is an increased unwillingness on
the part of those opposed to Bush's policies to openly say so, or to
say so without all sorts of qualifications.
The progressive PR firm Fenton Communications in March 2003 published
a book of tips for "navigating media in wartime," which began "DON'T
bash Bush. 2 out of 3 Americans approve of Bush's handling of the confrontation
with Saddam Hussein. In times of war -- especially the early stages
-- the public's instinct is to stand behind its leader. You won't win
any allies by alienating yourself with harsh attacks."
Now, of course, 2 out of 3 Americans disapprove of Bush's war, but
Fenton hasn't really changed its tune. In fact, everybody's singing
from the same hymnal. Another progressive organization called Demos
released a set of "[Hurricane] Katrina Talking Points" some
weeks back that included this:
" Keep the conversation in a 'reasonable mode.' Appeal to people across
political ideology. This means avoiding sharp, rhetorical language
about political parties, politicians, etc. Stay away from discussing
particular people who are to be blamed. This is very important. When
highly political, partisan or ideological images are triggered people
revert to their own traditional identifications and positions and stop
'hearing' a more reasonable discussion about government and its purposes."
There is absolutely nothing reasonable about self-censorship during
a time of rising fascism. The right wing does not self-censor in this
way, and it has not worked for Democrats over the course of my lifetime.
It's not a new approach. But what strikes me as new is the degree to
which ordinary activists are all modeling themselves as amateur PR
strategists and all parroting the self-defeating centrist talking points
put out by the people paid for that service.
You can go to strategy meetings of liberal activist groups of any size,
from the largest coalitions to the tiniest small-town gathering, and
the discussion will focus on properly framing the message so as to
appeal to those who completely disagree with us. And that framing of
the message will not be about persuading people to change their minds
so much as it will be about censoring parts of our message so as not
to offend them.
The corporate media should get a pile of blame for this. The way it
shuts out voices and labels positions as unacceptable is not just manufacturing
consent. It's manufacturing a million little manufacturers who go out
and spread the gospel, who nominate unelectable candidates because
the media said they were the electable ones, and who ultimately are
speaking and writing from a place of fear and terror.
The question for us is not how we can write better in an age of terror,
but how we can write ourselves and others into a realization that this
is not an age of terror, that many many people are not scared, that
a majority of us oppose Bush, oppose his war, and want to see him impeached
over it, and that no matter how radical the message framers tell us
that is, it is still majority opinion and we still must write about
it without any fear, with complete honesty, without any modification
for alleged broader appeal.
Emerson said "To believe your own thought, to believe that what
is true for you in your private heart is true for all men [and women],
-- that is genius."
Conversely, then, to believe that others cannot handle your thoughts
must be idiocy.
That means that if you believe a war is wrong because little Arab children
get their limbs ripped off, you should write that. You don't have to
write that it's wrong because some veterans now oppose it. You can
and should write that if that's what you believe, but I'm not convinced
that we stop enough and ask ourselves what we believe.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
David Swanson is creator of MeetWithCindy.org,
co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition,
a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.
He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves
on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild,
TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications
director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's
2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International
Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications
Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy
from the University of Virginia in 1997. His website is www.davidswanson.org
|
