< < <
Date Index
> > >
Re: NYTimes.com Article: The Selling of America, Bush Style
by Threehegemons
26 August 2002 00:00 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
As the person responsible for posting both the article below and, more 
generally, most of the articles posted from the New York Times on this list, 
I'd like to respond to these comments.

First, I tend to agree with I F Stone's famous comment that all the news you 
need for a radical critique can be found in the New York Times, you just need 
to know where to look.  Forwarding articles from the New York Times is not the 
same as letting the editors of this publication decide on our discourse and 
priorities.  Quite the contrary.

Secondly, I usually provide no more than brief commentary--I tend to think its 
fairly self-evident what the relevance of an article is.  I welcome any further 
comments on articles, although it usually doesn't happen.  Then again, nothing 
else is spurring particularly fruitful threads on this list.

Third, the specific article below was written by Victoria Da Grazia, a 
historian (an historian?) (Columbia U.) who has written about US hegemony.  I'm 
personally very interested in intellectuals who parlay their academic capital 
into media capital.  This also seems a fairly relevant concern for this list, 
at least so long as the intellectuals have some relevance to world 
systems/political economy.

Fourth, I agree with da Grazia that US hegemony immediately following WW II was 
a very different thing than what it is in the present.  What gave it 'content' 
in the earlier period was a willingness/ability to fund the reconstruction of 
Western Europe on social democratic lines.  

Finally, if you have critical comments about these articles, why not just post 
them?  They may well differ from the thoughts of those of us who posted the 
article--but isn't this list supposed to generate discussion?

Steven Sherman

In a message dated Sun, 25 Aug 2002 6:20:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
grahamby@yahoo.com writes:

> Dear List Members,
>   While I certainly appreciate and encourage the forwards of
> "interesting" articles found in the mainstream media by members of this
> list, I have often wished that there was more analysis and discussion of
> the articles themselves. The articles often provide "good" information,
> but little discussion is centered on the biases implicit in the articles
> or the meaning of these articles within the larger context of the media's
> role in debate among elites and policy making. The article below is a good
> example. Yes the article is interesting for its content: Image-production
> as foreign policy tool past and present. But perhaps more important and
> interesting is the fact that it appeared at all, especially now. Why is an
> article (somewhat) critical of current US propaganda efforts acceptable
> now and not six-months ago? As to bias, is Victoria Da Grazia correct that
> past propaganda efforts that included "cultural exchanges" were somehow
> "better" or benign? To what extent is "content" now being provided by US
> agencies and multilateral organizations such as the NED and World Bank
> that aim to "promote civil society"? 
>  Sorry but it seems to me that without some introduction to posted
> articles on why the post-er found the article to be important or
> interesting enough to post, the "discussion list" tends to become mediated
> by the editorial staffs of the New York Times, Washington Post, and The
> Guardian rather than the list members and effectively leaves the
> discussion to them.   
> > 
> > Interesting article by Victoria Da Grazia on the contemporary selling of
> > the US--the hegemony is now all about image, emptied of content.
> > 
> > Steven Sherman
> > 
> > swsystem@aol.com
> > 
> > 
> > The Selling of America, Bush Style
> > 
> > August 25, 2002
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > WITHIN weeks of Sept. 11, Charlotte Beers, celebrated as the
> > "queen of branding" among the public relations cognoscenti,
> > was named undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and
> > public affairs. Her job was explaining and selling the
> > administration's foreign policy, especially its war on
> > terrorism. The problem of "Why they hate us" was rephrased,
> > in ad speak, as "How we reposition the brand." 
> > 
> > To help win market shares from jihad, the former chairwoman
> > of J. Walter Thompson Worldwide advertising agency recently
> > received a $520 million Congressional appropriation to
> > focus on "disaffected populations," especially in the
> > Middle East and South Asia. As Ms. Beers testified, "a poor
> > perception of the U.S. leads to unrest, and unrest has
> > proven to be a threat to our national and international
> > security." 
> > 
> > Ms. Beers's efforts to mount the largest public relations
> > campaign in the history of foreign policy will start with
> > market research and focus groups to connect with angry
> > young Muslims and also bring American policy makers up to
> > speed on global opinion. Special projects will include
> > producing videos about varied Muslim-Americans - teachers,
> > basketball players, firemen - to show that the United
> > States is an open and tolerant society, and establishing a
> > new 24-hour Arabic-language satellite news network. These
> > endeavors will be guided by the best practice in
> > advertising, she affirms: to convey the emotional as well
> > as the rational, frame all messages in the context of the
> > audience, enlist third parties for authenticity and magnify
> > a good result. 
> > 
> > There is nothing new about using public relations with a
> > commercial twist in foreign policy. The Romans demonstrated
> > their power from Gaul to Galilee by stamping the emperor's
> > face on their coins, and Her Majesty's government
> > publicized the Pax Britannica by celebrating Queen
> > Victoria's Diamond Jubilee with global distribution of
> > figurines and cups with her image. Yet, no country has
> > developed as close a link between statesmanship and
> > salesmanship as the United States. Public relations has
> > been a staple of American diplomacy, starting in World War
> > I and perfected during the cold war, part of a mix that
> > combined advertising with foreign aid, cultural exchanges
> > and wide-ranging consular contacts. 
> > 
> > Indeed, it was Woodrow Wilson, the first president to
> > address the International Congress of Salesmanship in 1916
> > - urging its members "go out and sell goods that will make
> > the world more comfortable and more happy, and convert them
> > to the principles of America" - who first employed massive
> > advertising in the name of foreign policy. It was in 1917,
> > after the newspaperman George Creel convinced Wilson, an
> > austere, scholarly president, that a Committee on Public
> > Information could clarify the reasons for America's entry
> > into World War I. 
> > 
> > J. Walter Thompson's second-in-command, James Webb Young,
> > was among the first men Mr. Creel enlisted. His task was to
> > convince Germans on the Western Front of the "inevitability
> > of defeat," and "put gloom and despair into the heart of
> > every person in the German Empire." Before it was
> > dissolved, in 1919, the Creel Committee had distributed
> > millions of pieces of information at home and abroad. 
> > 
> > The experience of World War I left advertisers boasting
> > that publicity had "earned its credentials as an important
> > implement of war." The idea that advertising could "sway
> > the ideas of whole populations, change their habits of
> > life, create belief, practically universal in any policy or
> > idea" also sat well with America's sense of itself as a
> > democracy on a global mission. It complemented the
> > face-to-face relations that Wilsonian diplomacy endorsed.
> > It was of a piece with the rapidly rising hegemony's
> > self-consciousness about its image, and the belief that
> > every American commodity - whether a Model T, Hollywood
> > movie or Palmolive soap - flagged America's high standard
> > of living as a universal right, one other peoples could
> > obtain by modeling their governments and society on
> > America's. 
> > 
> > Propaganda, using state apparatuses, was what other states
> > used in pursuit of their goals. Publicity, with private
> > sector support, was the handmaiden of a government that
> > presented itself as opposed to heavy-handed involvement
> > abroad and sought to circumvent autocratic leaders to get
> > the humane, rational message of the American people
> > directly to peoples with similar aspirations. Other regimes
> > may propagate hard-nosed ideology, but American democracy
> > had lofty ideals. 
> > 
> > The cold war was the high time for putting these concepts
> > to work. The Marshall Plan, though regarded as a generous
> > gift by many Americans, was seen by many Europeans as a
> > Trojan horse, opening the gates to laissez-faire
> > capitalism. Since one goal indeed was to redesign European
> > markets on American lines, the European Recovery Program,
> > as it was officially called, sought to explain its grand
> > aims. 
> > 
> > For Paul Hoffman, the former head of the Studebaker Motor
> > Company, who administered the Marshall Plan in Europe, a
> > "strong information arm" helped show that the "American
> > assembly line" was superior to "the Communist Party line."
> > He ordered 5 percent of local funds used for publicity,
> > comparable to what American companies then spent launching
> > a new product. 
> > 
> > THESE sums went for a remarkably inventive range of events,
> > films and publications, many propagandizing the "high
> > standard of living" of "Joe Smith, America's average
> > worker" - his tidy home, clean blue jean overalls, shiny
> > tools, his car. All would be accessible to Europeans,
> > provided they worked hard and voted anti-Communist. 
> > 
> > After advising the government on the Marshall Plan, J.
> > Walter Thompson, the world's largest ad agency, was then
> > given the NATO account. That was considered a more
> > controversial sell in the mid-1950's, when the North
> > Atlantic Treaty Organization faced an "identity crisis" -
> > American taxpayers complained about the cost of defending
> > Europe and anti-American protests appeared in Europe. 
> > 
> > The ad men's advice was that for its 10th anniversary, in
> > 1959, NATO should be reshaped "to forge a history of
> > community and tradition," and "make clear to the world the
> > striking superiority, as much moral as material, of the
> > Western conception of Man and his dignity." The campaign
> > called for a NATO birthday celebration, a NATO song
> > featuring Rosemary Clooney, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and
> > Harry Belafonte, among others, and slogans like "Good
> > night, sleep tight, NATO stands on guard" and "N-A-T-O -
> > four letters that spell peace." 
> > 
> > History shows, then, that Washington often used public
> > relations for diplomacy. But the Bush administration is
> > proposing something new, and not just because Ms. Beers has
> > been quoted as saying a "30 percent conversion rate" for
> > Muslims would "represent a sales curve any corporation
> > would envy." 
> > 
> > Today's effort is new, first, because so far it promises
> > largely to be about image. Cold war publicity went hand in
> > hand with the $13 billion in Marshall Plan aid. The State
> > Department dispatched cultural missions, including
> > exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist art; staged trade
> > fairs with model homes and supermarkets; and named Duke
> > Ellington and Louis Armstrong as ambassadors of the
> > American way of life. (Though both were critical of racial
> > discrimination at home.) The key was cultural exchange, as
> > Dave Brubeck, who also toured for America, wrote: "When our
> > neighbors call us vermin/We send out Woody Herman/That's
> > what we call cultural exchange." 
> > 
> > The Bush administration's effort faces different hurdles,
> > partly because it has different objectives compared to,
> > say, the Marshall Plan's "decent standard of living." In
> > the best of cases, even with a clear and appealing message,
> > it is hard for the official government voice to be heard.
> > One obstacle is that there are now so many competing
> > messages from so many sources saying so many things. 
> > 
> > Another obstacle is that advertising messages in 
> themselves
> > have so little bite. They are like one-way streets.
> > Effective cultural exchange, by contrast, depends on
> > engaging others in dialogue. 
> > 
> > Yet these sorts of exchanges make a difference to emerging
> > public leaders abroad, not to mention foreign opinion
> > makers and the public generally. Consumers, as advertisers
> > know, are not stupid - especially not today's savvy global
> > consumer. 
> > 
> > Advertising, when disconnected from more substantial
> > cultural exchanges, runs a double risk: either it is
> > treated as just more background noise and so ignored; or
> > cited as another example of America's overwhelming media
> > presence abroad, for which the nation is already
> > criticized. The bottom line, to use ad speak, is that
> > advertising is only as good as the product being sold.
> > 
> > 
> === message truncated ===

< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >