How is it that the media still gets away with saying that Obama "lacks substance" when he has taken sophisticated stances on every major political issue? The answer is simple: the media is perpetuating a bogus claim and reporting in a manner that makes it seem plausible.
Consider the article in today's L.A. Times, "Barack Obama Calls for a New National Energy Policy." This article is just the kind of rubbish I'd expect from the right-wing message machine, not a major newspaper that endorsed Obama months ago. The article contains 1080 words, only 21 of which discussed Obama's policy proposal. For the record, here is what the authors said:
[Obama is] "promising to send Americans gasoline rebate checks, double automobile fuel-efficiency standards and wean the United States from dependence on foreign oil."
The rest of the article was filled with speculations about Obama's electability, commentaries on McCain's political ads and public statements, and a riveting (translation: boring and outdated) foray into the loss of a dream ticket now that it is abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton will not be Obama's running mate. (As if that were even politically possible after all the nasty smears thrown about by her campaign in the last two months of its cascade into oblivion)
This is a clever framing technique. The headline sets the context (the issue-defining frame) by announcing that the article will be about Obama's energy policy. This induces readers to anticipate a discussion of what Obama considers America's energy problems to be and how he plans to solve them.
Then the article is written in a manner that leaves the reader unsatisfied. Her expectations were not fulfilled. This is a problem because most of us are not aware of the unconscious components of our expectations. A seed of doubt now resides within us - hidden from view - that provides an undercurrent of legitimacy to new feelings that are "primed" to emerge later when we hear other media messengers assert that Obama lacks substance. These new feelings are more likely to occur in the future because our brains have been conditioned to activate the associations between
- Our understanding of Obama's policy positions; and
- The lack of detail we can recall from news reports about just what the heck his positions are.
It's a clever ploy. And it is very manipulative. The only way to keep it from affecting our thinking is to be consciously aware of it. We cannot allow journalists covering this election to be so sloppy. Headlines need to accurately convey what the article is about.
And we citizens need to learn the tricks of propaganda so that we are not so easily induced by them in the future.