Reply #7: Somewhat dissenting opinion... [View All]

Hi Sodium,

I liked how you picked up on one of their better social engineering techniques. Playing word association games is a powerful thing these days, as most people are simply too busy, on information overload, etc. It is unfortunate, but if the public at large hears the same words together often enough they tend merge somewhat into one twisted pretzel (i.e. Iraq, 9/11, Iraq, 9/11... you get the point.)

Here is where I disagree though. The connection may mask it at most for a day or two worth of coverage. If the coverage lasts for more than a couple of days then they win, but anything past that and all of a sudden the public is all buzzing about how all these election issues are making the news. Past a day or two of minor coverage, these things will not only merge, but will likely amplify.

These techniques only seem to work when the coverage is predictable; when there is a lot to cover and you can predict where and how network resources will be used. Notice how the Bush team announced at least one cabinet change a day for several days? Did you realize that Colin Powell's move made news, and then just when the story faded Condi Rice's appointment broke? Whether purposeful or by sheer luck, these stories (combined with others like Fallujah) kept the media reporting that Bush had one which masked out any buzz we could have had on the recount and fraud investigation end of things.

It could be chance, but you see the effect. It requires good timing and control, and has just as much a chance of backfiring if something else breaks unexpectantly. The Ukraine story, when run against our own not only creates a more plausible and memorable association, but if we up the ante at the right time with a protest, a major announcement, etc., we get amplified coverage and the Ukraine story becomes an aside to a larger election story here in the U.S.

I spent a couple years editing and writing news for a CNN affiliated news radio station here in L.A. and my advice on this is to make the biggest buzz possible about this. If anything, I think they might be aiming their spin machine overseas and we just happened to catch wind of it. From a foreign perspective it looks good to have Bush publicly support fair, accurate and transperent elections. Here at home anything more than a whisper on this could damage their rhetoric game.

Just some thoughts... :)

Warmly,

George