Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Controversialization — Rob Long
Sharyl Attkisson, the CBS News reporter who was either forced out or quit, depending on your level of tolerance for weasel-wording, because she wouldn’t let go of the Benghazi story, used an interesting word to describe the Obama administration’s strategy when dealing with the entire Benghazi scandal: “controversialize.” It’s a mouthful, and it’s not particularly elegant, but it is certainly descriptive. From Mediaite:
Attkisson was asked for her thoughts on how the White House has reacted to the latest release of emails pertaining to the response to Benghazi, particularly [David] Plouffe’s appearance on ABC News’ This Week in which he said the investigation into the attack was driven by a “delusional minority” of the GOP.
“The key words they use, such as ‘conspiracy’ and ‘delusional,’ are in my opinion clearly designed to try to controversialize a story — a legitimate news story and a legitimate area of journalistic inquiry,” Attkisson submitted.
“To some degree, that’s successful,” she added. “But I think primarily among those that don’t want to look at this as a story in the first place.”
“I see that as a well-orchestrated strategy to controversialize a story they really don’t want to hear about,” Attkisson continued.
I hadn’t encountered that word before, but I like it, despite its clumsiness. The only question I have here is, why has the strategy been so successful? The events in Benghazi seem to fit the description of a general-interest non-partisan disaster for the Administration. But, for now at least, as galling as it is, it’s hard not to give the Obama Administration (and the other villain of the tale, Hillary Clinton) points for managing the public’s reaction to the (possibly preventable) murder of a United States ambassador and the flurry of lies that followed it.
Why does this work? Or, alternatively, does it work?
My concern here is that our side tends to look at something utterly indefensible like this — “controversializing” a genuine news story — and say, “This won’t work.” Or: “This shouldn’t work.” Or: “This wouldn’t work if we all kept Tweeting about it.” But for now, at least, it’s working. Why?
Published in General
I don’t think it is working, but I don’t watch news on TV or cable anymore, because it’s never honest or reliable any more. I get all my info off the Internet.
What bothered me most about yesterday’s This Week was that Laura Ingram had David Plouffe on the ropes–he went pale–and everyone, including Laura, let him off the hook.
Let’s start off with a few drones.
You mean we don’t already have them? Get that Senik kid to work on this, asap!
You want answers? You want the truth?
Half the country doesn’t vote. Of the half that does, presidential elections are usually won (on the popular vote) within just a few percentage points. Even if you vote, that doesn’t mean you’re informed, aware, intelligent, or not a felon – it just means you vote, the smallest possible level of political participation this side of keying a candidate’s car. That means there’s a percentage of the voters that won’t pay attention to things like this, at all, even if the mainstream news covered it.
Half the country pays no net income taxes. It’s a good bet that this group of people (less so the retired demographic) vote for Democrats – so it’s an easy sell that this is a non-issue.
So: Democrats choose the option that requires the least work – paint mentions of Benghazie with the Loony Brush ™, and Bob’s yer uncle. Meaning you’re done.
Is it a coincidence that these emails finally came out roughly 6 months away from mid-terms? It’ll blow over in a month or two.
Controversialize isn’t required. There is a simple word to describe the Obama administration’s strategy: lie.
Permitting public consideration of Benghazi as anything other than a controversy is to open themselves to accusations of their multi-faceted complicity in this debacle.
Benghazi began as terrorism against the US. When Obama and HRClinton created a phony cover story to keep positive perceptions and votes here in the US, they turned murder victims into partisan pawns in their political game.
The only way the Obama Admin and its media support system can maintain the current delusion of leadership is to insist that further Benghazi investigation is rooted in controversy, not a search for justice for murder victims.
As long as the media convinces D’s to believe that R’s are using the victims as pawns in THEIR political game, the story will continue to be cloaked in controversy. Therein lies the success of the controversy.
The truth search in Benghazi is not about damaging Obama’s poll numbers, stopping Hillary Clinton, or the R’s winning the mid-term elections. The search for Benghazi truth is about JUSTICE for murder victims. Every political escapade, gain, or loss pales in light of JUSTICE needed for American Citizens who were murdered while working for us.
We are a decadent culture more concerned with an 80 year old’s private conversation and how it relates to a professional sports team’s marketability than the lives of our own citizens and representatives abroad taken deliberately by evil men. Unless we are willing to grow up, we will lose the twilight struggle against Islamofascism. We do not appear to have the maturity or the patience to play the long game they are.
I agree that much of the media is biased and that no Democrat has broken ranks. This goes a long way to explain why many seemingly accept Obama’s transparently bogus claims. But another explanation is that he’s peddled a story that’s comforting to believe. Who among us doesn’t want to be convinced that al Qaeda and its affiliates are on their last legs? That all that’s left for us to do is mop up and come back home? I know I’d sleep better if I could.
A majority of voters cast their votes for Obama – twice. They have an emotional, if not monetary, investment in the man. Stockholders often hold on to equities longer than they should because to sell at a loss is to concede the error in judgment that prompted the initial purchase. Polls indicate that more voters have buyer’s remorse because of ObamaCare and the economy. But to believe the critics of Benghazi forces erstwhile supporters to come to grips with the veracity and character of the man they put in office. That’s hard to do. It’s less damning to believe the investigations are partisan witch hunts.
Every time I see the replay of Hillary before the Senate committee, my blood boils. That the blood of Democrats doesn’t boil is pathetic. Regardless of whether the controversialization tactic is working, Rep. Gowdy, in leading his new committee, needs to take a page out of Walter White’s playbook:
One excellent way to get sidetracked from the real controversy is to take the bait, which is what “delusional minority” is meant to do. Keep your eye on the ball, the president and SOS were MIA before and during the attack and prevaricating after.
“Delusional minority” is a variation of the straw man that Obama can’t order a cup of coffee without. Who, exactly, is delusional? If you’re going to accuse your opponent of an actual psychological disorder, you ought to be prepared to name names.
But that question must be asked immediately. No names will be forthcoming, so the follow up is along the lines of “So that incendiary (ha!) remark is pure hyperbole? Isn’t that a bit below your station, possibly slanderous?”
Asking any time afterwards will distract from the actual issue, which is fine with them. As my fellow Riccochetti have accurately observed, the administration tactic only works with a supine media.
Controversialize (defined): “Let’s make this about the Republicans!” The technique goes at least as far back as Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” comments.
The Democrats are masters at lying to the public, largely because the press is in their corner. Lying to Congress, on the other hand, can see a person charged with contempt. The ball is in your court, Mr. Gowdy. Godspeed.
When the White House controverializes a story, they are really sending a signal to the press: leave this story alone. In other words, controversializing a story tells reporters that if you challenge the White House narrative, then the White House will start treating you like Fox News.
Most reporters will take the hint because for reporters covering the White House, maximizing access to the administration is the name of the game. Without the access, they can’t scoop their competitors. This is why CBS fired Attkisson, because she did not table her Benghazi reports in response to the White House’s signals to treat it as a non-story.
Remember, it was a New York Times reporter that called the Obama Administration the most “closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.” If you don’t play ball, then the White House will come down on you like a ton of bricks. So, most reporters hear the White House dog whistle and leave Benghazi alone to preserve their access for future stories.
Amen. I think it cannot be stated often enough: The MSM is the enemy.
Controversialization makes it easy for your media allies to cooperate — they don’t have to confront the issue head-on. If you were to actually deny a story, you might have to provide an alternative explanation. This could subject you to questions that become increasingly difficult to defend. If you can just claim that it is controversial, you can semi-discredit your critics without having to be specific. Eventually, you can then use the “old news” tactic that has been so successful for Dems since the Clinton years.
The Ambassador’s family is not publicly upset with the administration’s actions. The Democrats are framing this as a criminal activity against persons, not an act of war against the US. If it is accepted by Chris Stevens’ family, the public sees the criticism as over the top. The other three men were not high profile.
This was Obama’s war, pushed into by Hillary, for humanitarian, not national interest purposes.
Hillary’s ” what difference does it make” reply to why she couldn’t phone at least one of the people rescued that night deserved an answer based on national security, not criminal activity. She didn’t want to hinder the FBI investigation. Again, defense is based on an idea the American public can grasp, has the potential of short duration, not a chapter in a larger story.
If my son had been killed there the fact that forces were sent to help would have given me some comfort, even if they were late. They may have captured a combatant or two. They could have secured the crime scene. The administration behaved as they believed in dealing with terrorism as a criminal activity instead of national security.
DUDE!!
I agree with the commenters who have pointed to the fact that no Democrats have really broken ranks on this one. In order for a scandal involving a Democrat to “break out” it must be legitimated in some way, and a bunch of Republicans screaming about it doesn’t do the trick. Either other Democrats have to join in, or representatives of some other important institution such as the military have to speak out. Or, the matter has to have broken into the public consciousness on its own and begun resulting in pressure on the media and Democrats, although that, of course, could lead to the all important breaking of ranks by Democrats.
This doesn’t, it need hardly be said, work in the other direction. Something that looks like a scandal for Republicans is a scandal by definition, and worthy of the media’s utmost attention, even if no Republicans have broken ranks. That’s just how it is.
As far as I am concerned Benghazi was the end of the rope for me. It was not that we lost people. It is a dangerous world and that happens. It is not that we did not protect our people, that too while not good happens as resources are limited and judgment on bad info can occur. What I cannot get over is that we did not even try to help our people when it became apparent that they were in trouble. Even if there was no way we could have saved them and all we would have done is picked up their bodies the effort should have been made and retribution should have been unleashed on those responsible for harming them. To leave them hanging out and then to cover that lapse by blaming the whole event on a movie that nobody would have heard of if this event did not happen is so ludicrous that there are not the words to describe it. For the first time in my life I am now recommending that young people do not join the service. I do not believe that our government would value their lives or have their backs.
To ‘controversialize’ an issue basically just means to state a right-wing position.
It reminds me a lot of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The way I remember it, there was about a two week period where most people, Democrat and Republican, agreed that perjury and suborning perjury were impeachable offenses. Then at some point that consensus fell apart. There wasn’t any new information. People on the left just started shrugging it off, and impeaching a president over perjury, at least if it was about sex, became controversial and right wing. I think that was a perfect example of “controversialization.”
Confirmation bias. Much of the non-coverage or criticism of the coverage is not really an assessment of the case itself but rather offering rationales that appeal to the bias of the readers and viewers. By no means is this a feature unique to the Left, mind you. The intensity of it, however, correlates to the sense among progressives that the problem would be a crisis if they didn’t have some way of rationalizing it a way.
This is awesome. An aspect of civic responsibility I hadn’t considered and much more in line with my impulses.
The simple answer is that most Americans don’t care about foreign policy and Benghazi falls into that category – at least they don’t care beyond believing whatever headline the MSM feeds them such as “Mulims riot in Benghazi because of anti-Islam video”. Too many of our fellow citizens are too wrapped up in their own lives to care about anything that doesn’t directly affect them.
John,
I think you are hitting on a very important aspect of this. The effect on morale for both the foreign service and the armed forces is just appalling. This is unacceptable in itself.
As for the corruption of the domestic political process it is self evident. Kevin Williamson at NRO today thought that if they had been honest about the failure immediately they would have won the election anyway. I don’t think that’s true. I think the momentum would have carried and a 1% switch would have been all that was necessary for a different President to be in the White House.
Unacceptable any way you look at it.
Regards,
Jim
They died. The administration lied. Beyond controversial… A cover up will always come out.
Rob, it works because those who care enough to know about this are the ones that the administration are seeking to “controversialize.” We are the ones that they are seeking to isolate, denigrate, and finally obliterate in the eyes of those who rarely, it at all, actually follow the news. These people know that the majority of the population now gets their news from their friends and in 140 characters or less, so if they don’t hear it, it didn’t happen. And they aren’t going to listen to us because we are just a bunch of racist, homophobes who don’t like Obama because he is black. We are in a losing war Mr. Long. We are losing because the entire population outside of the different Conservative communities are too stupid to know that they are stupid. That’s why it works.
Now we can watch this play out in real time with the House Select Committee. Rep Pelosi’s request for equal party representation is out of the standard playbook. It sounds “fair” but if granted the Dems will tie up the entire process in knots. If not granted they will scream about how partisan the process is which will allow the willing MSM to ignore the committee.
Nothing new about this. A few years ago a WaPo reporter wrote Breach, about the Clinton impeachment process. He recounted an episode where the Judiciary Committee was negotiating rules for the proceeding. Rep Barney Frank contacted the White House to inform it that the D minority was about to finalize an agreement on the process with the R majority. An outraged White House informed Frank that the D’s should not reach agreement with the R’s because that would allow the process to be bipartisan and the White House strategy was to portray it as highly partisan. Dutifully, Frank went back to the R’s with a new set of demands that the D’s knew would be unacceptable. When no agreement was reached the press treated it as a partisan proceeding.
The mainstream media is in the reality creation business. One truth the media holds is that the Obama Administration is scandal-free. They are constitutionally unable to subvert this truth, regardless of the facts. At this point, they only way to deny that this is a scandal is to admit that the facts–the emails, the lies, the White House conspiracy to suppress the truth–all happened, but to deny that they are relevant. They believe this because they believe the Obama Administration is scandal-free.
The public believes what the media believes, because the media is good at its job. The public believes that the Obama Administration is scandal-free, and that the Republicans calling Benghazi a scandal are at best opportunistic and at worst racists.
I’m reminded of a joke I heard last year: if George Zimmerman wants Obama to quit talking about him, he should just change his name to Ben Ghazi.