Bryan Meadows Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) University of Arizona, USA

1. A LETTER TO 14 LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS: An example of how democratic leaders can defile democratic ideals Bryan Meadows Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) University of Arizona, USA International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis, 17 November 2005

2. Critical Discourse Analysis • Fairclough (1989, 1995): Language is a tool power structures use to abuse and perpetuate political power. • Van Dijk (1993a, 1996): Social cognition demonstrates how the society’s micro and macro levels communicate with one another. • Critical Discourse Analysis is a tool for action—to make explicit the manipulation. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

3. Object of Analysis • February 3, 2005 • Attention: Station Manager • Dear Station Manager: • It has come to our attention that your station is currently airing, or may be asked to air, a false advertisement sponsored by a political organization known as MoveOn.org. The advertisement in question falsely and maliciously makes reference to “George Bush’s planned Social Security benefit cuts of up to 46% to pay for private accounts. . . .” • President Bush has repeatedly emphasized that his proposal for Social Security reform does not include any “cut” in current benefits. As recently as last night’s State of the Union Address, President Bush said, “I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.” In a January 26 news conference, President Bush made clear that “it is very important for us to reassure the seniors that nothing changes. … and so one of the things you’ll hear me constantly doing is reminding our senior citizens that nothing will change, and that we have a duty to act on behalf of their children and grandchildren.” This statement followed the President’s January 15 radio address, in which he said, “You’re receiving your Social Security check, or nearing retirement, nothing will change for you. Your benefits are secure.” • The nonpartisan FactCheck.org recently characterized MoveOn.org’s advertisement as “a false TV ad.” According to the watchdog organization, “MoveOn.org launched a false TV ad in the districts of several House members, claiming through images and words that President Bush plans to cut Social Security benefits nearly in half . . . . Actually, Bush has said repeatedly he won't propose any cuts for those already retired, or near retirement. What MoveOn.org calls "Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts" is actually a plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula. The White House has discussed such a proposal, and may or may not adopt it when the President puts forth a detailed plan expected in late February.” • Organizations such as MoveOn.org have a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but MoveOn.org has no right to knowingly and willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. The sponsor of this advertisement is not a legally qualified candidate, and therefore enjoys no right of access to the airwaves. Your station is under no legal obligation to air this advertisement. Precisely because you are under no such obligation, your station is responsible for the content of the sponsor’s advertisement. • As an FCC licensee, you have a responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to oversee and protect the integrity of the American marketplace of ideas, and to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously and I urge you to decline to broadcast this advertisement. • This letter places you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading. Your station should act responsibly and refrain from airing this advertisement. • Sincerely,/ Michael Bayes/ RNC Deputy Counsel/ Jan 2005. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

4. Socio-Political Context • Principal Characters: Republican National Committee (RNC) [right-wing], Moveon.org [left-wing], Fourteen TV Station Managers • Date of letter: February 3, 2005 • Letter urges the TV stations to cease broadcast of Moveon.org’s advertisement critical of President’s plan. • Embedded in context of Social Security reform (public retirement pension) • Bush’s campaign for support Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

5. Analysis Findings (forecast) • The RNC letter is a blatant attempt to take advantage of position of power to disrupt and manipulate open public discourse. • This move contradicts the expectation that democratic governments guarantee open-access to discourse channels for all participants. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

6. Example One: Letter Opening • It has come to our attention that your station is currently airing, or may be asked to air, a false advertisement sponsored by a political organization known as MoveOn.org. The advertisement in question falsely and maliciously makes reference to “George Bush’s planned Social Security benefit cuts of up to 46% to pay for private accounts. . . .” Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

7. Elite Discourse (van Dijk 1993b); Discourse of Condescension (Huckin, 2002) • Capitalizes on metonymical connection with President to establish exaggerated authority • RNC assumes that they hold the power to define reality for the stations <false, falsely> • RNC assumes the role of moral judge <maliciously> • Elite discourse permeates the rest of the letter: RNC assumes complete control over dialogue—no request for a response. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

8. Example Two: RNC Cites Their Sources • The nonpartisan FactCheck.org recently characterized MoveOn.org’s advertisement as “a false TV ad.” According to the watchdog organization, “MoveOn.org launched a false TV ad in the districts of several House members, claiming through images and words that President Bush plans to cut Social Security benefits nearly in half …” Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

9. Recontextualization (Caldas-Coulthard 2003) RNC employs omission in this case. • Factcheck.org’s update on 2 February, one day prior to the RNC letter’s publication. • Articles critical of the Bush Administration written by Factcheck.org. • FactCheck.org. Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit? (Jan. 20, 2005). • FactCheck.org. Bush’s State of the Union: Social Security ‘Bankruptcy’? (Feb. 3, 2005) Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

10. Example Three: “Not a legally-qualified candidate” • Organizations such as MoveOn.org have a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but MoveOn.org has no right to knowingly and willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. The sponsor of this advertisement is not a legally qualified candidate, and therefore enjoys no right of access to the airwaves. Your station is under no legal obligation to air this advertisement. Precisely because you are under no such obligation, your station is responsible for the content of the sponsor’s advertisement. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

11. Example Three: ‘Not a legally-qualified candidate’ • RNC is not only moral authority, but legal as well: RNC explains legalities pertaining to First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Freedom of Speech). • Appropriation of the Other (Said, 1978): Negatives surround references to Moveon.org. • <deliberate attempt to mislead> • <no right> • <not a legally-qualified candidate> • <knowingly and willfully spread false information> • From Example One: <false TV ad>, <falsely and maliciously>, <pejorative known as> • Threatening tone is building: If A…then B…therefore C. <responsibility> Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

12. Example Four: RNC Letter Closing • As an FCC licensee, you have a responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to oversee and protect the integrity of the American marketplace of ideas, and to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously and I urge you to decline to broadcast this advertisement. • This letter places you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading. Your station should act responsibly and refrain from airing this advertisement. • Sincerely, • Michael Bayes • RNC Deputy Counsel • Jan 2005. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

13. Threatening Nature Solidified • Threat made clear: <As an FCC licensee> • If not legally required to broadcast ad (A), and you do (B), then the consequence is losing FCC license (C). • Building on position as moral authority: • Stations must adhere to RNC definition of responsible behavior <act responsibly> • Stations must observe RNC’s version of <independent editorial judgment> • Aggressive closing with reference to assumed legal authority: <on-notice>, <Deputy Counsel>. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

14. Purpose Reflected at the Macro Scale • Purpose = Stifle the Moveon.org marketshare of the public discourse. (van Dijk, 1996: Access = political power) • Moveon.org began as an internet-based movement—spreading into the wider media via private contributions. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

15. Conclusions • Blatant attempt on the part of a political power group to bully media outlets and hijack the voice of threatening entities. • Contradicts notion of open access to public discourse for all in a democratic society. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

16. Thank you! • Bryan Meadows: bmeadows@email.arizona.edu • For their gracious input and direction, a special thanks to Dr. Linda Waugh, Dr. Larry Berlin, and the members of the University of Arizona CDA Group. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA

17. References • Caldas-Coulthard, C. (2003). Cross-cultural representation of ‘otherness’ in media discourse. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity (pp. 272-296). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. • van Dijk, T. (1993a). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4, 2, 249-283. • Van Dijk, T. (1993b). Denying Racism: Elite Discourse and Racism.In: J. Solomos & J. Wrench (Eds.). Racism and Migration in Western Europe. (pp. 179-193). Oxford: Berg. • van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.). Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 84-106). New York: Routledge. • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. London/New York: Longman. • Huckin, T. (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse of Condescension. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.). Discourse Studies in Composition (pp. 155-176). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. • Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Bryan Meadows, University of Arizona, USA