After several days since the big story broke about crimes committed--or not--by President Bush's senior staff, where does the debate stand? What big ideas are rising to the top of the pile and what ides are sinking fast?
Frameshop is open...
After several days since the big story broke about crimes committed--or not--by President Bush's senior staff, where does the debate stand? What big ideas are rising to the top of the pile and what ides are sinking fast?
This where things stand as of Wednesday, July 13, 2005:
"LEAK" Is the Dominant Frame:
The idea that someone "leaked" secret information to the press--potentially breaking the law--is the big frame that seems to be holding the debate at the moment. The news media has taken hold of this "leak" metaphor and repeating it over and over again. Two weeks ago, the scenario surrounding Valery Plame and the CIA and yellowcake all needed to be explained in long, complicated articles. Now, there are many headlines that just use the word "leak" to reference the situation. The metaphor is powerful and follows a logic along these lines: [crime] is [a pipe that leaks water]. Most Americans can relate to this at a visceral level, but even more interestingly, it seems to evoke Watergate in a very subtle way. The initial reports of the scandal all referenced Watergate. Now they talk about leaks. This "water" connection seems to be playing a role in holding the frame in place. Could it be that this scandal will be known as "Leakgate"? Time will tell.
"QUIET! INVESTIGATION IN PROCESS" is the Subordinate Frame:
In the past 24 hours, the Republicans have used the media and the President's star power well to introduce a second, albeit subordinate, frame. This idea has been repeated hundreds of times in the past few days: "We will remain silent during an ongoing investigation." On the surface, this seems like a weak argument. But the GOP has repeated it so many times, that the very existence of this new message has become a story. The metaphor is powerful also and it follows a logic along these lines: [justice] is [not talking]. While this idea does not involve water in any overt way, it is not difficult to see that by remaining silent, the White House and their staff are trying to be the very image of "Anti-Leaks." If loose lips sink ships, then maybe stone cold frozen shut lips will stop those ships from sinking too fast? They could be right.
The Scandal's POSTER CHILD is Karl Rove:
In a reactionary editorial, today, about the scandal, the Wall Street Journal included a picture of Karl Rove. This image of Rove was not flattering in the least, but it was a powerful development in the debate: Rove has become the poster child for the scandal. Just a picture of Karl Rove, now, included in a newspaper article, is shorthand for the story. This is good and bad for each side. For the Democrats, who have long believed that Karl Rove is the "honest" Iago to George Bush's Othello, seeing Rove in the media makes them think of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters. And for the Republicans, it is certainly not great to have Rove's face all over the because Rove is the wizard of the backroom meeting. Too much time in sunlight and he will no longer be able to do his magic. But then again, having Rove become the poster child is also bad for the Democrats. Ultimately, this story of scandal at the White House is not about an adviser to the President, no matter how high up that adviser may be. It is about President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and a war that America should have never fought. When Americans hear Watergate, they instantly see Richard Nixon. When Americans hear "Leakgate" and instantly see George Bush or Dick Cheney, that will signal serious, bad news for the Republicans. The GOP is doing a very good job making sure neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney's faces become the poster child for this scandal.
Some of these points may seem obvious at first, but they are each very important if Democrats are going to hold the debate.
Here are some suggestions to move things forward:
- Start running pictures of President Bush and only President Bush in the stories of the scandal.
- Don't get caught up in legalese (that's the GOP frame).
- Expand the "Leak" metaphor. Talk about the Bush White House as "broken" or "having holes in it", for example.
- Do not let the White House play "anti-leak." If they don't talk, just talk for them. Respond to your own questions.
- Keep expanding the "Leak" metaphor to more and more people. "Is Libby Lewis also a leaker?" "How many holes in the system are there at the White House?" "What else leaked out of the pipes at the White House?"
And, last but not least, keep in mind that "Leakgate" is a name for the scandal that makes sense to Americans. Most Americans who read the news will know what Watergate is. And when they hear "Leakgate," that will make sense.
But the important thing at this stage is to not let the GOP legalese take over the "leak" frame. If their frame takes hold, that would be a serious setback, and would likely prolong the war in Iraq.
Drip, drip, drip...
© 2005 Jeffrey Feldman