Framing the way something is said, says George Lakoff, is all about "using language to evoke ideas."
Sarah Palin. Todd Palin. Business partner tries to seal his divorce papers. The attempt fails, but then it's discovered the Palins had nothing to do with the divorce. End of story, right? I mean, because of reports that the National Enquirer ran a story "alleging that Gov. Sarah Palin has had an extramarital affair with her husband's business partner.
That may not be the whole story. The whole story takes an interesting turn when you consider ONE word.
That word? One.
Or maybe the more important word is nothing.
More, below the fold...
It's all to do with language. Take this sentence:
Another day ruined. I was with my wife and got my shoes wet walking our only dog. Now we can't go to the reception.
Here's the kicker. Here's the question. How many dogs, wives, and pairs of shoes do I have?
One wife, check. One dog, check. But there is no information there to indicate how many pairs of shoes I own. Yet the sentence is phrased in such a way to make it sound like I only have one pair of shoes. Now: I could have ones that don't quite match the suit. I may have other reasons for not wanting to go to the reception. But when you strip away all the "what if" parts, one fact remains. No mention has been made on the true number of shoes in my possession. No matter what you assume.
Let's look at the full quote about Palin and the business partner again, taken from the link:
John McCain's presidential campaign is threatening a lawsuit against the National Enquirer over a print edition story the tabloid ran today alleging that Gov. Sarah Palin has had an extramarital affair with her husband's business partner.
One John McCain. One campaign working for him. One lawsuit, one National Enquirer, one story, one alleged claim, one Sarah Palin, one affair, one husband, and one un-named business partner.
Notice the bit in bold? You might have expected the business partner to be in bold. But I like the misdirections you see in politics. So: how have other sites and people reported it?
Well, there's this.
There's been unpleasant rumors in the press, fomented by the National Enquirer, that AK Governor/GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin had an affair with one of her husband's business partners...
One of? The "one of" phrasing isn't uncommon, and all seems to originate from the early days of when the story broke.
As an example, the National Enquirer is dispatching an army of reporters to continue investigating Palin, and explosively alleges in its print edition this week that she had an affair with one of her husband's business partners.
One of.
Last week Todd Palin had more than one previous business partner. Now he seems to have previously been in a monogamous business relationship. Sure: it doesn't say "one and only business partner". But think of the framing, and imagine the normal person's disinterest in politics. And never assume, because you know what they say about ASS-U-ME. There's a world of difference between 'one business partner' and just 'her husband's business partner'. Both phrases lead the mind to think in the singular, and that both are exactly the same thing. His running mate, her husband, her husband's business partner... the first two are known and singular: it gently directs the mind to assume the third is also a singular thing.
And yet, is it even important whether Palin had an affair with another un-named business partner, or not?
No. What matters is how our earnings have one down these last eight years. How Bush's 2000 speech was a mirror of McCain's 2008 speech. How you don't change course just by changing the two figureheads at the top when there are tens of thousands of people working for the GOP machine, people in Washington right now, whose job description will not change a bit if McCain is elected in.
What matters is that anything that detracts from the issues for a day is one more day that McCain and Palin don't have to face the real questions that should be answered.
All that analysis above is for nought. You might have thought the diary was going one way, but then it completely went in another direction and you never saw it coming.
It's called misdirection. Magicians use it all the time.
These political magicians are not working a benign entertainment but applying deceit and duplicity with devastating mendacity. It's worthwhile then to speculate about some of the procedures of 'legerdemain' (sleight-of-hand) adhered to by the political magicians of our time - what set of practices allow them success in managing their audience while they unswervingly pursue their strategic goals.
This page lists the main points of political misdirection as if it were like stage magic. There are eleven techniques, but the first three say it perfectly...
- The people's minds will follow the media's focus and the media will follow the official focus. Whatever crisis the official spotlight illuminates is where the media will focus. Wherever the media looks – the people look. Guide the media's attention and the people's attention will follow. So direct their minds towards issues of your choice and away from your key moves and strategies - from the things you need to get away with doing.
- Hide one movement with another.
Use a large, dramatic movement to draw their attention. Use it to cover other movements on which there is too much heat or which are not executed well due to your lack of skill and ability or due to difficulties encountered (but which you still desire to accomplish).
- Keep them occupied with your interpretation of events.
When brutal deeds that need doing are underway keep the media occupied with your justifications - tell them over and over again that your actions are only a measured but necessary response for the protection and greater benefit of the people. Use rule number 1 (feed selected information to the media) to accomplish this. Repeat this claim incessantly and emphatically.
1 - Create the firestorm. 2 - make a great deal of one ex-business partner hiding his divorce papers to hide another obfuscation. 3 - frame the events so that people think there was only ever one business partner, just in case one of the others has a skeleton in Palin's closet. Or even just a bone.
Obama is 100% right. It's The Issues, Stupid. Leave the affair stories for those that vote based on what the Enquirer says. Concentrate on those that want real answers. Those are the high-information voters, the undecideds, the ones that will listen to reason.
And I'm willing to bet they're not subscribing to the National Enquirer in any great numbers.