Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Karen Hughes: The Propaganda Czar from Paris + Texas
The good news is that at least it’s not Karen Ryan reporting. The Paris-born former Texas reporter Karen Hughes is about to report for duty once again in Washington. After leaving the president’s side full-time in 2002 for Texas to devote more time to family (her son was said to either hate Washington or miss Texas), Hughes is now being tapped to combat anti-Americanism in the Middle East and wherever else it might rear its ugly head. Karen Hughes will be the most high profile undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs since Charlotte Beers vacated that position two years ago right before the first shock-and-awe air strikes in Baghdad. Margaret Tutwiler, the James Baker protégé and former Ambassador to Morocco, spent less than nine months in that capacity before jumping the ship of state for the New York Stock Exchange. Now Hughes gets the job that everyone agrees is exceedingly necessary but altogether practically impossible given the ongoing credibility problems of the United States and its position of numero uno brand nation.
Hughes is not known for her foreign policy prowess but for guard-dog like devotion to President George W. Bush. While a professor at New England College, I was within a ten foot pole from her in Concord, New Hampshire in 2000 when Bush was campaigning in the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. She made a strong impression that I just might be zapped into vapor if I got too close to then Governor Bush when Hughes was around as his unofficial governor-in-chief bodyguard. Luckily I kept my distance and remain intact today. She was certainly good at protecting Bush far from the madding crowds, a tactic that failed to win the hearts and minds of many New Hampshire voters as we mass exited for John McCain’s straight talk and open door Town Hall policy. With some irony, Hughes will be tasked now with promoting a more open dialogue between our nation and overseas publics. Let’s hope she uses a softer touch this time.
Shortly after 9/11, Hughes did earn her information warfare stripes while heading the White House day-to-day duties of the Coalition Information Centers (CIC) that coordinated the message of the day from London to Washington to Islamabad during the bombing raids over Afghanistan. She was identified then as one of the main players in what the New York Times called the largest communications war effort since World War II.
Now the Times reports that “her main responsibility will be to repair the image of the United States which was badly tarnished abroad by anger over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. She will be responsible for improving U.S. diplomats' face-to-face contact overseas and will oversee an array of programs, such as radio broadcasts that place American ideas and news before foreign audiences.” In this capacity, she will enjoy something that few, outside A-list celebrities, will ever experience--complete access to the upper echelons of power. She certainly has the heart and mind of both secretary of state and president, a position that may very well allow her free reign to rev up some bold new initiatives in public diplomacy that we could surely use. But it is this access to Washington groupthink that is exactly what may hurt that overseas effort.
American public diplomacy is presently very much an insider’s and owner’s box seat game where the rest of us serve as passive observers to the process, much like those targeted audiences who are presumed to shift their attitudes and opinions after marinating in pop music and low intensity news. While Karen Hughes will bring much-needed F.O.G. (Friend of George) status to the public diplomacy process, as such a strong insider she may become susceptible to the programs already in place that have been politically popular in Washington but not definitively successful overseas. There are some heated discussions right now about the success or not of two international broadcasting initiatives, Radio Sawa (“together”) and Al Hurra (“the free one”), post-9/11 radio and television networks designed to combat hate media and Al Jazeera’s influence. The consensus among leading Arab intellectuals and journalists (and not just Arab government-controlled media), is that both Sawa and Hurra have met tepid audience response. This is not a consensus projected by the politically-appointed Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees all U.S. Government international broadcasting. (For a discussion, listen to the March 11, 2005 edition of On the Media, "Persian Persuasion.")
Although audience surveys do suggest that people have listened and tuned in to Radio Sawa and Al Hurra occasionally, there is yet any solid evidence that these programs are working to convert anyone to an American point of view, whatever that might be. A 2003 GAO report documented the failings of the U.S. government to come up with any measurable indicators that could prove success. Last fall a news leak to the Washington Post said that data were available that Radio Sawa and Al Hurra are, like Radio and TV Marti, more boondoggle than bonanza. This report has not been released to the public and may never be. Now we must wait for another inquiry by the Congressional investigating service, General Accounting Office.
I welcome the appointment of Karen Hughes because she will bring so much hot talk and public scrutiny from what had become a moribund conversation about why they hate us. That is so 2001. In 2005, the Bush Administration is claiming democracy victory at every turn in the Middle East as it still puzzles over why the world doesn’t embrace our marketed version. Now we’ll get to conduct our own market watch as Karen Hughes gets to sweat out the complexity and paradoxes associated with re-branding America.
Not since the colorful Charlotte Beers have I had so much fun poking around from my perch in the pale ivory tower, but as I learned on the steps of the State Capitol in New Hampshire, I’ll try not to get too close. For us media and propaganda monitors, this one is worth a good scrutiny, even from a respectable distance.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0314-21.htm
Shortly after 9/11, Hughes did earn her information warfare stripes while heading the White House day-to-day duties of the Coalition Information Centers (CIC) that coordinated the message of the day from London to Washington to Islamabad during the bombing raids over Afghanistan. She was identified then as one of the main players in what the New York Times called the largest communications war effort since World War II.
Now the Times reports that “her main responsibility will be to repair the image of the United States which was badly tarnished abroad by anger over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. She will be responsible for improving U.S. diplomats' face-to-face contact overseas and will oversee an array of programs, such as radio broadcasts that place American ideas and news before foreign audiences.” In this capacity, she will enjoy something that few, outside A-list celebrities, will ever experience--complete access to the upper echelons of power. She certainly has the heart and mind of both secretary of state and president, a position that may very well allow her free reign to rev up some bold new initiatives in public diplomacy that we could surely use. But it is this access to Washington groupthink that is exactly what may hurt that overseas effort.
American public diplomacy is presently very much an insider’s and owner’s box seat game where the rest of us serve as passive observers to the process, much like those targeted audiences who are presumed to shift their attitudes and opinions after marinating in pop music and low intensity news. While Karen Hughes will bring much-needed F.O.G. (Friend of George) status to the public diplomacy process, as such a strong insider she may become susceptible to the programs already in place that have been politically popular in Washington but not definitively successful overseas. There are some heated discussions right now about the success or not of two international broadcasting initiatives, Radio Sawa (“together”) and Al Hurra (“the free one”), post-9/11 radio and television networks designed to combat hate media and Al Jazeera’s influence. The consensus among leading Arab intellectuals and journalists (and not just Arab government-controlled media), is that both Sawa and Hurra have met tepid audience response. This is not a consensus projected by the politically-appointed Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees all U.S. Government international broadcasting. (For a discussion, listen to the March 11, 2005 edition of On the Media, "Persian Persuasion.")
Although audience surveys do suggest that people have listened and tuned in to Radio Sawa and Al Hurra occasionally, there is yet any solid evidence that these programs are working to convert anyone to an American point of view, whatever that might be. A 2003 GAO report documented the failings of the U.S. government to come up with any measurable indicators that could prove success. Last fall a news leak to the Washington Post said that data were available that Radio Sawa and Al Hurra are, like Radio and TV Marti, more boondoggle than bonanza. This report has not been released to the public and may never be. Now we must wait for another inquiry by the Congressional investigating service, General Accounting Office.
I welcome the appointment of Karen Hughes because she will bring so much hot talk and public scrutiny from what had become a moribund conversation about why they hate us. That is so 2001. In 2005, the Bush Administration is claiming democracy victory at every turn in the Middle East as it still puzzles over why the world doesn’t embrace our marketed version. Now we’ll get to conduct our own market watch as Karen Hughes gets to sweat out the complexity and paradoxes associated with re-branding America.
Not since the colorful Charlotte Beers have I had so much fun poking around from my perch in the pale ivory tower, but as I learned on the steps of the State Capitol in New Hampshire, I’ll try not to get too close. For us media and propaganda monitors, this one is worth a good scrutiny, even from a respectable distance.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0314-21.htm
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Have you been worrying about the image of the United States overseas? Have no fear, Karen Hughes is here. George W. Bush is nominating Hughes to be under secretary of state in charge of public diplomacy. That's the administration official who oversees the government's efforts to sell the United States abroad. No one has been in this position since the summer--which indicates just how much of a priority Bush has assigned to this task. With the United States' standing abroad at a frightening low level--even though Bush's belated response to the tsunami disaster did boost the United States' image in Indonesia--the White House has done little to enhance public diplomacy. That is, if you don't count Condi Rice strutting across Europe in high-heel, black leather boots. And the nomination of uber-hawk and UN-basher John Bolton to be UN ambassador hardly sent a signal that Bush is serious about working with other nations (and respecting their desires).
What are her Hughes' qualifications for this post? Well, she has been Bush's chief spin doctor since he entered politics. Once a local television reporter, she turned to the dark side. During the 2000 campaign, she actively misled the press about key aspects of Bush's past--most notably, his military service and his drunk-driving conviction. As a White House aide, she used PR tactics, not the truth, to push Bush's reckless policies. Now she'll do the same concerning the United States' image abroad. (If she could sell Bush to the American voters, maybe she can sell dirt as food.)
Of course, the problem is US policies, not the administration's PR efforts. As a report produced by the Defense Science Board last year notes, "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies [in the Middle East]." The Bushies talk about public diplomacy--when the bother to do so--as a marketing issue. ("Gee, I just don't understand why they don't want to buy our new chalk-tasting cola? We must not be pitching it right.") No, this is about product. True, you can successfully market crap and all sorts of stuff that harm consumers. But it sure helps to be peddling something that people want and that they consider high-quality.
******
Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at http://www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Dan Rather's noble attempt to hold a Bush accountable; God and blogs; attacks on progressive writers from indy publishers: and The New York Times's shoddy coverage of a massacre's history.
*******
Don't count on Hughes to acknowledge that. For her, PR trumps truth. In honor of her pending appointment, I'm posting below two of my favorite instances of Hughes going on a spin-bender. Coincidentally, each comes from my book, The Lies of George W. Bush. Isn't it comforting to know that the person responsible for improving the US image throughout the world is a political hack-loyalist who would say whatever was necessary--no matter how false or ridiculous--to achieve a political aim? Read on:
Soon after [Bush] entered the presidential race, the Associated Press discovered that Bush had not been honest about his military past when he had campaigned unsuccessfully for Congress in 1978. Back then, in an ad in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, he boasted he had served "in the first U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft." But Bush had done time only in the Guard, not the Air Force. When AP asked Bush's presidential campaign about this, the Bush crew could have taken the opportunity to set the record straight. Instead, Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes told AP that the advertisement had been "accurate," considering the time Bush had spent on alert and in training. "As an officer," she maintained, "he was serving on active duty in the Air Force." Bush himself remarked, "I was in the Air Force for over 600 days." Not so, according to a definitive source -- the Air Force. The AP reported that "the Air Force says that Air National Guard is always considered a guardsman and not a member of the active-duty Air Force." The 1978 ad had been a distortion, and Bush and Hughes refused to concede that."
******
Concerning his more wild days, Bush [during the 2000 campaign] adopted a best-defense-is-a-good-offense stance. He branded any questioning of his personal past illegitimate rumor-mongering. He equated being asked about booze-and-drug issues with being targeted by unfair innuendo. "I'm not ready for rumors and gossip," Bush told USA Today. "I'm ready for the truth. Surely people will learn the truth." What insincerity. He was claiming he wanted people to know the truth about him, but he would not answer a whole set of questions about his past.
One concealed truth Bush had not been "ready for" exploded on November 2, 2000, five days before Election Day. A Maine television channel reported that in 1976, Bush, then 30 years old, was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, for drunken driving. He had admitted to the arresting officer he had been drinking. He paid a $150 fine and had his driving privileges revoked in Maine. After the story broke, at a campaign press conference (his first in a month), candidate Bush acknowledged the report was accurate, and he said that he had never publicly revealed the DWI conviction out of concern he would set a bad example for his twin girls. In the same press conference, Bush maintained, "I have been very candid about my past." This was obviously not a factual statement, since Bush had neglected to disclose this arrest while supposedly being "very candid about his past."
As the story developed, the issue became not his post-youth crime, but one question: Had Bush lied to keep his arrest record a secret? Wayne Slater, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News and a longtime Bush watcher, recalled he had asked Bush in a 1998 interview whether Bush had ever been arrested after 1968. Slater told his media colleagues on the Bush campaign plane that Bush had said no. Slater also remembered that later in that 1998 interview Bush indicated his was about to return to this subject. But as Bush began to say something. Karen Hughes cut in, and Bush said nothing else on the topic.
While Slater was sharing this account, Hughes, several rows away, was presenting her own version to reporters "nervously," according to New York Times correspondent Frank Bruni, This was her line: not only had the governor not said anything false to Slater, he had somehow conveyed an accurate impression that an episode like the 1976 bush had occurred. Hughes, according to UPI, maintained that Bush in the 1998 interview with Slater was "hinting around that something had happened. That's why I stopped the conversation." Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank subsequently wrote that Hughes told the journalists, "I think the implication Wayne was left with was that in fact the governor was acknowledging that he had in fact been arrested." Notice the two "in facts" in one sentence. As Bush quipped, "An accurate impression of an unacknowledged event? It was an awfully weird concept."
This was spin at its most frantic. But that was the Bush camp's story. During a press conference, Hughes said Slater "was clearly left with the impression that the governor -- an accurate impression that the governor had been involved in some incident involving alcohol." And she noted that on another occasion, in 1996, Bush was asked directly had he ever been arrested for drinking, and the governor replied, quote, 'I do not have a perfect record as a youth.'" That vague response supposedly was evidence Bush had not outright lied about this arrest. But his 1996 answer had not been responsive. And had he been a "youth" at the age of 30?
Hughes' "explanation" of Bush's exchange with Slater is one of the great examples of political spin. If I were teaching college students about spin, I'd make them study this episode. Hell, it's worth an entire class. Why did the reporters not laugh her into oblivion? How could she get away with this? Here's the kicker: it worked. As Bruni noted after the campaign in a book, he and the Times (that liberal bastion!) played down the DWI charges in the final days of the campaign. And, as we all know, how the Times covers a story often affects how other media will handle it. "Bush and his advisers," Bruni wrote, "didn't end up taking as much heat for [the DWI story] as they perhaps deserved." So Hughes, with the Times' assistance, helped saved Bush's butt at a crucial moment. Can her talents at spin do the same for our entire nation? I'm betting the rest of the world is not as gullible.
What are her Hughes' qualifications for this post? Well, she has been Bush's chief spin doctor since he entered politics. Once a local television reporter, she turned to the dark side. During the 2000 campaign, she actively misled the press about key aspects of Bush's past--most notably, his military service and his drunk-driving conviction. As a White House aide, she used PR tactics, not the truth, to push Bush's reckless policies. Now she'll do the same concerning the United States' image abroad. (If she could sell Bush to the American voters, maybe she can sell dirt as food.)
Of course, the problem is US policies, not the administration's PR efforts. As a report produced by the Defense Science Board last year notes, "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies [in the Middle East]." The Bushies talk about public diplomacy--when the bother to do so--as a marketing issue. ("Gee, I just don't understand why they don't want to buy our new chalk-tasting cola? We must not be pitching it right.") No, this is about product. True, you can successfully market crap and all sorts of stuff that harm consumers. But it sure helps to be peddling something that people want and that they consider high-quality.
******
Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at http://www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Dan Rather's noble attempt to hold a Bush accountable; God and blogs; attacks on progressive writers from indy publishers: and The New York Times's shoddy coverage of a massacre's history.
*******
Don't count on Hughes to acknowledge that. For her, PR trumps truth. In honor of her pending appointment, I'm posting below two of my favorite instances of Hughes going on a spin-bender. Coincidentally, each comes from my book, The Lies of George W. Bush. Isn't it comforting to know that the person responsible for improving the US image throughout the world is a political hack-loyalist who would say whatever was necessary--no matter how false or ridiculous--to achieve a political aim? Read on:
Soon after [Bush] entered the presidential race, the Associated Press discovered that Bush had not been honest about his military past when he had campaigned unsuccessfully for Congress in 1978. Back then, in an ad in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal, he boasted he had served "in the first U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft." But Bush had done time only in the Guard, not the Air Force. When AP asked Bush's presidential campaign about this, the Bush crew could have taken the opportunity to set the record straight. Instead, Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes told AP that the advertisement had been "accurate," considering the time Bush had spent on alert and in training. "As an officer," she maintained, "he was serving on active duty in the Air Force." Bush himself remarked, "I was in the Air Force for over 600 days." Not so, according to a definitive source -- the Air Force. The AP reported that "the Air Force says that Air National Guard is always considered a guardsman and not a member of the active-duty Air Force." The 1978 ad had been a distortion, and Bush and Hughes refused to concede that."
******
Concerning his more wild days, Bush [during the 2000 campaign] adopted a best-defense-is-a-good-offense stance. He branded any questioning of his personal past illegitimate rumor-mongering. He equated being asked about booze-and-drug issues with being targeted by unfair innuendo. "I'm not ready for rumors and gossip," Bush told USA Today. "I'm ready for the truth. Surely people will learn the truth." What insincerity. He was claiming he wanted people to know the truth about him, but he would not answer a whole set of questions about his past.
One concealed truth Bush had not been "ready for" exploded on November 2, 2000, five days before Election Day. A Maine television channel reported that in 1976, Bush, then 30 years old, was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, for drunken driving. He had admitted to the arresting officer he had been drinking. He paid a $150 fine and had his driving privileges revoked in Maine. After the story broke, at a campaign press conference (his first in a month), candidate Bush acknowledged the report was accurate, and he said that he had never publicly revealed the DWI conviction out of concern he would set a bad example for his twin girls. In the same press conference, Bush maintained, "I have been very candid about my past." This was obviously not a factual statement, since Bush had neglected to disclose this arrest while supposedly being "very candid about his past."
As the story developed, the issue became not his post-youth crime, but one question: Had Bush lied to keep his arrest record a secret? Wayne Slater, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News and a longtime Bush watcher, recalled he had asked Bush in a 1998 interview whether Bush had ever been arrested after 1968. Slater told his media colleagues on the Bush campaign plane that Bush had said no. Slater also remembered that later in that 1998 interview Bush indicated his was about to return to this subject. But as Bush began to say something. Karen Hughes cut in, and Bush said nothing else on the topic.
While Slater was sharing this account, Hughes, several rows away, was presenting her own version to reporters "nervously," according to New York Times correspondent Frank Bruni, This was her line: not only had the governor not said anything false to Slater, he had somehow conveyed an accurate impression that an episode like the 1976 bush had occurred. Hughes, according to UPI, maintained that Bush in the 1998 interview with Slater was "hinting around that something had happened. That's why I stopped the conversation." Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank subsequently wrote that Hughes told the journalists, "I think the implication Wayne was left with was that in fact the governor was acknowledging that he had in fact been arrested." Notice the two "in facts" in one sentence. As Bush quipped, "An accurate impression of an unacknowledged event? It was an awfully weird concept."
This was spin at its most frantic. But that was the Bush camp's story. During a press conference, Hughes said Slater "was clearly left with the impression that the governor -- an accurate impression that the governor had been involved in some incident involving alcohol." And she noted that on another occasion, in 1996, Bush was asked directly had he ever been arrested for drinking, and the governor replied, quote, 'I do not have a perfect record as a youth.'" That vague response supposedly was evidence Bush had not outright lied about this arrest. But his 1996 answer had not been responsive. And had he been a "youth" at the age of 30?
Hughes' "explanation" of Bush's exchange with Slater is one of the great examples of political spin. If I were teaching college students about spin, I'd make them study this episode. Hell, it's worth an entire class. Why did the reporters not laugh her into oblivion? How could she get away with this? Here's the kicker: it worked. As Bruni noted after the campaign in a book, he and the Times (that liberal bastion!) played down the DWI charges in the final days of the campaign. And, as we all know, how the Times covers a story often affects how other media will handle it. "Bush and his advisers," Bruni wrote, "didn't end up taking as much heat for [the DWI story] as they perhaps deserved." So Hughes, with the Times' assistance, helped saved Bush's butt at a crucial moment. Can her talents at spin do the same for our entire nation? I'm betting the rest of the world is not as gullible.
For more information:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$220.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network