Controlling the Message Volume on Iran PDF Print E-mail

ImageSam Gardiner, 19 May 2008


The White House pattern is well established.  When they are working to control a message, they do so with both content and volume.  I’ve found it useful to understand the direction of policy by watching the message volume.

My methodology is not particularly sophisticated.  Every morning, I Google on the issue I’m following and record the number of English language article that are hit.

During the run up to the 2004 presidential election in the United States, it felt as if the White House were trying to create fear to support the argument that George Bush should be reelected.  That intuition was measurable.

ImageWe can see the product of a well-managed message organization.  When a strategic communications theme has been selected, senior members of the Administration give speeches on the subject, the President will talk about the topic in press conferences, “officials” will give interviews to major print press outlets.

It won’t just be government sources.  In the materials recently released by the Pentagon in conjunction with the New York Times piece on military analysts, there were numerous mentions in e-mails about getting think tanks to support a particular message.

The result is a tremendous echo.  In the case of terrorism, volume was more than doubled over the normal coverage of the subject.  If terrorism were the topic for 2004, what is it for 2008? 

The strategic communication theme is not terrorism.  The terrorism coverage looks like the vital signs of a dead patient.  It’s flat lined.  Iran, on the other hand seems to be emerging as the message.  This is the past 60 days of the Iran message.

The President’s recent visit to the Middle East is an example of keeping the Iran message domination.   At every stop, President Bush talked about the threat from Iran.  If he mentioned Iraq in any of his speeches, I did not find it.  Obviously, Iraq is to be kept off front pages.

Iran is a threat.  Republicans are better at national security.  Vote for a Republican president.
< Prev   Next >