Home > Insight

Bush's prime-time deception
By Emile Hallez
ehallez@mscd.edu

My new favorite game show is NBC’s primetime Deal or No Deal. In this money-lassoing extravaganza, contestants play slim odds of winning $1 million while comedian Howie Mandel and his army of polished human props drag out several minutes of material into an hour. There is little strategy involved, save rubbing Mandel’s barren scalp for good luck. Both contestant and audience applaud mindlessly in acknowledgement of the game’s dull progress.

My second favorite game show is written, produced and directed by the U.S. government. While the government is good at things like bureaucracy and deception, it stands second to Deal or No Deal for a reason – the government’s knack for creativity falls somewhere between vanilla pudding and tapioca. For its programming to really soar, it should follow NBC’s lead.
Still in development, my second-favorite show lacks a title. Based on previous ventures such as Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle, I suggest something starting with, say ... Operation.

“Operations” are in right now. Plus, the term gives any title a sense of official authority. My suggestion: Operation Peninsular Pre-empticide. Not only is this title vague – something that would give the government time to develop presentable motives for an invasion of North Korea – but the resulting abbreviation would allow a Generation-X campaign based on the Naughty by Nature standard.

If President Bush really wants to sell us another war, he’ll have to adjust his marketing tactics. Deal or No Deal effectively employs suspense to keep an otherwise brain-dead audience watching. Before commercial interludes – and at the end of every show – is a cliffhanger. President Bush similarly plays off of our fears, but his approach could use more glitter. I suggest instituting a Ministry of Splendor, run by a presidential entourage of lingerie models dressed in Statue of Liberty swimwear.

Primetime game shows also employ online versions or text-message-based contests to give viewers a sense of connection to a game. To achieve this effect, the White House’s website could host Kim Jong Il Whack-a-Mole or Find the Nukes three-card monte. High-scoring contestants could be eligible for Air Force ride-alongs during pre-emptive attacks. Runners-up could delight in drafting ominous sanctions proposals alongside John Bolton.

Though the government could learn a lot from game-show tactics, there are eerie similarities in their manners of deception. The way Mandel misleads contestants into thinking they do or do not have a suitcase worth $1 million is strategically congruent to President Bush’s audacious tomfoolery. Language is a powerful medium; it can be manipulated to make outrageous or questionable claims without actually lying.

A key word to look for in media statements is “may.” That one word nullifies any statement to which it is added. Other words in a sentence are meant to clasp attention while “may” is undetected. Claims containing this word should be ignored; they don’t mean anything.

Ambiguity provides another tool for deception. Any polysemic or imprecise word is a keystone in misleading phrases.

President Bush said on Oct. 9, “I reaffirmed to our allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan, that the United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments.”

Exactly what the deterrent and security commitments are is unclear. Further, “full range” detracts from the precision of already ambiguous words – trade embargos and war lay at extremes of deterrent measures, so we really have no idea what to expect. “Security commitments” could well be a euphemism for pre-emptive war, though the dull construction of the statement ensures that many won’t think too hard about it, anyway.

From the same reactionary statement about North Korea’s claimed nuclear-weapon test, President Bush said, “Nonetheless, such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security,” in an attempt to magnify the non-threat exponentially.

If we become scared into adopting a constructed mentality, we will likely behave in a politically favored manner – passive appeasement. Ah, the power of uncertainty.