[Media-watch] FW: Private Vs. Personal: Media's Social Security Semantics

[Tim Gopsill]

neat lesson in spinnnnn

-----Original Message-----
From: FAIR [mailto:fair at fair.org]
Sent: 27 January 2005 23:38
To: Tim Gopsill
Subject: Private Vs. Personal: Media's Social Security Semantics


                                 FAIR-L
                    Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
               Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/activism/social-security-semantics.html

ACTION ALERT:
Private Vs. Personal: Media's Social Security Semantics

January 27, 2005

Facing significant opposition to its plan to privatize part of the Social
Security program, the White House is pushing reporters and lawmakers to
use the expression "personal accounts," since polling data seems to
indicate that "privatization" is an unpopular term with voters.

While it's not unusual for politicians to try to spin the terminology used
in debate, journalists should avoid changing word usage simply because
some politicians think it will be to their advantage. There's little doubt
that "privatization" is a more accurate description of the White House
plan, especially considering that the current Social Security system is
already based on what are essentially "personal accounts"-- your benefits
depend on how much you personally have paid in, as the annual statements
you get from the Social Security Administration indicate-- rendering the
Bush administration's preferred terminology redundant and confusing. What
is different about the accounts that Bush is proposing is not that they
are personal, but that they will hold private-sector securities-- in other
words, that they will be privatized.

But some outlets endorse the notion that using any variation of the term
"privatization" is politicizing the story. As Time magazine explained
(1/10/05), "Because Democrats have given the term 'privatization' a
negative tinge, advocates prefer to call it 'personalization,' emphasizing
control and ownership rights." NBC host Tim Russert said on Meet the Press
(1/23/05), "The president is proposing personal or private accounts, the
vocabulary differs according to the ideology or the party using it."

But the term "privatization" was for years embraced by its proponents as
an accurate description of their position. The Cato Institute, an
influential pro-privatization Beltway think tank, called its program the
"Project on Social Security Privatization" before re-naming it "Project on
Social Security Choice" in 2002 (New York Times, 10/6/02). That change was
attributed to Republican lawmakers who wanted to avoid using an unpopular
term to describe their policy.

This semantic debate is no accident. As the Washington Post reported
(1/23/05), "Republican officials have begun calling journalists to
complain about references to 'private accounts,' even though Bush called
them that three times in a speech last fall."

One would hope that in a debate as important as this one, reporters would
resist this GOP spin. But the White House may be having some success: Carl
Cameron of Fox News, in a news conference question to George W. Bush
(1/26/05), made reference to "those who opt into a potential private
account"-- before quickly correcting himself to say "personal account."

The Associated Press has also shown evidence of adopting the GOP's
semantics; as CJR Daily pointed out (1/25/05), last year reporter David
Espo used the phrase "private accounts" fifteen times in Social Security
articles, while referring to the accounts as "personal" only once
(10/17/04, 12/6/04, 12/7/04).  But this year, "private accounts" has
nearly disappeared from his vocabulary: A Nexis search of his reports on
Social Security through January 26 turn up 16 references to "personal"
accounts and only two to "private" accounts (outside of direct quotes).

Aside from echoing Republican spin, this semantic shift can muddle the
story.  In one recent report (1/24/05), for example, Espo wrote that the
AARP "released a nationwide poll today indicating deep public skepticism
about President Bush's plan for personal accounts." But one paragraph
later, he explained that AARP's poll asked about private, not personal
accounts.

The Times similarly confused the AARP poll; a January 25 article on the
Social Security debate, which made three references to "personal" accounts
and only one reference to "private investment" accounts, reported that
"the AARP released a poll showing little public support for personal
accounts once the costs and tradeoffs involved in establishing them are
made clear."  By changing the terminology of the poll, the Times and the
AP added extra layers of confusion and inaccuracy to what should be a
fairly straight-forward story.


ACTION:
Ask the Associated Press and the New York Times to use the more accurate
expression "private accounts" when reporting on the White House's Social
Security privatization plan. Tell them you think it is important that they
resist GOP pressure to change the language they use when reporting on this
story.

CONTACT:

Associated Press 
mailto:info at ap.org 
Phone: (212) 621-1500 

New York Times 
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor 
mailto:public at nytimes.com 
Phone: (212) 556-7652 

As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair at fair.org with your correspondence.

      ----------
Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html

SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
The Oh Really? Factor
http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair at fair.org .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
                                  FAIR
                             (212) 633-6700
                          http://www.fair.org/
                          E-mail: fair at fair.org

---
You are currently subscribed to fair-l as: timg at nuj.org.uk
To unsubscribe send a blank email to:
leave-fair-l at comet.sparklist.com

NOTE: To change your address, simply unsubscribe your old address, and re-subscribe with your new address.