War of Words

Language, Politics and 9/11

Sandra Silberstein

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• Print ISBN: 9780415290470
• eBook ISBN: 9781134306428
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Journalism
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

In a media age, wars are waged not only with bombs and planes but also with video and sound bites. War of Words is an incisive report from the linguistic battlefields, probing the tales told about September 11th to show how Americans created consensus in the face of terror. Capturing the campaigns for America's hearts, minds, wallets and votes, Silberstein traces the key cultural conflicts that surfaced after the attacks and beyond:

• the attacks on critical intellectuals for their perceived 'blame America first' attitude
• the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and the media
• (mis)representations of Al Qaeda and the Taliban used to justify military action
• the commercialisation of September 11th
• news as 'entertainment' when covering tragic events.

Now featuring a new chapter on the Second Anniversary and Beyond, including: the war in Iraq, the backlash against former 'heroes' and accusations of presidential mendacity.
A perceptive and disturbing account, War of Words reveals the role of the media in manufacturing events and illuminates the shifting sands of American collective identity in the post September 11th world.

1

From Terror to War
The War on Terrorism

Presidential power is the power to persuade.

Political scientist Richard Neustadt¹

At 8:45 a.m. EDT on the morning of September 11, 2001, an American Airlines jet flew into the north tower of the World Trade Center. With the collision of a second plane, into the south tower, it became clear that the media was not covering an accident. This was confirmed within the hour as an American Airlines plane flew into the Pentagon and another hijacked flight crashed south of Pittsburgh. CNN banners screamed “Breaking News” above “America Under Attack.” And for several days thereafter, CNN announced the “Attack on America.” But the “attack” quickly became an act of war, this generation’s “Pearl Harbor.” It is not the intent of this chapter or this book to speak to the validity of this analysis. (My cousins, academic historians living in lower Manhattan, found it impossible not to feel themselves in a war—witnessing war crimes against innocent civilians.) Nonetheless, given that other rhetorical and political postures were available, the goal in this discussion is to detail how the particular road taken—the construction of a nation at war—is aided through the strategic deployment of language.

The perspective I will be taking is that language has consequences—that through the use of language, we create and recreate particular worlds of understanding. For this reason, I will sometimes be using the convention of parentheses when I talk about (re)creating, for example, a unified nation.

Examining presidential rhetoric in the wake of September 11, we see a terrorist attack that comes to merit the full response of the U.S. military and the creation of an unprecedented coalition of allies. This chapter addresses the question, how did a response to terror become the War on Terrorism?

First, a few words on terrorism. Unfortunately for those of us living in this electronic age, terrorism is an act made for television. Terrorism specialist Walter Laqueur notes:

The success of a terrorist operation depends almost entirely on the amount of publicity it receives. This is one of the main reasons for the shift from rural guerrilla to urban terror in the 1960s; for in the cities the terrorist could always count on the presence of journalists and TV cameras and consequently a large audience.²

Terrorism feeds on the news media in a system of mutual survival. Former diplomat David Long notes: “The media’s mission to cover the news and the terrorist’s ability to ‘create’ news have led to a symbiotic relationship between the two, one in which the media not only convey the news, but help the terrorist create it.” Terrorist violence succeeds in the form of “carefully planned theatrical events.”³

Terrorist attacks are a particular challenge to a government that must create the impression that it is able to contain violence and protect its citizens. It must find a balance between appearing ineffectual and infringing on civil liberties.⁴ And it needs to ensure that terrorists don’t dominate the news. This creates a presidency dependent on media exposure for its own power to persuade.

In effect, the media age has transformed the very office of the U.S. presidency. Roderick Hart⁵ characterizes its modern role: “the president is first and foremost a talker.” Prior to the twentieth century, he reports, “presidents rarely spoke at all.” But all that was to change. Between 1945 and 1975, public speeches by U.S. presidents increased almost 500%. And that figure has continued to increase.⁶ Hart again: “presidential speech and action increasingly reflect the opinion that speaking is governing.” The power of the presidency rests in its ability to persuade.

And that power and persuasion rests in access to the media and the ability to shape reporting. Even though terrorists create televised events, communications specialist Steven Livingston argues that the ability to shape reporting remains the province of the government:

The power to shape perceptions of violent events and their principal actors (both perpetrators and victims) usually rests not with the terrorists but with government officials. Who the terrorists are in the first place is a question largely determined by these officials. Those who have routine access to the mass media, those to whom reporters turn when the dust settles and the shooting stops, have the ability to shape coverage and perceptions.⁷

Such was the office and the task on 9/11 when George W. Bush addressed the nation. Presidential speeches draw news coverage, and Bush would speak to the nation three times that first day, including a prime-time address. These speeches can be found in the Appendix to this chapter. In addition, there would be four press briefings by the White House and a statement by the press secretary. And, of course, statements by current and former government officials would fill the airwaves.

Bush’s first remarks came a scant forty-five minutes after the first plane hit; he spoke for only a minute from Emma Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.⁸ In a brief statement, Bush described the events with noteworthy precision: “Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center.” He also characterized the situation: “a difficult moment for America,” “an apparent terrorist attack,” and “a national tragedy.” America was not yet at war.

In examining the next two sentences, we’ll take a close look at the language used, particularly the grammatical choices. These remarks also participate in the rhetorical (re)construction of the presidential Bush. He is in control—grammatically marked as an active agent. In the following quote, note the use of the personal pronoun, I, and the use of the active voice as Bush marshals the full resources of the state:

I have spoken to the Vice President, to the Governor of New York, to the Director of the FBI, and have ordered that the full resources of the federal government go to help the victims and their families, and to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.

This phrasing stands in sharp contrast to comments made by Attorney General John Ashcroft later in the day.⁹ His statements are grammatically “passive”: “Crime scenes have been established by the federal authorities.” And some statements have no agent: “The full resources of the Department of Justice … are being deployed to investigate these crimes and to assist survivors and victim families.” In the president’s remarks, he personally had done everything possible to help and protect the citizens.

The president is firm, “Terrorism against our nation will not stand.” In pledging to find “those folks who committed this act” he has been both presidential and folksy. As one scholar has observed, “The presidency is still a damned informal monarchy.”¹⁰

Grammatically, the president creates a united nation, under God. “We’ve had a national tragedy,” he reports. In examining the use of pronouns here, we have what linguist John Wilson calls a “pronominal window into the thinking and attitudes”¹¹ of a political leader. Oftentimes the referent for the pronouns we and you is ambiguous (as “we’ll” recall from the exhortations of “our” high school teachers to avoid their use!). There is certainly ambiguity in the phrasing by Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson later in the day: “It is now our mission to begin the healing from this tragedy.” In contrast, Bush’s “we” is the nation (re)created and united through his remarks: “Terrorism against our nation will not stand.” Having constructed the listeners as a nation, Bush ends with a nation under God: “And now if you would join me in a moment of silence. May God bless the victims, their families, and America. Thank you very much.”

With the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93—which may have been heading for the White House—those charged with presidential security faced a dilemma. On the one hand, the president had to be kept in secure locations. On the other hand, he needed to be rhetorically visible. The president spoke again at 1:04 p.m. from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.¹² His first task is reassurance; he begins: “I want to reassure the American people that the full resources of the federal government are working to assist local authorities to save lives and to help the victims of these attacks.” Once again, notwithstanding the president’s absence from the capital, he is able to confirm that he has marshaled the full resources of the state. He is also able to reassure those for whom talking is governing: “I’ve been in regular contact with the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the national security team and my Cabinet.” And that talk has worked in the service of the people’s government: “we have taken the necessary security precautions to continue the functions of your government” and in the service of their safety: “We have taken all appropriate security precautions to protect the American people.”

For those listening carefully for clues to planned military actions, there are several key phrases. The first does not seem to put the United States on a war footing: “Make no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.” Hunting down and punishing could indicate covert actions, leading to, for example, assassination or bringing perpetrators to justice under U.S. or international law. It could also mean formal military action. The next clue comes quickly: “We have been in touch with the leaders of Congress and with world leaders to assure them that we will do whatever is necessary to protect America and Americans.” This phrasing is more ominous. When the president speaks, he governs. And the courtesies of warning allies in advance of attacks may begin to be in place.

The president is firm. Twice he says, “make no mistake.” The second time can also be read in a military context, as he addresses the rhetorically unified nation: “The resolve of our great nation is being tested. But make no mistake: We will show the world that we will pass this test.”

The Barksdale statement is similar to the first: It places the president in charge, bringing to the service of the people the resources of the state. But it expands on the single statement made earlier, “Terrorism against our nation will not stand.” In the second brief statement, assurances of resolve are accompanied by assurances of action: “we will do whatever is necessary.”

The president closes as he had previously, on a religious note. Just before indicating that the nation would pass the test, he thanks “the folks” who were mounting the rescue efforts, and offers a prayer for victims and families. Bush ends with “God bless.”

By the evening, we had “the war on terrorism,” announced in the course of a five-minute, prime-time address to the nation.¹³ The president begins by characterizing the attacks. They are no longer “two airplanes [crashing] into the World Trade Center.” Nor are they simply “traged[ies].” Rather, they are attacks on “our way of life.”

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

Within a few short lines, much has been accomplished rhetorically. A “fellow citizenry” has been invoked—united within its symbolic territory of a “way of life” and its “freedoms.” To invoke those symbols is to invoke precepts for which, I daresay, most Americans would give their/our lives. To understand how these concepts can be deployed rhetorically, it’s necessary to say a few words about both nation and symbols.

Anthropologist Benedict Anderson¹⁴ defines the nation as “an imagined political community.” It is imagined, he tells us, “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” Moreover, national boundaries tend to be recent, elastic, and accidental. As a philosophical entity, he argues, nation-states are rather impoverished. Nonetheless, today, all individuals on the planet are born into nations.

Literary scholar Lauren Berlant¹⁵ (1991) explores American nation building. She argues that Americans are “inextricably bound together by America. … because we inhabit the political space of t...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1: From Terror to War: The War on Terrorism
• 2: Becoming President
• 3: From News to Entertainment: Eyewitness Accounts
• 4: New York Becomes America(n)
• 5: Selling America
• 6: “The New McCarthyism”
• 7: Schooling America: Lessons on Islam and Geography
• References