Something that might prove useful to our political efforts is fostering a better understanding of how the Cathedral operates, and wins its political battles on the back of its own dominance of all meaningful real estate in the democratic world. Something interesting would be an in-depth look at the academic setting, how professors and teachers chip away at any ideals that parents have instilled in their children and replace them with dogmas approved by the ruling elites.
Instead of that, an easier analysis could look at the art of the media ambush. If you haven’t witnessed this phenomenon then you probably don’t have a T.V. To sum it up, this is where the media bring a useful foil on air to give ‘the other side’ of a particular debate, and then deploy a variety of audience-tested tactics in order to discredit this target, make them seem foolish, and most of all vilify them to ensure that others steer well clear of their views. I recently happened upon one of the great many examples of this kind of televised entrapment in an old dialogue between insufferable ‘twat’ Piers Morgan (backed up by a retinue of loyalists), and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, hosted on the now defunct CNN show ‘Piers Morgan Tonight‘.
You can follow the link to the entire video, but it’s not really necessary. There isn’t anything groundbreaking here, it is just a rehash of every other ambush interview ever conducted by Liberals. What I want to do is break down some key elements in it, just so you can really get a sense of how the mechanics work in these situations, how everything is in fact meticulously designed to give a certain impression, and ultimately how hopeless the endeavors of Anderson were in such a setting.
What follows are six specific segments of the video, and a discussion of why each cog is an important piece of the MSM mousetrap.
This is the opening salvo. You will notice if you watch any of these such interviews, where the aim is to skewer the other side, that no time is wasted in terms of the kinds of questions asked. The framer is there to set the tone, to immediately make clear that the terms upon which the discussion is to occur will be decided by the interviewer, and so they have free reign over the language used and the narrow path that the dialogue will take. It’s like a funnel, directing the interviewee down a pre-determined line of reasoning, on which he will be on the defensive. An effort is made to make the subject feel small and unwelcome, like they just blundered in without invitation, hence why Anderson is in the audience and not invited to the center table.
“Why are you so opposed to gay people getting married?” asks the insipid questioner. Anderson fights back calmly, stating that he doesn’t agree with the framing, but Morgan pushes ahead with ridiculous subsequent questions and repetitive badgering. The intent is to make Anderson seem ashamed of his position, as if he is sugarcoating it “like a politician”. Thankfully Morgan is here to pull the mask of the hideous opinion of thinking marriage describes exclusively heterosexual unions. The interruptions by Morgan continue throughout the video.
Not much explanation is required here. This tactic typically cannot be used by the interviewer themselves, as they have to maintain a much too aggressive posture right from the start, but any proxy present is wise to deploy the tactic of the calm and respectful front, only to ensure that when it culminates in a razor sharp shivving, such a thing doesn’t appear uncouth.
The proxy here is Suze Orman, a notable figure in the circles of pop financial investment, author, hosted a show on CNBC you’ve probably never heard of. I’ll get more to her character in just a second, but right now, just observe the initial flattery that pours forth: “I feel compassion for you” “I know you believe very strongly what you believe”. It sounds nice, and you wonder if maybe she is going to actually debate in a respectful manner, as Anderson does throughout. It all falls apart when, with a gleaming smile, she describes Anderson as “very very uneducated”. Nothing Anderson had said thus far was factually incorrect (in fact most of it was just him giving his personal opinion), so the insult makes no sense, but the audience immediately breaks into applause. How does she get away with it? Well…
As the interview progresses, the framer isn’t usually enough to really set up the perpetrator/victim dynamic that the story needs, and so this is done in a very formal way. “You want to do X to character Y. How could you do something so dreadful!” The presence of the proxy isn’t necessary, as one can just as readily call forth some distant actor like the anonymous ‘refugee’ who the interviewee wishes to harm for no apparent reason. Viewers often prefer narratives they can recognize which don’t require a lot of thought, so the segment needs a definitive good guy to root for, and a definitive bad guy to loathe.
Suze Orman is fawned over, the wealthy, successful, not overweight, smiling aunt who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Because Morgan has already framed her as being the one under attack, her previous insult is viewed by the public as a bullied kid fighting they corner admirably. Listen to how Morgan says these words “But you don’t want Suzie… to have the right to marry the woman she loves.” There is some incredulity, that Anderson would dare do this to poor innocent Suzie. Anderson is accused of thinking there is something wrong with her, something he quickly tries to deny, but it is too late. He doesn’t realize he is the villain, and no amount of virtue-signaling is going to save him from the witch hunt. Had Morgan wheeled out Andrea Dworkin, the case might have been harder to make, but Orman is perfect for purpose. Proxies are usually selected quite carefully in such situations, for example in a debate about Islam, the media usually likes to bring on the most moderate, everyday-looking Muslim they can find. The aesthetic matters.
The emotional appeal is classic Cathedralspeak, but it remains no less an essential component to something like a media ambush. Facts, logic, values are to be avoided at all costs, for they rarely comport to left wing narratives. Instead, using the character assignment already set up, a cry for help goes out to the viewing public. The interviewee is only a bystander to this, and can do little to hinder its effectiveness because nobody wants to listen to the villain. The most commonly appealed to emotion is compassion. That which is being promoted is humanized and familiarized to the point of absurdity, and thus the target of the interview, the ‘perpetrator’, only accrues scorn.
Despite being filthy rich, Orman remarkably manages to weave a narrative that if she ‘widowed’ her sex partner, Kathy, starvation and poverty would ensue because of the marriage law with regards to benefits. Meanwhile, we get a collage of staged photographs of Orman and Kathy living otherwise normal lives, enjoying themselves. The pictures have very little to do with what is being discussed, but are shown for the purpose of emotional appeal, to make people question their very much justified prejudices in the name of feelings.
Morgan tells us that it’s “just unfair”. Already conditioned to slobber over ‘fairness’, this works very well on Western audiences and makes them associate Anderson’s view with a preconceived notion of what his heretical. Any pet Liberal issue can be linked back to more deeply rooted ideas about fairness, tolerance, diversity, etc., no matter how divorced they are from the origins of such words. It’s why the American Founding itself is problematic, because Liberals can very easily find ways to appeal to its sentiments to justify their projects, and the understandable reverence the people have for their foundations provides cover for a smörgåsbord of agendas.
Another very common trope, especially for live T.V. interviews, forums, and debates. Usually what amounts to a small audience is gathered together, and defying other demographic data which tracks opinions (only 52% of Americans voiced support for same sex marriage in 2013, when this was recorded), somehow manages to represent the interviewer’s politics perfectly. The BBC especially has been found the worst offender in this regard, stacking audiences for popular political forum ‘Question Time’ with every left wing misfit you can imagine (I, II, III). Don’t bother looking to the audience for help, anyone viewing you with anything less than utter contempt has already been screened out.
Here we have Anderson making the case that marriage is for the purpose of children, which is completely correct, and no anthropologist worth their degree would deny it. Orman makes the retarded case that marriage is about love, not children. Okay, so she would flunk anthropology, but who needs that when you have a handpicked audience? If people at home are unsure about this question, a good way to ensure they think no further, is to make Anderson’s view seem marginal and laughable. A snap poll is initiated by Orman, and the audience unanimously boos Anderson. Case closed. All that is now required is Morgan to relate the snap poll to the general public opinion on marriage, just to ensure the viewers do indeed think the audience is a microcosm. Afraid of receiving a similarly hostile response, people will be loathed not to agree with Orman, especially in public.
The spectacle draws to a close, and the interviewer gets his last word in. The conversation really didn’t matter in its substance, only its propaganda effects, and with the bigot successfully buried under a cargo ship-load of kitty litter, all that is left to do is piss on the mound. There is rarely any holding back, and like a scoffing judge, the interviewer tells everyone exactly why they should never even think of accepting such unsavory thoughts… or else.
Morgan describes how Elton John and David Furnish “got” a second child (i.e – abducted with the help of civil authorities), and then launches into the epic final screed: “The idea that you, Ryan, with the best will in the world, the idea that you want to stop people like Elton and David, or Suzie and Kathy from getting married in America in the Modern era, I just find a bit offensive these day. It’s not fair. It’s not tolerant. It’s not American.”
It’s almost like a well-rehearsed template, hitting all the key notes. Personalizing the agenda? Check. ‘It’s the current year!’? Check. Offended? Check. Unfair? Check. Tolerance? Check. British expat declaring unamerican something that was voted for by the vast majority of US voters? Check. Of course though, Morgan is reasonable because he did give Anderson his best will. I guess there is that.