Changing the terms of debate: Hunter Cutting discusses strategies to influence public opinion of the war on terrorism. (A New Era).

"Be inquisitive. Remember, asking questions about government policies isn't disloyal. It's your duty." Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of The Sacramento Bee, never got to say these words at a commencement address in front of 18,000 at Arco Arena on December 22, 2001.

Within minutes of starting her speech and launching into "troubling constitutional issues" of racial profiling, secret military tribunals, and government vetting of videotapes of Osama Bin Laden, Heaphy was drowned by boos and hisses from the capacity crowd. The public was in no mood to hear Heaphy's less-than-patriotic ideas. Ironically, her last audible sentence before being silenced was, "To what degree are we willing to compromise our civil liberties in the name of security?"

During the summer of 2001, activists in the United States were pressing national debate on a wide variety of issues ranging from racial profiling to the plundering of national lands. But within a few short days of September 11, conservative forces whipsawed public debate and left progressive voices gasping for breath. Their efforts were organized by a strategic refraining of the historic conservative agenda as a response to the events of the 11th, a rhetorical undertaking grounded in the language of values and emotions.

The effort by progressives to wrest back the terms of debate will have to be similarly strategic.

Activists have to assess and acknowledge the enormous rhetorical territory that has been lost. Much of the civil rights agenda has been severely set back and it will take some time to regain the momentum.

Against these long-term considerations, there are communication strategies that can be called upon now to reframe public debate of the War on Terrorism.

Go Back to a Place of Agreement

It is extremely difficult to persuade an audience by starting your communication from a place of disagreement.

Right now, the initiatives and public policies that the peace and social justice movement would propose as a response to the suicide plane bombings and the war in Afghanistan arc at odds with the thinking of the vast majority of the general public.

Peace and restraint are drowned by calls of vengeance cheerled by G.W. Bush's "Dead or Alive" pronouncements.

Therefore, we must first lay the groundwork to argue for these policies and initiatives by speaking an agenda that the majority of the American public can support.

Right now, many people in the U.S. do not feel safe. They feel that the country is weak, that there has been disrespect for human life, and that justice must be obtained.

Because of these factors, there is an opening to have public debate that speaks to the questions of how to build safety, strength, respect for human life and justice.

Of course, our ideas about how to go about building these initiatives will differ from those of our opponents. But we should not try to address our opponents. Rather we should address the general public by building step-by-step a case for our initiatives that is grounded in the concerns and values we share.

Reframe the Debate

Debate can often be refrained by replacing the question being debated. In media debates, the question is usually implicit or hidden. Currently, public media debate is centered around such questions as: "Who is the enemy?" "How can we attack the enemy?" "How can we maintain national security?" and "How can we avenge the murder of our fellow citizens?"

We can reframe public conversations about these issues by substituting a different set of questions and fashioning our participation in public debate as answers to these new questions.

Speak to Shared Values

Our media messages should respond to a set of questions that speak to values central to both the peace and social justice movement and to the majority of the general population: How can we be safe? How can we be strong? How can we build respect for human life? How can we win justice?

Safety, Strength, Respect for Human Life, and Justice are all values shared by the peace and social justice movement and the majority of the U.S. public. And our media messages should be framed as answers to these questions.

When national security measures are debated, we can push for proposals that bring safety to our communities. Secret arrests fan the flames of suspicion and hatred while doing little more, if not less, than open and public arrests would to secure our safety at home. At the same time, secret arrests undermine our democracy while making us legitimate targets for charges of hypocrisy.

When secret military tribunals are discussed, we can push for open international civilian trials with verdicts that honor the families of the victims. Such trials will do far more to strengthen our international prestige and quell calls to violence against citizens of the United States.

Expanding the war in Afganistan to Iraq and other countries is a dangerous invitation to accelerate and amplify the cycle of violence which grips the United States and the Middle East. Our ability to force other countries into submission is vast, but our ability to translate that submission into a peace that guarantees the safety and live of U.S. citizens is questionable at best.

We must present a vision of strength in which power is not measured by our ability to retaliate and kill enemies, but by our stature as a country that does not find itself engaged in war after war, decade after decade. A truly strong country is one that does not regularly suffer the loss of resources to war. The trillions of dollar spent on defense and the tens of thousands of U.S. lives lost in the last 40 years signal a fundamental weakness that is paid for in blood, swear, and tears.

Acknowledge Our Loss

One important step to take is to honor the losses of September 11. That tragedy belongs first and foremost to the families of those who perished that day. But they are our country's losses as well, and we can and should participate in mourning and in discussing the best way our country should honor the loss and hold accountable those responsible. The moral center of much future debate in the "war on terrorism" will be located in the events of September 11.

Point to Institutions

Many people are grappling now with how to respond in the media to the alarming wave of hate crimes and racial profiling across the U.S. There are some principles for shaping media messages around these events. Speaking in the shared values of both fairness and safety will be important, as many people will be likely to continue their support for racial profiling and may even turn a blind eye to hate crimes if they feel that their safety is otherwise at stake.

If the issue of safety has been addressed, the opportunity to claim the moral high ground may present itself and can often be won by calling out racism. This strategy will probably be most effective first in the attack on hate crimes, but will also become useful in attacking racial profiling as events unfold and the opportunities to do so should be watched for.

When attacking hate crime and racial profiling it will be important to frame for institutional accountability, i.e. talk about the social and political pressures behind the hate crimes and racial profiling. Otherwise those responsible for creating a climate of hate will blame these actions on a few "bad egg" racists.

Media lies based on stereotypes have power. In attacking racial profiling activists should proactively work to undermine the lies based on stereotypes. On the flip side of the coin, activists should be careful to document their facts and remain credible. A double standard applies to those attempting to address racism; activists must meet a higher standard of proof in order to avoided being dismissed or trivialized.

The values upon which we base our work--justice, peace, and strength--are powerful. And they will be our strength as we speak out.

Hunter Cutting lithe outgoing director of We Interrupt This Message.

Hunter Cutting, "Changing the Terms of Debate." Hunter is a media strategist for community organizations, public interest advocates, and political campaigns. He is the outgoing executive director of We Interrupt This Message, a national nonprofit media strategy and training center.