From Voice ~ Topics: information design, safety
Fearmongering: The Brand
There was something obscene about the commotion: the deployment, the accoutrements, the weapons, the uniforms, the electronic badges, the heavy equipment, not to mention the extra fuel and the expenditure in employee overtime. But you can never be too safe. No wonder terrorism readiness is big business. Fear is a powerful profit engine for purveyors of defense and surveillance technology, services and material.
I might be wrong, but historians will probably study the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s current propaganda campaign—its color-coded “Threat Advisory System,” its “Get Ready Now” citizen awareness crusade, its “Don’t Be Afraid” website—and wonder how the architects of the program were able to get away with such a blatantly sadistic approach. Under the pretext of safeguarding the public’s welfare, DHS’s policy makers are tormenting anguished Americans with safety recommendations so wasteful, so overblown, yet so lame, it defeats comprehension.
Engineering consent didn’t used to be a barefaced commercial operation. In the past, insidious persuasion required a certain artistic flair. Recall the visual inventiveness of Jean Carlu’s posters for the Office of War Information or the compelling expressiveness of Abrams Games’s advertisements for the British War Office. During WWI and WWII, propaganda produced posters powerful enough to galvanize a nation. Whether using realistic illustrations, like Flagg’s famous 1917 “I Want You For The U.S. Army” with Uncle Sam pointing at the viewer, or modernist photomontages, like Herbert Matter’s 1941 “America Calling” Civil Defense eagle, the images pulled all the stops to coerce and seduce at the same time. Rosie the Riveter, where are you?
The most notable characteristic of the DHS campaign is the stultifying effect of its cumulative banality. Its centerpiece, the Advisory System, is a colored graph showing five levels of alarm—Low, Guarded, Elevated, High, and Severe.
The graphic icon looks like a circuit breaker panel, and rightly so. Its function, it seems to me, is to create a disconnect between preparedness and paranoia. Are the “Threat Conditions” and their suggested “Protective Measures” based on reliable information or on inflated intelligence reports? No one knows. But forewarned is forearmed. “Terrorism forces us to make a choice. We can be afraid. Or we can be ready,” says Tom Ridge, DHS’s top official.
Only one thing is sure: the $100 million campaign Ridge launched in February 2003 to support his “Get Ready” crusade strives to alienate people from their emotions. Ostensibly promoting readiness as an alternative to fear, it describes doomsday scenarios in dispassionate language the way airlines describe the procedures to follow in the event of sudden cabin depressurization or emergency water landing. Lengthy tutorials dwell on cataclysmic disasters with steely military detachment, listing biological, chemical and radiation threats in the same breath as nuclear blasts.
The campaign, masterminded by Ruder-Finn Interactive as a pro bono initiative for the Ad Council, gives me the impression of being deliberately designed to numb the senses. The website, Ready.gov, presents guidelines to help Americans figure out what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Prosaic cartoons describe how to create a panic room at home (a technique called “sheltering-in-place”), what to do if you are exposed to radiation from a “dirty bomb” (remove your clothes), or where to take cover during a nuclear explosion (under your desk or in a fallout shelter, if you can find one!). The protagonist of these “airtoons”—a term coined by internet humorists to describe airline safety-card characters—is a white man wearing khaki pants and a polo shirt. A listless, emotionless “pod” figure, he is right out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the Cold War propaganda film classic. In fact, the entire website is eerily reminiscent of that period. Its commonplace safety recommendations (“Store food that won’t go bad”) could be lifted from a Federal Civil Defense Administration manual from the 1950s.
Yet, back then, in the glory days of the Red Scare, a little fun was allowed. To promote its famous Duck and Cover campaign, the Civil Defense created Bert the Turtle, the cheery and bow-tied cartoon character who instructed schoolchildren to duck under their tiny desks as if under a turtle shell during nuclear safety drills. No such moments of levity are permitted in the current administration’s concerted effort to galvanize the public opinion. The ready.gov collateral brochure that will soon be shipped to every U.S. household is a dour document spelling out the same trivial recommendations as the website (“Be prepared to improvise with what you have on hand to make it on your own for at least three days, maybe longer.”). It features photographs of law-abiding citizens staring ahead with calm determination against a predictably fluttering background of stars and stripes.
Rational minds have a simple explanation for this display of quiet hysteria. The DHS’s Threat Advisory System and the readiness crusade are in fact part of a legal maneuver—they constitute a covert disclaimer that would make it difficult for individuals to sue the government for liability in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack. A reassuring hypothesis of sorts, this theory overlooks a couple of disturbing facts.
First, Ruder-Finn’s involvement raises a red flag. Sure, with its formidable experience as a public relations firm and ad agency for business and institutions, including government entities, it is logical that it would be hired for the DHS campaign. With fourteen offices around the world, it has an impressive list of clients, from the governments of Turkey, Latvia and Moldova to Hugh Electronics and the Gallup Organization. But unfortunately, the company has the dubious honor of being at the center of a nasty internet conspiracy uproar. In internet postings questioning the assertions of a recent BBC documentary titled The Fall of Milosevic, Ruder-Finn is accused of mounting a PR campaign to demonize Milosevic in the early 1990s, before the war in the Balkans. Why? As the theory goes, the U.S. government wanted to remove the Yugoslavian leader because he was opposing trade agreements promoting a free market economy in the region.
In a revealing October 1993 interview with French television journalist Jacques Merlino from TV2, James Harff, then a Ruder-Finn director in Washington, D.C., boasted about what he called a public relations “coup.” “Speed is vital,” he stated to explain why unsubstantiated intelligence accusing Milosevic of organizing Bosnian death camps had been fed to the press by Ruder-Finn. “It is the first assertion that really counts. All future denials are entirely ineffective.” Ruder-Finn’s selection for Tom Ridge’s preparedness campaign throws a shadow on the project, particularly when you consider the way the present administration has a record of using faulty intelligence and hasty accusations to justify its actions and deter its opposition.
More telling, perhaps, is the Department of Homeland Security’s own website. It is rife with business opportunities in the defense and technology sectors. Within a couple of clicks, you can find information on how to get involved rebuilding Iraq, investigating the anthrax scare, working in concert with the Coast Guard to protect our borders, developing sensors to detect weapons of mass destruction, or doing research in computer security. If that’s not enough, google “Homeland Security” and you will stumble on more than two million related websites offering journals, newsletters, guides, products, job and contract opportunities, solutions and courses in terrorism warfare. Scroll down past the government agency sites and click Twotigersonline.com. Bingo. This is your portal into an abyss of paranoia. Fill your cart with Geiger counters, detector kits, prefab fallout shelters, supplies of potassium iodine and stocks in companies that manufacture fire resistant materials, maritime security devices and surveillance gadgets.
I might be wrong, but historians will probably conclude that the Department of Homeland Security’s color-coded alert system is an invention not unlike the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the Nasdaq Index. Rather than being based on intelligence reports, it is merely an indicator of how defense and surveillance stocks are doing. The accompanying public awareness campaign, they might also decide, was just a branding exercise designed to convince the public that fearmongering is a great American business proposition. No need to get upset. Emotions are counterproductive. Terror management is a profitable innovation whose key products are national security and prosperity at home.
Visual Commentary (figure 1) by Milton Glaser
-
Vienne seems to argue that the government should be more effective in persuading the public, like in the good old days of Rosie the Riveter. Is she really saying, "Manipulate us, but please, do it with some style?" I think this is an issue which extends beyond homeland security to include the design community's response to "issues" in general. While we claim to stand behind causes--such as truth in government--it seems to me that we rarely penetrate beyond aesthetic arguments. Fair enough, after all most of us make a living off of making fair-to-middling things seem above average. But does this give us the right--much less the responsibility, as the Vancouver conference suggested--to make moral judgements on policy? I'm confused. Is the problem with homeland security the color palette? Or are designers uniquely qualified to sniff out opportunists exploiting appearances to make a quick buck?
-
Great comment. Form over content is not the only issue. The military has long used color coding to distinguish states of readiness or danger. But what I think Vienne is saying is there is something sinister yet banal, or banally sinister about the Homeland Security system. Frankly, I think that while being sensitive to threats is a practical, the Homeland Security ethos is designed to make us more insular and mistrusting. The design is what it is, but the language (i.e. Homeland Security has dubious ring) and the mechanism (orange, yellow, red alert) is meant to provoke fear, not security. I think that a good usability designer could have figured out a much better way.
-
I recommend the alternative threat level chart: CHAOS, PANIC, PARANOIA, APATHY, STUPOR proposed by Whithouse.org. They have lover-ly full color reproductions on T-shirts, posters etc. at their Web site ( http://www.cafeshops.com/thewhitehouse/75598 ).
-
Why is it that whatever the government does in the interest of national security comes under such harsh scrutiny? Especially by designers who, for the most part, sit in their ivory towers looking down. I admire the fact that Homeland Security was launched as quickly as it was. In fact, I am surprised that the US didn't have an agency like this before (yes, I've heard of the FBI and INS). So whether the color code design works or doesn't is less important than whether the agency does its job. The color code doesn't cause fear. Instead I believe fearmongers are those who cast doubt on the govt's ability to protect us.
-
>So whether the color code design works or doesn't is less important
>than whether the agency does its job.
Correct. However, this begs a few questions: How do you know if the agency is doing it's job or not? Is looking like it's doing it's job the agenda, rather than actually doing it's job?
Unfortunately, most who have looked hard at the situation see that appearance seems more important than reality to the powers involved. A recent whitepaper on aviation security, reported on by international business travel resource OAG called current efforts by the TSA "smoke and mirrors" ? stating plainly, "Many of the actions the government has taken since September 11 have been aimed at influencing public perception, rather than increasing safety." It's helpful to remember Rubin-Finn is a public relations firm with expertise in 'crisis management' ? which means they don't offer technical assistance to help you solve the crisis, but PR tools to help you make it look like the crisis doesn't really exist.
Link: http://frequentflyer.oag.com/stories/02042004/f120701-3.asp -
FYI:
Speaking of Colors
Gore says Bush peddling fear for sake of politics
By KARIN MILLER
Associated Press
MURFREESBORO ? Former Vice President Al Gore told college students last night that the Bush administration is ''using fear as a political tool'' unworthy of the presidency.
''For the president of the United States to claim in a television ad that those who disagreed with the decision to go to war with Iraq are against attacking terrorists is a disgrace,'' said Gore, who lost the 2000 election to President Bush.
''It is a cheap and petty political tactic not worthy of the presidency. It is something you would find in a down-and-dirty sleazy campaign for city council,'' Gore added, drawing laughs from the partisan crowd at Middle Tennessee State University.
He said Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt did not inspire fear but called for courage in urging support of World War II. ''I'm concerned (Bush) is turning out to be a divider, not a uniter,'' Gore told MTSU students and those participating in the 90-minute discussion via satellite at about 30 colleges.
During the discussion, which centered on race and democracy, Gore said it is outrageous that some Arab-Americans have been seized and thrown into prison because one person, Bush, has decided they are enemy combatants.
Gore and most of the crowd agreed that racism was based upon fear and envy.
The key to transcending racism, Gore said, is to accept differences among races and ethnicities, then work to understand those differences.
To those who believe a colorblind society is close, Gore said: ''We are deceiving ourselves if we let ourselves pretend it is so.''
He said some idealists believe embracing the ''commonality of the human spirit'' can transcend race. But that rarely lasts, he said. Instead, Gore said he agrees with race historian John Hope Franklin that race is always present. -
Sam, I don't really think this is a Bush v. Gore. v. Kerry v. whoever issue. Believe me, we're going to have Homeland Security with us going forward whoever is president. The issue is parsing out the bullsh*t, and demanding that the people we're paying to do the difficult job are doing it as effectively as possible. As VV describes, we have an obligation to speak out when we see efforts obviously "wasteful, overblown, and lame."
-
Tom Dolan is quite right that this is not so much a partisan campaign as it is a national issue that the next president will inherit. But the issue is, as Veronique and Gore point out, enmeshed in fearmongering as a political and business strategy.
Not having lived during World War II I cannot speak about the immediate effects of OWI and other government agency's campaigns for the war effort, but in retropsect demonization of the enemy revealled our baser nature.While I don't think the color coding is a necessary - in fact, it is a public disservice - I wonder whether it is not as benign as it can be under the circumstances. During World War II (and later the Cold War) cautionary propaganda viciously targeted whomever was perceived as an enemy. It was a less sensitive time. Could it be that the current fear tactics are indeed constricted by political correctness? Or is the same tactic happening covertly, we just don't see posters proclaiming it? -
What's makes me afraid is how little graphic design really matters to this entire discussion. Fact is everything about Homeland Security - from the name to the logo - is generic. It feels like a movie prop version of a government agency, the kind on that old Mission Impossible series when they were trying to visualize a foriegn country. I'm not sure good design would make me feel any more secure, but I am sure that design isn't a big factor in their decisions. Is anybody responsible for this stuff, or do the Homeland "folks" accept what they get?
-
George Bush's lastest political ads are using the language of fear in insidious ways. By exploiting 9/11 he has launched, earlier than expected, his signature fearmongering attack. The visual and verbal language of the commercials are guaranteed to spur anxiety. He says we are safer today than yesterday, but as Maureen Dowd asks in her Times column, if we're so secure then why do you keep saying we need more security?
-
When did AIGA get so openly political on our Web site? I thought for a second I accidently landed on MoveOn.org.
If we as a non-partisan national organization are going to enter the political fray, shouldn't we try to share both sides? Or is AIGA's leadership showing it's true colors? -
I don't expect the AIGA to take a partisan stance, but I don't see why political viewpoints are off limits on its website. Just look at the poster by medalist Woody Pirtle on the AIGA.org homepage. This is design of conscience, it addresses both politics and design.
Of course, Vienne's article reveals her biases, but it is a fair commentary by a design writer who has written about social issues. Frankly, I don't think this "advances design" or stunts design. But it does, however, point out that design plays a role in political life. I'd rather be exposed to partisan criticism that sheds light on design than be ignorant of the impact of design. I can draw my own conclusions, and I can join in the debate, as I am doing here.
Also, AIGA has had a history of political involvement from its voting initiative to the D.C. and Vancouver conferences, so why is this any different? -
From the latest issue of Harper's:
"In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,622, and homicide, not including the attacks, another 17,330. As President Bush pointed out in January, no one has been killed by terrorists on American soil since then. Neither, according to the FBI, was anyone killed here by terrorists in 2000. In 1999, the number was one. In 1998, it was three. In 1997, zero. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality ought to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those people killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.
Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. . . ."
Continue Reading: http://www.harpers.org/ARunOnTerror.html -
Check this out:
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo /
When it comes to fear mongering I believe that Mr. Rumsfeld is caught with foot and mouth disease. -
It seems that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s current propaganda campaign is inspiring others though... could this be a good thing, perhaps triggering new initiatives to provide the world with better and more expressive information graphics? (Desperately searching for a bright side to all this...)
http://darrenwilson.com/bready / -
I'm a New York liberal and the AIGA makes me sick. They are biased and reactionary. The AIGA---like most self-proclaimed "arty" experts---is nothing more than a den of liberal propaganda puppets. Such a pity. The AIGA's increased left wing baloney tarnishes what good design thoughts they used to project.
-
I think the issue at hand is not whether government departments are taking the right actions, or necessarily the effectiveness of design in these situations, but whether design is being used to obscure rather than iluminate their real effectiveness. It's amazing how a slick corporate image can give a small company the aura of greatness, just as a barrage of polished graphics can give an image of campaign that appears more well thought out than it actually is.
I do not attempt to pass judgement, but I am reminded of a quote by, I believe, Ben Franklin (please correct me if I am wrong) that "The more a man protests his honesty, the more I say to myself: 'It's time to count the silver'".
By the way, William B. About those ivory towers, where can I get one? As I sit here desperately trying to get from paycheck to paycheck, It could be kind of nice to try one out.

Fig. 1
Comments