The past few weeks have been uncharacteristically filled with news stories about one specific midwest community – Springfield, Ohio. This city, with a population of approximately 60,000 residents, has garnered more media attention than most in the final weeks leading up to the 2024 Presidential election.
The stories being told about Springfield, Ohio’s Haitian community both on social media and even by some mainstream news outlets provide important communication lessons that go beyond this specific instance of racist dog whistling. We have been reflecting on the issues and want to offer some analysis to support your storytelling efforts. Below we share key takeaways that can help you interpret just what is being done in the telling of these wild stories, and how you can responsibly deploy tactics to advance an agenda of social change.
The power of “us” versus “them” rhetoric
Fear-mongering references to the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio have positioned audiences within an “us” versus “them” mentality. This is a common tactic of dog whistle racism—establishing a sense of fear about an easily identifiable category of others and then furthering the sense of divide by accusing the outside group of behaving in reprehensible ways. This tactic is present in all contexts where scapegoating is the goal because it serves to simultaneously strengthen in-group ties—a sense of who “we” are—while highlighting a supposed clear differentiation with “them.” For practitioners wanting to communicate to undermine racist and dangerous rhetoric, the “us” versus “them” framing can be turned on its head. For example, those using a race-class narrative have suggested capitalizing on the power of this rhetorical device by clearly naming a “villain” that creates division to reorient the story. For example, it could be a statement from an organization such as:
- “We value and work to support immigrant communities, and communities of color, knowing that those politicians who scapegoat historically excluded groups for political gains are the ones who pose a danger to our communities.”
- “Repeating disinformation and hateful lies will not divide us. We know the strength of small-town communities and national politicians’ attempts at fear-mongering won’t weaken us – we are stronger because we stand together in the face of these lies.”
Dehumanization
Given the reality of threats toward Springfield’s community, public officials have been making statements and attempting to reorient the media discourse. Some have been more effective than others. We recommend strong statements that clearly condemn dehumanizing language for what it is—a factor that can “pave the way for violence to occur.” Statements discussing racist discourse as “very hurtful” are simply ineffective and damaging because they frame the problem as an interpersonal slight, when it is not a personal insult but a public safety issue targeting specific communities. Your organization should be intentional about meeting the moment with the correct tone, which recognizes the weight of events and uses language to help audiences understand what is at stake. Remember, in moments of high tension when your organization needs to respond, or when the focus is not on your work but you feel the need to comment, it is key to distinguish between your personal reaction to events and who your audience is and what they need to hear. Establishing some key crisis communications guidelines ahead of time can help ensure your team has the space to think through that mental transition even in a fast-paced unfolding context. Dehumanizing of a specific people or group—a rote tactic of political manipulation—will require other groups to be more deliberate in how they highlight the humanity of those who are othered.
For example, make sure your communications are framed in ways to emphasize the agency and dignity of the people who are being targeted. Intentionally counter specific themes used to reduce their humanity such as phrases or words equating people to animals, insects or disease, claims of inhumane or cruel behavior, generalizations about cultural tropes, or unspoken references to race such as “bad neighborhoods”,“gangsters” or “welfare queens.”
Let’s focus on the loss
Loss aversion is an economic theory posited by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman about how people generally make decisions in contexts of risk. In short, the theory proposes that the pain caused by the loss of something is a substantially more powerful motivator than possible pleasure experienced by the gaining of something. While we still believe strongly in the power of helping to reimagine the future, loss aversion does indeed have a role in storytelling. From a communications lens, a focus on what is lost can be more powerful than the alternative focus on what might be gained, even if the actual gain is quantifiably greater. Racist fear-mongering regularly makes reference to claims of the great replacement and other loss-focused narratives. These multiple emphases on loss converge to highlight a vague but frightening conceptual loss of America—hence “Make America Great Again”—which may help to explain how this messaging has sparked such a strong response across the country. This is an opportunity: can we as storytellers counter this narrative by being more intentional and deliberate in how we talk about the potential for losses of other kinds if these patterns continue? How might we do this while avoiding a high-intensity focus on threats to democracy, which seem to have lost their motivating factor for one reason or another, and rather turn attention toward the things we love deeply, and what it would mean to lose them.
The power of language
We have seen some ridiculous claims made during this Presidential election cycle. Despite their dubious plausibility, we have all observed how the right words emotionally trigger a response. That is the goal of good storytelling and what everyone should strive for to connect with audiences. As more evidence comes to light that the dehumanizing story of Haitian immigrants was a lie (and a criminal act), we are reminded of the power within stories, how they can motivate, rile up and provoke emotional responses that are dramatically outsized compared to their actual on-the-ground credentials. We must use the power of stories to depict people ethically, humanely and with dignity, recognizing their part in our communities. As one of the most trusted types of institutions in the country today—above both the government and the mainstream media—nonprofit organizations can be a voice of reasoned assurance and humanizing depictions that will have an impact on the lives of individuals and communities both leading up to the election and after November.
As we each navigate what can feel increasingly like a minefield of media stories, one skill we can all brush up on is identifying pernicious disinformation and the rhetorical power behind it. That brings us one step closer to reorienting the discourse to advance a more just story. To learn more about how The Wakeman Agency can help your team identify key narratives and boost the impact of your communications take a look at our Public Relations capabilities.