"Bridges of Understanding:" UNESCO'S Creation
of a Fantasy for the American Public
Professor Michael H. Eaves
Professor Charles F Beadle
Department of Communication
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Ga 31698
This is a draft of an essay that was later published elsewhere.
"Bridges of Understanding:" UNESCO'S Creation
of a Fantasy for the American Public
During World War II, the nations of the world decided perhaps that the League of Nations had not maintained global peace. Thus, in 1944, the United Nations (U.N.) was formed with the purpose of peacekeeping between nations.[i] In addition, subsidiary agencies were formed to meet the daily needs of member nations. The founders of the U.N. hoped that the newly formed body and its subsidiary agencies would not make mistakes similar to those committed by its predecessor. Unfortunately, several agencies were characterized by the U.S. as inefficient and excesssively capitalistic. An example is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The original formation of UNESCO was a response to the significant need for educational and scientific research among different cultures. According to U.S. officials, the Paris-based agency has undergone major changes in its philosophy and commitment to the community since its establishment in 1946. Some changes had conflicted with American ideology and reflected an apparent lack of reform that would have helped the U.S. Because of these changes, the Reagan administration, after giving a one year warning, withdrew U.S. membership from UNESCO.
This essay has several purposes: a) to explain the historical development of the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO, including the media treatment of the event; b) to describe "Bridges of Understanding," a media attack made by UNESCO in response to the U.S. media; c) to provide a review of Bormann's fantasy theme analysis as a critical tool; d) to apply fantasy theme analysis in critiquing the UNESCO film; and e) to shed new light on the media's role in the treatment, criticism, and response to the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF UNESCO
Over time, UNESCO had several directors each seeking to promote the charter's goals. Some directors were less successful than others. Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, the director of UNESCO from 1974 to 1984, was the center of attention during the U.S. government's decision to leave the organization. M'Bow, the controversial Secretary General of Senegal, was constantly in the media. After previously being ousted by the Senegalese government in the early 1970s, M'Bow assumed the secretary position in 1974. Apparently, the African nations were seeking an African man to take the new post. Their wishes were granted and M'Bow proceeded to favor the African and Eastern bloc nations on many policy decisions. The U.S. was in a losing position, much like the position they faced in the Security Council at the U.N., where a handful of other countries had the veto power to strike down any legislation proposed by the U.S.[ii]
PROBLEMS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE U.S. WITHDRAWAL
There are several problems that the U.S. cited as reasons for withdrawal from UNESCO. However, there are probably three primary groups into which these problems fall: 1) the perceived politicization of the organization, 2) the financial burden placed on the U.S., and 3) the lack of reform in UNESCO.
Politicization at UNESCO
One report suggested that UNESCO attacked Western ideals. Specifically, UNESCO had been blamed for alienating the U.S. from the other members in the organization. The organization had supported press censorship, third world rhetoric, and statist policies.[iii] In response to the situation at UNESCO, many Western writers began to write stories justifying the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO. David Bell comments on UNESCO's difficulties in 1984: "Stated simply, UNESCO doesn't work anymore. Its politicization, its advocacy of `statist' policies such as N.W.I.C.O. (New World International Communication Order), and its sheer inefficiency leave its operations hopelessly confused and ineffectual."[iv] One writer has noticed that UNESCO was "vengeful" and run by a so-called "Yugoslav mafia" of bureaucrats.[v]
Another political problem that especially disturbed the U.S. government was UNESCO's condemnation of Israel. This condemnation, besides the political bureaucracies which abounded, stood out as a negative characteristic of the organization. One writer from The Nation put the problem into perspective:
Lurid stories of its dreadful bureaucracy, rampant patronage and wasteful spending do not much help the image of an organization dedicated to upholding the core values of civilization. More important, still, have been such emotional issues as UNESCO's votes to condemn Israel . . ..[vi]
The condemnation had been an issue that had received press attention for several years before and after the withdrawal. Clearly, the UNESCO organization was unable to tone down the flourishing negative debate from third world country leaders.[vii] Besides negative rhetoric, sanctions were placed on Israel that prohibited their participation in the body.[viii] The UNESCO decision, however, was later reversed before the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO.[ix]
Another suspicion about the organization was its role in supporting terrorist groups. While the evidence on supporting Soviet regimes is sketchy, there is little doubt that UNESCO had developed a client list of unknown persons.[x] In addition, UNESCO had group meetings, conferences, and political affiliations with other groups, including the PLO. Evidently, some money that was allocated to educational and scientific needs was instead channeled to the terrorist groups. Furthermore, the ambiguity and vagueness of the associations' content is illustrated in the following example:
Political or military groups ranging from the PLO to the Organization for African Unity, Harries continues, are being financed; too many vague conferences are being planned (400 over the next two years); the Director General uses his position as an instrument of power.[xi]
Financial burden on U.S.
As with membership in any organization, dues are needed to maintain the existence of the group. In UNESCO's case, the U.S. contributed beyond its representation or influence - approximately one-fourth of the total UNESCO budget in 1983.[xii] If past U.S. contributions were not enough, UNESCO decided to raise its 1984 budget to 374 million dollars, almost double the 1983 budget. The U.S. took a hard-line stand on the issue.[xiii]
Despite U.S. opposition to the budget increase, the organization voted for the proposal.[xiv] The U.S. government was outraged by the budget increase. This event coupled with other financial disasters at UNESCO set a series of reports in motion that attacked such poorly managed operations. American journalists at the New York Times and the Washington Post contributed to the pool of reports written on the crisis. Also, several U.S. press conferences denounced UNESCO's activities.
The harsh rhetoric in the media stirred American minds and put additional pressure on the government to act against such wasteful spending. For example, the U.S., after disassociated from UNESCO, could directly channel its funds into educational, scientific, and cultural areas. The U.S. government believed that UNESCO had allocated a large percent of its budget to the Paris Headquarters, where expenditures included questionable employee promotions, routine vacation trips, and interior design modifications.
The U.S. public did not all agree to the negative attacks made by the media. Former Ambassador McHenry to UNESCO, while appearing on the Macneil/Lehrer News Hour, said that it was hypocritical for the U.S. to be screaming about the UNESCO budget when it could not balance its own national budget.[xv]
UNESCO'S reluctance to change
The U.S. problem with UNESCO had been brewing for several years before it left the organization. Indeed, Mr. Diene, then of UNESCO, commented in 1983 that "the threat of the United States to withdraw from UNESCO dated back to January 1981, in fact, when David Stockman, in his first budget proposals, did suggest withdrawal from UNESCO, to sever the U.S. contribution to UNESCO" (emphasis added).[xvi]
While turmoil perhaps originated with the Reagan era, the earliest investigations were initiated by then Secretary of State Schultz in mid-1983. There were doubts as to the funding allocation and promotion of educational, scientific, and cultural achievements fostered by the organization.[xvii] On December 29, 1983, the formal announcement came of the U.S. intention to leave UNESCO.[xviii]
BIASED MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM UNESCO
There are several areas of American media bias about the coverage of UNESCO. Two key areas will be discussed: 1) source selection bias and 2) coverage of issue bias.
Source Selection Bias
There were several instances of source selection bias. First, there was more treatment given to articles favoring, not opposing, the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO. From a sample of 215 articles written on the U.S. withdrawal between June 1, 1983 and January 31, 1985, almost two-thirds of the articles were pro-withdrawal. Only one-third of the articles were anti-withdrawal. Only a few articles took no position.[xix]
A second example of selection bias was reflected in the U.S. media coverage of two Australians. Owen Harries, a non-authority figure with far fewer qualifications than his counterpart, gained most U.S. media coverage since he favored the U.S. withdrawal. In contrast, E. Gough Whitlam, an expert on the topic, was disregarded by the American media for his views.[xx]
A third instance involved the U.S. media's misuse of expert sources when covering the event. The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO's press conference of August 8, 1984 was a case in point. The press conference provided a crisp, new, and original perspective on the withdrawal issue. The U.S. media and Washington officials minimized and downplayed the event as trivial and insignificant. The public, therefore, received a distorted, incomplete, and slanted view of UNESCO's contribution to public information. In effect, much of the pro-UNESCO information was censored by the U.S. government.[xxi]
Coverage of Issue Bias
Issue bias was reflected, in part, by the sources selected to represent "the news." In addition, coverage took on an independent meaning - an general slant of the news casting. The anti-UNESCO sentiment, popularized in the U.S. media, focused primarily on the politicization problem that was previously discussed. The media were quick to jump on the Schultz letter to M'Bow that characterized the agency as a "political nightmare." Regrettably, the media relied on information leaks by U.S. government officials or documents.[xxii]
The language and tone of the media coverage was also a problem. The conservative pundits were on a rampage against the defenseless agency. UNESCO's voice was essentially censored since the U.S. media was restricted from access to answer charges. George Will, writing about UNESCO suggested that "we are studying the inoculation of the world with degraded political language manipulated by America's enemies."[xxiii] The coverage's tone reflected an unrestrained hostility toward UNESCO.[xxiv]
The U.S. may have been guilty of rewriting history. As history shows, the politicization attack of UNESCO is not unique. The U.S. withdrawal from ILO in 1977 closely parallels rhetorical transactions between officials in the UNESCO case. In addition, since the late 1960s, the U.S. had been fighting the entire U.N. system, not just one or two agencies. In the case of UNESCO, the U.S. had tried to keep China from becoming a member, but failed to do so.[xxv]
BRIDGES OF UNDERSTANDING: THE FILM
In response to the harsh criticism, UNESCO made a short but powerful documentary entitled, "Bridges of Understanding." The film was written and directed by Joseph Mehan in 1983. The film was narrated by Leonard Nimoy, "Dr. Spock" from the television series "Star Trek," who spoke about the need for the American public to know about UNESCO. Several key elements of the film are addressed. First, the film argues that the U.S. is the major contributor to the sustaining existence of UNESCO. Recall that the U.S. contributed about one-quarter of the UNESCO budget. The film illustrates the necessity of continued U.S. support.
Second, UNESCO discussed the discovery of several cultural artifacts. Ancient artifacts are restored with the necessary financial aid of the U.S. UNESCO categorizes important cultural artifacts in the "World Heritage List." In the list, reference is made to over 100 international cities including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The film showed U.S. landmarks such as Independence Hall, Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Canyon, Olympic National Park, and Everglades National Park. By presenting cities and parks throughout the U.S., viewers can identify with the "American" goal in the film.
Third, UNESCO's educational pursuits are outlined. Nimoy depicted UNESCO projects conducted in U.S. high schools who worked with members from third world countries. The project is designed to teach leadership skills to natives so they can instruct members of their tongue. UNESCO's project was successful by promoting cultural values and preserving national interests.
Fourth, scientific strategies and endeavors are discussed. Snapshots of marine projects, farm experiments, and chemical lab studies are taken. UNESCO helped to manage the projects - to centralize the efforts toward scientific discovery and refinement. Dr. Laycock, the director of the Midwestern grazing experiment, thanked UNESCO for the development and support of the grassland program.
Fifth, UNESCO ties with the steel industry are explained. There was a personal walk through the Denver Steel Center, and interviews are conducted with members of the association. Foreign visitors were shown giving speeches at the center.
Sixth, UNESCO tooted their horn with little humility. The film invited the viewer into the publishing house where UNESCO produces thousands of documents. The UNESCO headquarters, employing over 3500 staff members, including U.S. workers, is in Paris.
Last, UNESCO pleaded for continued U.S. support. The 300 million dollar budget is overshadowed by analogies to Columbia University's budget (400 million dollars) and the yearly world armament expenditure (500 billion dollars). UNESCO's "insufficient" budget should be justification for additional support and resources. A final plea for personal support is made in a spot endorsement by the President of the University of South Carolina, James Holderman. Nimoy summarizes the film and the need for continued U.S. aid. He refers directly to the failure of the organization without the continued U.S. dollar support.
THE CRITICAL METHOD: FANTASY THEME ANALYSIS
Ernest Bormann, in his work entitled "Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality," lays the groundwork for the rhetorical tool.[xxvi] In the article, Bormann draws on small group communication research, especially from the work of Robert Bales.[xxvii] Bormann explains the application to communication when he wrote that:
My argument is that these moments happen not only in individual reactions to works of art, or in a small group's chaining out a fantasy theme, but also in larger groups hearing a public speech. The dramatizations which catch on and chain out in small groups are worked into public speeches and into the mass media and, in turn, spread out across larger publics, serve to sustain the member's sense of community, to impel them strongly to action . . ..[xxviii]
Fantasy theme analysis offers to be a contemporary, fresh perspective of looking at rhetorical events and artifacts, especially in television and film.
APPLYING FANTASY THEME ANALYSIS TO THE FILM
Fantasy theme analysis seems appropriate to critique the film entitled, "Bridges of Understanding." Such fantasies may be created from past or future events as in the film. Bormann explains:
Fantasy theme analysis studies the way communicators discuss fictitious and nonfictitious events in the past or in the future or at some other place than the here-and-now of the immediate communication episode . . .. The narrative form implies or attributes motivations to the personae and may provide an explanation based on lawfulness or the will of a supreme being rather than on chance or accident.[xxix]
The overall rhetorical vision of "Bridges of Understanding" is to reach Americans, to teach the value of UNESCO. Several fantasies, based on past and future events, are reflected in "Bridges of Understanding." The first fantasy is the necessity of the continued U.S. role in UNESCO politics. Historically, the U.S. has been involved in supporting international groups who work toward the development of education and growth, opposing communist or socialist ideology. While there was an established need for the U.S.'s contribution to the organization before 1984, the last six years have illustrated that the U.S. aid to UNESCO's budget was not needed for the organization's institutional survival. In essence, the film creates a fantasy for the audience to believe in; an illusion that UNESCO cannot survive without U.S. aid. UNESCO, after the U.S. withdrawal in 1984, has regrouped and moved forward with many of its original objectives. The U.S. has periodically considered to reinstate membership in the organization.
UNESCO may have created falsehoods or at a minimum, stretched the truth at a time of critical and desperate U.S. financial assistance. Still, the film represents a unique approach to tapping into American minds, by “chaining out” various fantasy types and creating a shared rhetorical vision for its viewers. "Bridges of Understanding" represents an overt, carefully planned response to the harsh, one-sided criticism that was reflected in U.S. media coverage. The fantasy of the U.S. role in UNESCO was both true and false. On one hand, the fantasy is true since the U.S. played a key role in the development and financial contribution to the agency's existence. On the other hand, the fantasy is false when compared to the rhetoric by third world and communist countries in the UNESCO general assemblies.
The second fantasy in the film is the existence and preservation of key national and international artifacts. Not surprisingly, the film is quick to draw the audience's attention to the percentages of the U.S. support to the financial status of the agency, while percentages regarding UNESCO's role in cultural artifact preservation remains a mystery. For instance, the film shows outdoor and indoor shots of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Nimoy argues that UNESCO was responsible for the historical building's preservation and continued restoration. This remark may offend some since America has always prided itself in the independence from the rest of the world. America has worked hard on preserving its young cultural history. However, of late, the U.S. may be moving away from such an isolationist philosophy.
In lieu of the questionable nature of UNESCO's argument, the fantasy still works well in the film. Coupled with other sites such as Yellowstone and Everglades National Park, Independence Hall then is seen as a site for cultural preservation. The film allows the viewer to live out a fantasy, one of preserving and protecting a shared value. The fantasy is real using fine, precise manipulation of media and technology. Bormann underscores the power of today's medium:
Messages that contain rhetorical fantasies cast there-and-then events in narrative frames and provide a structured, understandable, and meaningful interpretation of what happened. The speaker [or film director here] will attribute motives, purposes, and causes to the people in the story and will fit events into a meaningful sequence of events. Fantasies always provide an organized artistic explanation of happenings and thus create a social reality which makes sense out of the blooming buzzing confusion of the experience.[xxx]
Third, the film depicts yet another rhetorical fantasy: an educational pursuit. The decade of the 1980s was a period of "intercultural awareness" and the film hopes that American citizens will adopt an ideology consistent with cultural awareness. Without doubt, Americans are drawn into multiple fantasies, stories within stories, narratives within narratives. In essence, the audience comes to share the stories and narratives with one another.[xxxi] The group's attitudes and values are "tested" and "legitimized" by the sharing process. The commonality is established through this sharing or what Bormann refers to as "fantasy chains."[xxxii] With the limited audience viewing a documentary piece, UNESCO was hoping to reach a select, intelligent audience that perhaps would be eager to see efforts directed at world peace, cultural enrichment, and educational success.
Supposedly, viewers of the film would most likely be comprised of educators, teachers, or students. Such an audience, whether critical or not, would be more likely to support further educational endeavors. In this sense, the fantasy works in two ways. One, multiple audiences are exposed to a single message. If the message does not work for a teacher, it might for a student or an activist. Two, word-of-mouth should help spread the information about UNESCO's cause. If viewers found the message to be challenging, they could tell their friends about the problem.
Fourth, UNESCO suggests that the organization is helpful in scientific projects. Interviews with fishermen, farmers, and lab scientists are seen as members of the UNESCO team aimed at scientific development for the world. In this segment, the film's cast seems most influential in creating and chaining out the group's fantasy. UNESCO tries to adopt the film to the forgotten middle-class worker, a profession that the educators of the school system would be partial to immediately. Perhaps it is understandable why UNESCO chose to air the documentary on PBS as opposed to network. Was it by choice or economic necessity? Probably neither. Instead, UNESCO's access to network television was heavily restricted. In addition, the public would have lashed out against "Bridges of Understanding" if aired on CBS, NBC, or ABC. One network, aired another program during prime time, although it was geared to what the public wanted to hear - leave UNESCO now.[xxxiii]
The scientific and educational community probably welcomed the claims, charges, and arguments expressed in "Bridges of Understanding." Film viewers probably adopted a new, fresh perspective for the fate on international education and science. For example, one vision became a political ploy that opposed Reagan administrative rhetoric.[xxxiv] In perspective, with the short leave from the ILO in 1977 and return in 1979, the U.S. had not withdrawn from an U.N. agency. The Heritage Foundation is blamed for much of the rhetoric, especially from Owen Harries, then serving on the board, that was used in the media slashing of UNESCO.[xxxv]
Fifth, another fantasy is created for the steel industry. Certain viewers of the film may be empathetic to discussions about promoting steel worker rights, relations, and enhancement. The message is to reach former or current steel employees around the U.S. to be enthusiastic about the "cause." Interviews were conducted at the Denver Steel Center. Persons from steel towns such as Birmingham or Pittsburgh can adopt the film's fantasy. In addition, foreigners were shown visiting the center to make speeches and discuss problems with the association.
As is seen in an earlier fantasy depicted in the film, one goal is to illuminate cultural awareness in the audience. This fantasy provides an escape for the viewers who want a new world, a better world. Robert Bales contributes a unique line of thought:
The world of a group culture is big enough to hold a complete individual life, and yet it is completely existent within the perspective of the mind's eye. It can be traversed from the portal of heaven to the mouth of hell by mental means alone. Men fly in it more naturally than they walk. No wonder groups create and maintain fantasies, and individuals can hardly live without incorporation in one or more such groups.[xxxvi]
The sixth fantasy theme deals with UNESCO's contribution to employment and jobs. The film explains that most of its 3500-staffed headquarters in Paris is comprised of U.S. workers. The fantasy works because viewers should be reluctant to see "home folks" lose their job or that the patronage benefits U.S. citizens. Once buying into the fantasy, the audience member would want to support the continued livelihood of U.S. volunteers in a foreign nation. The film taps into the emotions of the audience, leaving the logical, structured, and organized pattern in the first several fantasies. This fantasy, like fantasies in the film, is driven by the goal of viewers to reject the status quo and politically support change.
The last fantasy in the film is a direct response to allegations and criticism appearing in the popular media about the UNESCO budget difficulties. This fantasy works well because there are simple analogies for the viewer: Columbia University and world armament budgets. In this sense, the budget is minimized against the total expenditures of higher costs. The audience's attention is redirected from focusing on UNESCO's budget to other budgets. The fantasy helps to draw attention away from financial problems and focus on positive contributions made to world peace, growth, and education.
Perhaps the film's title implies more than mere intercultural awareness and support, but instead a "bridge" between two rhetorical visions with respect to sharing one fantasy construction: UNESCO. The U.S. no longer belongs to the Paris-based agency, but this does not mean that the film was a complete failure. Indeed, the film has succeeded in many ways. At least, the Bush administration has contemplated the return to UNESCO.
SUMMARY
“Bridges of Understanding” represents a useful media artifact for fantasy theme analysis. The film provides an alternative argument in defense of UNESCO. Offering an alternative to viewers allows such participants to share a coherent, symbolic framework or fantasy vision to place in their social context of UNESCO and the United Nations.
Notes
[i].See Flora Lewis' article entitled "Uncultured Politics" which appears in the December 27, 1983-late edition issue of New York Times. In the article Lewis says that they did not expect the UN to be an "utopian" organization, but she did go on to point out that the expectations were high for the international body and its agencies.
[ii].For a brief historical sketch of M'Bow's history, see David Bell's article entitled "Withdrawal Symptoms" which appears in the December 31, 1984 issue of New Republic p. 12.
[iii].See: New York Times, December 21, 1983, p.A27. Owen Harries, author of the article "U.S. Quits UNESCO", was the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO during 1982-83 and before that was senator adviser to then Prime Minister Malcolm Frasier. At the time of the article, he served as a fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
[vii].For a review article which addresses some of the actions or inactions which contributed to the U.S. withdrawal, see: Bernard Gwertzman's "U.S. Called Ready to Leave UNESCO" in the New York Times, December 28, 1983, p.A8.
[viii].For a detailed account of the problems which plagued UNESCO see: Washington Post, December 20, 1984, p.A28.
[xii].See: Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post, December 24, 1983, p.A1. The U.S. contribution for 1983 was one-fourth of the $200 million budget or $50 million.
[xiii].For a synopsis of events which lead up to U.S. intentions of leaving UNESCO, see: David Shribman's article "Time is Running Out for U.S. to Decide Whether it Should Leave UNESCO" in the New York Times, December 21, 1983, p.A16.
[xiv].See: The Macneil/Lehrer News Hour Transcript #2154 which aired on December 29, 1983, p.3. The Reagan administration was outraged by the budget increase and called for a freeze on all UN spending. The failure to control the UNESCO budget was probably a key reason for the U.S. response to UNESCO and its membership status in the organization.
[xv].See: Macneil/Lehrer News Hour, Transcript# 2154, December 29, 1983. McHenry's statement appears on p.6 of the transcript. Additional comments are made here with regard to the double standard the U.S. played with the press censorship issue.
[xvii].Gwertzman, p.A1. Also see: Oberdorfer, p.A1. Apparently, Schultz's recommendation was based on a consensus of the State Department that UNESCO had not progressed over the past several years in meeting its objectives spelled out in the charter.
[xviii].See: Bernard Gwertzman, New York Times, December 30, 1983, p. A1. The article entitled, "U.S. in Quitting UNESCO, Affirms Backing for UN," outlines the formal announcement from the Department of State. The text of the Department of State is reprinted on p. A4.
[xix].For a detailed account of the U.S. media treatment of UNESCO and results of analyses on the media coverage, see: William Preston, Jr., Edward S. Herman, and Herbert I. Schiller's Hope & Folly: The United States and UNESCO (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), pp. 213-228.
[xxi].For a discussion of the media treatment of the U.S. conference on UNESCO, see: Hope & Folly, pp. 223-226.
[xxii].For a discussion of U.S. government involvement, see: Hope & Folly, pp. 239-242. In their book, Preston, Herman, and Schiller mention that, "another significant contributor to the supply of charges was the Heritage Foundation, which was in a close alliance with the Reagan administration in propagandizing the case for withdrawal.
[xxiv].The tone of media coverage is found in Hope & Folly, pp. 244-252. There are illustrative tables explaining the tonality of language used in the articles collected. A clear dichotomy may be drawn between the tones representing either perspective.
[xxv].See: Hope & Folly, pp. 253-256; for a discussion of the U.S. treatment of disarmament, closely parallel to the view with position taken by UNESCO' disarmament program, see: Mary Beth Reissen, National Catholic Reporter, January 13, 1984.
[xxvi].For the foundational article which discusses fantasy themes and rhetorical visions see: Ernest G. Bormann's work entitled "Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1972, pp. 396-407.
[xxvii].For a discussion of Robert Bales' work on fantasy theme chains and groups see his book entitled, Personality and Interpersonal Behavior, 1970. Bales and his colleagues developed the fantasy theme analysis first in the classroom. Bormann uses Bales' work in developing his ideas on fantasy theme chains in larger public communication contexts.
[xxx].Bormann explains the impact of the media upon the audience and the shared fantasy that results. For two specific media accounts and fantasy, see: Bormann's "A Fantasy Theme Analysis of the Television Coverage of the Hostage Release and the Reagan Inaugural," in Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 68, 1982, p. 134.
[xxxiii]. On April 22, 1984, CBS aired a segment on UNESCO during "60 Minutes." The show, however, demonstrates the bias that the U.S. media had for the event. CBS's earlier treatment of General Westmoreland looks like an apologia when compared with the show on UNESCO. This again demonstrates the medium for "Bridges of Understanding." For an analysis and transcript of the show, see: Edward Herman's "Anatomy of a Smear: Ed Bradley and `60 Minutes' on UNESCO," in Hope & Folly, pp. 328-337.
[xxxiv].For a discussion of the media's influence in politics and fantasy construction, see: Bormann, Jolene Koester, and Janet Bennett's, "Political Cartoons and Salient Rhetorical Fantasies: An Empirical Analysis of the '76 Presidential Campaign,' in Communication Monographs, vol. 45, 1978, pp. 317-329; Eliot Friedson's, "Communication Research and the Concept of the Mass," in American Sociological Review, vol. 18, 1953, pp. 313-317.
[xxxvi].See: Robert F. Bales' Personality and Interpersonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1970), p. 152.
Bibliography
Bales, Robert. Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970.
Bell, David. "Withdrawal Symptoms." New Republic, December 31, 1984, pp. 12.
Berg, David. "Rhetoric, Reality, and Mass Media." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1972, pp. 256.
Bormann, Ernest. "A Fantasy Theme Analysis of the Television Coverage of the Hostage Release and the Reagan Inaugural." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1982, p. 134.
- - -. Communication Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1980.
- - -. "Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1972, pp. 396-407.
Bormann, Ernest, Jolene Koester, and Janet Bennett. "Political Cartoons and Salient Rhetorical Fantasies: An Empirical Analysis of the '76 Presidential Campaign." Communication
Monographs, 1978, pp. 317-329.
Caretto, Ennio. "UNESCO." World Press Review, March 1984, p. 38.
"Farewell UNESCO?" Washington Post, December 22, 1983, pp. A1+.
Friedson, Eliot. "Communication Research and the Concept of the Mass." American Sociological Review, 1953, pp. 313-317.
Gwertzman, Bernard. "U.S. Called Ready to Leave UNESCO." New York Times, December 28, 1983, pp. A1, A8.
- - -. "U.S. in Quitting UNESCO, Affirms Backing for UN." New York Times, December 30, 1983, pp. A1, A4.
Harries, Owen. "U.S. Quits UNESCO." New York Times, December 21, 1983, p. A27.
Huxley, Julian. UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy. New York: Public Affairs Press, 1947.
Lewis, Flora. "Uncultured Politics." New York Times, December 27, 1983, pp. A23+.
Lewis, Paul. "UNESCO." New York Times, December 30, 1983, p. A4.
Macneil/Lehrer News Hour, Transcript # 2154, December 29, 1983, pp. 1-6.
Oberdorfer, Don. "UNESCO." Washington Post, December 24, 1983, pp. A1+.
Preston, Jr., William, Edward Herman, and Herbert Schiller. Hope & Folly: The United States and UNESCO. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
Reissen, Mary Beth. "UNESCO's Disarmament." National Catholic Reporter, January 13, 1984, pp. 1+.
Shribman, David. "Time is Running Out for U.S. to Decide Whether It Should Leave UNESCO." New York Times, December 21, 1983, p. A16.
Strachey, James. The Complete Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. London: Unwin Ltd, 1964.
The Nation, December 29, 1984 - January 5, 1985, pp. 699-700.
The Nation, January 14, 1984, p. 4.
Washington Post, December 20, 1984, p. A28.
Wells, Clare. The UN, UNESCO and the Politics of Knowledge. New York: MacMillan Press, 1987.