General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

A recent advertisement in the New York Times, put out by MoveOn.org has set off a firestorm in Washington. The ad has an image of General David Petraeus with a caption underneath that reads "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Republicans are outraged by the accusations made in the statement that Petraeus is trying to mislead United States citizens.

This argument ties into our discussion in Mass Media and Society about the power of language.

It is similar to the use of the word "liar." We heard in class that the New York Times would never use the word liar in a story because it is such a charged word. There is a difference between accusing someone of not telling the truth and accusing someone of lying.

In the same way, accusing someone of betrayal is also very serious. As O'Shaughnessy and Stadler stated, language is not neutral. The word "betray" is a very charged word. By definition, betray means to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty. This ad accuses General Petraeus of deliberately misleading the American public. It could go as far as to claim that Petraeus even sided with the enemy.

CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood stated on the Diane Rehm Show, "It's one thing to raise serious questions about whether Petraeus is wrong. It's another thing to sort of have this childish name-calling thing surrounding the guy's name. I don't know of any evidence that David Petraeus, whether he's right or wrong about this surge, is somehow trying to betray the United States."

From a journalistic standpoint, MoveOn.org's pun on Petraeus' name is an attempt to show off. According to Ron Peter Clark from Poynter Online, the ad's message was tainted by the cunning headline. People are now so focused on the "General Betray Us" line that they miss what the rest of the advertisement has to say.

Clark goes on to say that the headline is not even supported by the arguement of the advertisement:

"I do not believe that the headline writer thinks that General Petraeus is a traitor to his country. Nothing in the ad under the headline supports the pun in the title. Instead, I think writer and editors succumbed to the oldest literary temptation in the book: to look clever in front of the world -- meaning and consequences be damned."

I agree with Clark that MoveOn.org was trying to look clever, but I do not agree that is was a bad thing. I think the whole purpose of the advertisement was to taint General Petraeus, to make him look like a bad guy to the American public.

The word betrayal has such a negative conotation to it, that the public doesn't need to know the rest of the argument to grasp that negative image of General Petraeus.