Entertainment Play Action Analysis

Network television programming in contemporary times is a pretty simple thing. A rival comes up with a good show idea and every other network runs a Crowd or Draft play hoping to get a piece of the pie. So it is rather notable when a network decides to air a program directly attacking a rival’s program.

That is what ABC’s “20/20” did when it ran a scathing piece on the NBC “To Catch a Predator” series. The piece was nothing short of a Call Out play, as ABC accused NBC of taking part in vigilante justice and violating the civil rights of all individuals shown on “To Catch a Predator”. The icing on the cake was the accusation that NBC had caused the suicide of William Conradt, a Texas prosecutor, who was targeted in a botched undercover sting against alleged pedophiles. NBC was unable to get Conradt to go to the sting house, so the decision was made to go get him at his home. After the house was surrounded, police and NBC broke in just in time to witness Conradt shooting himself in the head.

Post by Matias Cavalin, MA candidate

Political Play Action Analysis

In the 1980s, the newly-minted Islamic Republic of Iran and the Baathist government of Syria were both weak players in the Middle East. Iran was embroiled in a war of survival against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Syria was slowly recovering from its defeat to the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. Neither of them was confident in their abilities to confront the Israelis directly, so instead, they Partnered up and created a Proxy. The group in which they created is called Hizbullah, and has functioned as a paramilitary group cum-political party since its inception in southern Lebanon during the early stages of the Lebanese Civil War. The group has been and currently still is being utilized by Iran and Syria as an alpha player to engage the Israelis militarily on the northern border and also to influence domestic politics in Lebanon.

In the view of the playmaker, the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah relationship demonstrates many key aspects of a Proxy relationship. Hizbullah, created by the Iranians and Syrians, was seen as the only legitimate group within Lebanon willing to fight the Israeli occupation, therefore giving it an aura of authenticity. In turn, Hizbullah gave the Iranians and Syrians the perfect opportunity to step back from confronting the Israelis directly by running a Pause. Furthermore, Hizbullah acted as a beta player during times of peace and allowed Syria and Iran to vent their verbal frustrations -- Peacocks and Labels -- at Israel without having to do it militarily.

In return, the Lebanese leaders of Hizbullah benefited from the sponsor-proxy relationship as well. They demanded money for weapons and appealed for cash to provide social services to the marginalized Shi’a of Lebanon, which made the group extremely popular and politically influential within the Lebanese political landscape. When Hizbullah fought Israel to a stalemate in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Iran ran a complete Recast when it capitalized on Hizbullah’s success to position itself as a champion of the Palestinian-cause, even though it had never supported the institutional mechanisms of the PLO due to the PLO’s Sunni dominance and secular charter.

While the history of the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah proxy relationship is obvious, the astute playmaker may be curious in asking, “What does the future hold for this proxy alliance?” The answer is that while Israel is distracted by Hizbullah on its northern border, Iran is actually running a combination of Pauses and Pings, which allows it to slowly but surely develop its nuclear program. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will continue to use the political capital of Hizbullah within Lebanon to destabilize its pro-Western government in the form of Fiats, Baits, Challenges and Preempts, which destabilizes not only Lebanon, but also preoccupies Lebanon’s Western supporters – namely France and the U.S. – in their broader agenda for the Middle East.

Post by John Koval III, MA candidate

Political Play Action Analysis

There has been extensive media attention about how Bill Clinton has both positively and negatively influenced his wife’s bid for the Democratic nomination. However, very little attention has been given to Chelsea Clinton as an important operative in her mother’s campaign. I would contend that Chelsea Clinton is Senator Clinton’s Proxy. Although Chelsea Clinton has not been paid a fee for her services, her credibility is in question because she is so closely allied with her mother. However, unlike her father, Chelsea Clinton is not enmeshed in the political arena so her distance allows for an essential amount of free will and independence.

According to the Playmaker’s Process, the Clinton campaign has used Chelsea as a Proxy by utilizing resonating fit plays and Condition class plays because Chelsea has not been using negative messaging against Obama or strong engaging plays to influence delegates or voters.

A CNN article entitled “Superdelegate schmoozed by Chelsea backs Obama” is a good example of how the utilization of proxies in playmaking can backfire. According to the article, “21-year-old Wisconsin superdelegate Jason Rae was taken out to breakfast by Chelsea Clinton in the run-up to that state’s Democratic primary. Two days after the vote, the college junior – who will be the youngest superdelegate at this year’s Democratic National Convention — is undecided no longer: he’s backing Barack Obama.” Perhaps anti-Obama messaging and a more aggressive selection of engage-class plays would have made Chelsea a more effective Proxy in this particular scenario.