Remember that time-lapse film in biology class in which a seed sprouts, grows into a full-size plant, withers and dies all in about 30 seconds?

Something close to that has occurred in the case of the $700 billion measure that Congress just passed.

We watched something widely called a “Wall Street bailout” go down in flames on Capitol Hill on September 29. But by the end of the week, essentially the same measure was reborn in the framing of its proponents as a “rescue plan,” a term that was immediately, almost subconsciously, picked up by those who favored it.

The bill sliced through both houses like a hot knife through butter, and had the president’s signature on it before the weekend was over. The episode was an extremely compressed and vivid illustration of the power of framing and message discipline. By finding a new way to refer to the bill, its proponents gave members of Congress who had previously opposed bill a legitimate reason to support it. And by avoiding the use of the B-word, highly quoted figures like Sen. Obama in effect restricted how reporters could characterize the measure.

The media were quick to spot this change. On Sept. 28, Brian Stelter noted in his blog for The New York Times that “

the government’s purchase of troubled assets may amount to a $700 billion bailout of financial institutions. But “bailout” is a word President Bush did not utter last week.”

In a stark example of the way language is used as a public relations tactic, Mr. Bush and other government officials have characterized the measure in positive terms — “rescue plan” and “asset relief program” — thereby carefully avoiding more loaded words like “bailout.”

In picking their own words, Stelter wrote, “the media, by and large, did not follow Mr. Bush’s lead.” As evidence, he did a Google News search on Sept. 28 that produced more than 157,000 results for “bailout” and only 42,000 for “rescue plan.”

As of October 8, the same kind of search shows that “rescue plan” has begun to catch up, but still trails “bailout” 96,000 to 261,000.

So most headline writers and news dispatches may have with “bailout.” But at least one sympathetic editorial writer who chose to write “rescue” reported on his internal dialogue in deciding which term to use.

In his blog of September 30, 2008, Brad Warthen of The State newspaper in Columbia, S.C., revealed that in an editorial for the following day’s paper he

made a conscious decision to refer to the rejected plan as a "rescue," not a "bailout." I hadn't done that before. It's just that in the process of thinking through what ought to happen, it occurred to me that whatever the Congress eventually passes, it's no good if it's just a "bailout;" it needs to be a rescue.

Warthen also found support from both the presidential candidates. A Sept. 29 round up in the Associated Press had Sen. McCain directly addressing the framing issue:

 "The first thing I would do is say, 'Let's not call it a bailout. Let's call it a rescue," McCain told CNN. He said "Americans are frightened right now" and political leaders must give them an immediate solution and a longer-term approach to the problem…”

A separate AP story that same day covered a speech by Sen. Obama this way:

RENO, Nev. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector, saying that if Wall Street fails ordinary people will also be hurt.

 "This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis. It's an American crisis, and it's the American economy that needs this rescue plan," Obama told about 12,000 people at a rally at the University of Nevada at Reno.

Warthen continued:   

You'll notice that not just Obama, but the AP, was using the new official word.

So it looks like everybody got the memo. Except there was no memo. This is the kind of thing that makes disaffected people think the media -- and political leaders, who after all communicate through the media -- are conspiring. But it just happens.

I would disagree slightly. By avoiding the use of the “B” word, Obama in effect nudged the AP writer in the direction of “rescue.” Introducing a loaded term like “bailout” into coverage of a speech in which the word is never uttered runs counter to the kind of straight-up reporting for the AP is known.

Reporters covering Congress, on the other hand, have plenty of examples of politicians talking about a bailout, and so have more leeway in using the term freely, without any suggestion that they are unfairly freighting the issue with negative connotations. They’re just repeating what they are hearing.

Looking ahead, I would guess that in the coming weeks a big factor in determining how it will be characterized is whether it stabilizes the banking system.

If it is seen to be working, it will be easier for news and opinion writers to use “rescue.” But if it is seen to be failing, look for more people marking it down as a “bailout.”

The urgency of the problem – as illustrated by the short spate of daily presidential updates – and the hothouse of presidential politics contributed to this light-speed elevation of a controversial proposal from the odious depths to heroic heights. For those of us who study how words are used to shape or frame a debate, the speed at which the plan was re-framed is an object lesson in the power of words and of message discipline.