When I was researching reinforcement, I noticed that no "scholars" acknowledge that the media reinforce religious stereotypes. They will freely write about religion reinforcing negative ideas such as homophobia and the always hated "sanctity of life," but terms like Christian Right and Islamic Terrorist appear in objective news articles unnoticed.
I wondered why this happened, and the more I read, the more I noticed hostility toward religion from journalism. It ranged from religion being viewed as a negative influence on politics to being outright violent. One writer said religion was the only cause of the 9/11 attacks. Another blamed religion for the fighting in Ireland.
Still others say that CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) disguises itself as news while actually pushing a partisan agenda. Of course, I couldn't help but notice that a channel called Christian Broadcasting isn't really hiding anything.
I plan to point out some examples of the polarized points of view displayed in the media. I also want to acknowledge some of the figures that appear frequently to turn people against religion (Jerry Falwell, Osama Bin Laden, etc.). Even though I probably won't be able to figure out why the media portrays religion so negatively, I at least want to bring the problem to people's attention.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
The Context Has Shifted. Wake Up And Adjust Your Common Sense.
Common sense is slowly dying—let it rest.
Was it helpful at times? Without a doubt. It’s been down right comforting, shielding you from the unfounded claims of venom spitting know-nothings, sheltering you from the nightmarish confusion of the unexpected. So much warming security is taken from common sense.
Yet so much of it is just a daydream.
“Buyer beware”—an idea derived from experience, shaped into a defense against the malevolent seller.
Times change.
Contexts change.
All the while you’re still making calls with old-fashioned know-how. Then common sense is no longer savvy. It’s obsolete. You’re weighing the world on a broken scale.
How do the buyers beware if they don’t know when they’re buying?
The buyers have been conditioned to scrutinize the seller, learning well that it is wealth alone that motivates business. To whom, then, does the buyer look for relevant information on a product or a service? Not advertisements. Those are pitches, not fact lists.
The buyers look to third parties—scientists, think tanks, consumer interest groups—as independent sources of information, fountains of untainted facts, unbiased voices from the ether giving the straight shit.
But it’s not a sure thing. Not when cancer-cause research can be funded by tobacco corporations, or when “objective” think tanks can be underwritten by eminently biased politicians. It’s preposterous. It’s sick.
Worst of all it’s true.
Innumerable organizations and individuals, presented as unbiased sources of advice and information, are no more than PR fronts. This is the third party technique, an advertising strategy built around the fundamental tenets—the common sense, if you will—of buyer beware. The buyers put their trust in an outsider—someone who would have no reason to deceive the buyers. Ostensibly, this is sound reasoning.
Unless businesses start buying up the elsewhere, that is.
Each day masses of the unknowing obliviously accept the opinions of PR firms as scientific fact. Their common sense can’t detect such an underhanded ploy. It is time to adopt expanded and, necessarily, more vigilant notions of how to judge trust worthy sources of information. It is time to adjust our common sense; put some of it to rest, as it were.
Common sense once aided and comforted us in our trials against the malevolent seller.
But it doesn’t work anymore.
This piece was heavily influenced by the work of John Stauber, Sheldon Rampton, and Robin Lakoff.
Was it helpful at times? Without a doubt. It’s been down right comforting, shielding you from the unfounded claims of venom spitting know-nothings, sheltering you from the nightmarish confusion of the unexpected. So much warming security is taken from common sense.
Yet so much of it is just a daydream.
“Buyer beware”—an idea derived from experience, shaped into a defense against the malevolent seller.
Times change.
Contexts change.
All the while you’re still making calls with old-fashioned know-how. Then common sense is no longer savvy. It’s obsolete. You’re weighing the world on a broken scale.
How do the buyers beware if they don’t know when they’re buying?
The buyers have been conditioned to scrutinize the seller, learning well that it is wealth alone that motivates business. To whom, then, does the buyer look for relevant information on a product or a service? Not advertisements. Those are pitches, not fact lists.
The buyers look to third parties—scientists, think tanks, consumer interest groups—as independent sources of information, fountains of untainted facts, unbiased voices from the ether giving the straight shit.
But it’s not a sure thing. Not when cancer-cause research can be funded by tobacco corporations, or when “objective” think tanks can be underwritten by eminently biased politicians. It’s preposterous. It’s sick.
Worst of all it’s true.
Innumerable organizations and individuals, presented as unbiased sources of advice and information, are no more than PR fronts. This is the third party technique, an advertising strategy built around the fundamental tenets—the common sense, if you will—of buyer beware. The buyers put their trust in an outsider—someone who would have no reason to deceive the buyers. Ostensibly, this is sound reasoning.
Unless businesses start buying up the elsewhere, that is.
Each day masses of the unknowing obliviously accept the opinions of PR firms as scientific fact. Their common sense can’t detect such an underhanded ploy. It is time to adopt expanded and, necessarily, more vigilant notions of how to judge trust worthy sources of information. It is time to adjust our common sense; put some of it to rest, as it were.
Common sense once aided and comforted us in our trials against the malevolent seller.
But it doesn’t work anymore.
This piece was heavily influenced by the work of John Stauber, Sheldon Rampton, and Robin Lakoff.
Leave You Wondering
“The Persuaders” will prove to be a real eye-opener for you if, like me, you have always envisioned a man or woman trying to come up with a clever phrase, sitting at a desk with a trash can piled high with crumpled papers. On one hand you may be amazed at the complicated process behind advertising, but at the same time feel almost manipulated at how much the “persuaders” try to relate to the public for the sole purpose of reaping benefits. What is most upsetting is that the video often leaves its viewers wondering if they’ve ever fallen into “their” trap. Did advertisers know what it would take to entice you enough to make you run out and buy a product? If so, what about the advertisement appealed to you? Many are left feeling almost violated at the thought that “they” were able to get inside their heads, push the right buttons, and as a result profit from their being gullible. The possibility that a stranger has had the influence to make people act in such a way is disappointing and leaves many people thinking that they fit into the “mass”.
Many people have probably seldom noticed advertising tactics before viewing this video, as well as tactics used in presidential or local government campaigns. The science uncovered in “The Persuaders” will leave you fascinated at the intention behind political strategies. This situation is similar to a reading in Edward L. Bernays “Manipulating the Public Opinion: The Why and the How”. He quotes “Through the application of this new psychology he is able to bring about changes in public opinion that will make for the acceptance of new doctrines, beliefs, and habits. The manipulation of the public mind, which is so marked a characteristic of society today, serves a social purpose. This manipulation serves to gain acceptance for new ideas.” Most interesting is his use of the word “manipulation”. For the majority of the time this word is used in a negative sense to describe an almost involuntary and unaware submission by a person. With this definition you may look at this quote in a whole new light and see that the attempt to public relation is for nothing other than profit, whether it is monetary or otherwise. This excerpt may also leave you questioning your past political votes.
Undoubtedly, there is an importance of advertising in order to have a successful business, but what you may find most disappointing is the limit that advertising has been taken to. Our society is so concerned with how it is perceived by others that it has forgotten what is essentially important. Being happy with one self is what is most important, but now one can not be happy with themselves unless they are accepted by others. This is what the advertisers have been attacking. Now “the persuaders” are going after the family life as a means to relate and sell. About a year or two ago there was a commercial advertisement for a “Hummer”. A young boy was being dropped off at a new school for his first day. He was nervous about whether or not he would fit in, and soon enough he gets out of the car and is walking toward the building past a group of boys when they say to him “nice car!” He turns and smiles at his mother who is sitting high in her Hummer, and then walks into the school with the other boys. As if buying the hottest toy wasn’t stressful enough for parents, now having a Hummer is being portrayed as a guaranteed way to fit in.
On one hand it’s easy to understand why it must be done, but on the other there is the wish there could be more sincerity in it. However, feeling violated, manipulated, and even disappointed at the thought that we’ve fallen for their tricks is to be expected. “Their” meaning anyone from political candidates you may have voted for to the advertising committees behind the brand names you may choose. All in all it is fair to say that just about everyone has fallen for a trap set by “the persuaders”.
Many people have probably seldom noticed advertising tactics before viewing this video, as well as tactics used in presidential or local government campaigns. The science uncovered in “The Persuaders” will leave you fascinated at the intention behind political strategies. This situation is similar to a reading in Edward L. Bernays “Manipulating the Public Opinion: The Why and the How”. He quotes “Through the application of this new psychology he is able to bring about changes in public opinion that will make for the acceptance of new doctrines, beliefs, and habits. The manipulation of the public mind, which is so marked a characteristic of society today, serves a social purpose. This manipulation serves to gain acceptance for new ideas.” Most interesting is his use of the word “manipulation”. For the majority of the time this word is used in a negative sense to describe an almost involuntary and unaware submission by a person. With this definition you may look at this quote in a whole new light and see that the attempt to public relation is for nothing other than profit, whether it is monetary or otherwise. This excerpt may also leave you questioning your past political votes.
Undoubtedly, there is an importance of advertising in order to have a successful business, but what you may find most disappointing is the limit that advertising has been taken to. Our society is so concerned with how it is perceived by others that it has forgotten what is essentially important. Being happy with one self is what is most important, but now one can not be happy with themselves unless they are accepted by others. This is what the advertisers have been attacking. Now “the persuaders” are going after the family life as a means to relate and sell. About a year or two ago there was a commercial advertisement for a “Hummer”. A young boy was being dropped off at a new school for his first day. He was nervous about whether or not he would fit in, and soon enough he gets out of the car and is walking toward the building past a group of boys when they say to him “nice car!” He turns and smiles at his mother who is sitting high in her Hummer, and then walks into the school with the other boys. As if buying the hottest toy wasn’t stressful enough for parents, now having a Hummer is being portrayed as a guaranteed way to fit in.
On one hand it’s easy to understand why it must be done, but on the other there is the wish there could be more sincerity in it. However, feeling violated, manipulated, and even disappointed at the thought that we’ve fallen for their tricks is to be expected. “Their” meaning anyone from political candidates you may have voted for to the advertising committees behind the brand names you may choose. All in all it is fair to say that just about everyone has fallen for a trap set by “the persuaders”.
Use of Language to Gain Support for the War in Iraq
Is language being used as a tool of politics today? Is the deliberate and precise word choice of politicians used to persuade United States citizens? Specifically, is it possible that the Bush administration is using language to gain support for the war in Iraq?
The most influential and powerful politician in the United States is our president, George W. Bush. He stands as the leader of this great nation, elected by a majority of its citizens. His re-election attests to the confidence that many US citizens have for this man. Because of this, many US citizens find their president as a credible and believable source, if not the epitome of such. If citizens find our president to be a credible source, then Bush has the power to create a reality based on statements he makes.
Bush gave a nationally publicized address to US citizens on the war in Iraq at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on June 28 of this year. Bush stated, “The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror,” speaking of the American troops stationed in Iraq. Bush made the distinction that Americans fighting in Iraq are fighting in the global war on terror. People then believed him because they saw their president as credible. The reality became his statement—a war on terror had begun.
Bush made his intentions for invading Iraq very clear in another national address he gave at a National Endowment for Democracy event on October 6 of this year. He stated in Washington, “We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won.” He has turned the focus away from the nation of Iraq and focuses on terrorism in general. Making this connection between terrorism and Iraq, Bush attempts to showcase to citizens how Iraq is the central force of terrorism in the world. Because many Americans may not follow daily newscasts, CNN updates and newspaper articles, the only news they hear—or the most credible-- on Iraq is from Bush, because they see him as the source who knows the most information.
Bush implies that if citizens protest the war, they protest the fight of world terrorism. This could drive people to support a global war on terrorism even if they were against the reasons for beginning a war in Iraq. Citizens want to trust their government, specifically their president. If a citizen cannot trust his president--the person with the highest amount of power in his nation—then he cannot trust his nation. This is a scary notion that many people do not want to entertain, let alone accept.
John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton are media critics who wrote a book called, “Trust Us, We’re Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science And Gambles With Your Future,” in which they investigate methods that industry uses to influence public opinion. In this book, they state that, “Politics is more art than science.” Maybe this is why people cannot stop gawking at the war in Iraq, like art—or a bad car crash.
The most influential and powerful politician in the United States is our president, George W. Bush. He stands as the leader of this great nation, elected by a majority of its citizens. His re-election attests to the confidence that many US citizens have for this man. Because of this, many US citizens find their president as a credible and believable source, if not the epitome of such. If citizens find our president to be a credible source, then Bush has the power to create a reality based on statements he makes.
Bush gave a nationally publicized address to US citizens on the war in Iraq at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on June 28 of this year. Bush stated, “The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror,” speaking of the American troops stationed in Iraq. Bush made the distinction that Americans fighting in Iraq are fighting in the global war on terror. People then believed him because they saw their president as credible. The reality became his statement—a war on terror had begun.
Bush made his intentions for invading Iraq very clear in another national address he gave at a National Endowment for Democracy event on October 6 of this year. He stated in Washington, “We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won.” He has turned the focus away from the nation of Iraq and focuses on terrorism in general. Making this connection between terrorism and Iraq, Bush attempts to showcase to citizens how Iraq is the central force of terrorism in the world. Because many Americans may not follow daily newscasts, CNN updates and newspaper articles, the only news they hear—or the most credible-- on Iraq is from Bush, because they see him as the source who knows the most information.
Bush implies that if citizens protest the war, they protest the fight of world terrorism. This could drive people to support a global war on terrorism even if they were against the reasons for beginning a war in Iraq. Citizens want to trust their government, specifically their president. If a citizen cannot trust his president--the person with the highest amount of power in his nation—then he cannot trust his nation. This is a scary notion that many people do not want to entertain, let alone accept.
John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton are media critics who wrote a book called, “Trust Us, We’re Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science And Gambles With Your Future,” in which they investigate methods that industry uses to influence public opinion. In this book, they state that, “Politics is more art than science.” Maybe this is why people cannot stop gawking at the war in Iraq, like art—or a bad car crash.
Research Proposal
We’ve spent this semester reading, and reading, and reading, and reading… and my brain feels like this. Yet, through it all we have persevered and have gained a better knowledge of how language shapes our conceptions of the world.
As Americans, we share a unique perspective in comparison to the rest of the world. We are taught to believe in the power of the capitalistic system and the ideals in democracy. However, we live within the false pretense of a free-market society under the rule of a republic. Yet, ask the average American what they value about this country - what makes
Are these mere symbols and imagery of what is great about
How sincere are apologies?
"The RDA basically told me not to talk to anybody about it," Culbertson said. "They didn’t specifically say don’t talk to the Clearkins...I don’t feel comfortable with the way the process occurred, but all I can do now is say that I’m sorry."These were the words spoken by a city official towards my father’s company, James J. Clearkin, Inc., and the controversial issue of eminent domain in an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Let me give you a little insight as to what the whole process for my father’s company has come to at this point. It was about two years ago that my father’s company was informed of plans to construct new facilities around the area that his business was established. Understanding this, the company approached the co-developer of the new product and asked whether or not they were included in the seizing of property. They were told no, that the plans did not include them. However, the plans changed and the company was not informed until one week before a critical City Council hearing. Conveniently enough for the developer, the company was only informed through a letter, explaining to them that they their property was to be seized. The fight to stay in the place where they had been for eighty-seven years began following that letter.
I do not write this paper to inform you of eminent domain, but more so to the idea of apology. Just looking at the words from Culbertson, who I had quoted to begin this paper, can we honestly say that he is being genuine in what he says? The thing that upsets me in issues such as the one my father’s company is fighting, is the fact people sincerely could care less, yet they still throw out those infamous words of "I’m sorry". Just think back to your day today. How many times did you hear someone utter those words, possibly even you yourself? Now think of in what contexts those words came out of the apology maker’s mouth. More often than not, the utterance of an apology is insincere.
To truly understand an apology or to even make one under the correct circumstances is well explained by Robin Lakoff in her book, The Language Wars. She goes on to explain in one of the chapters of the book that, "In making an apology, the maker (1) acknowledges wrongdoing; (2) acknowledges that the addressee is the wronged party; (3) admits needing something (forgiveness) from the addressee to make things right again."
Can any one of us honestly say that each and every apology that we have given has met these three guidelines laid out for us by Lakoff? I know for one that I have not always met those guidelines, and I am pretty sure I can say that Culbertson falls into the same category, as do each and every one of us. Sure, when we are growing up as a young child and we make a mistake or "boo boo" as some may call it, it is alright for the child to say I’m sorry. The problem with apologies becomes unsettling when people remain in the mind set of the young child and think the expression itself is enough to make up for what they have done. There comes a time when people must start associating responsibility with the idea of an apology. Until then however, people such as Culbertson will make their insincere apologies and others will simple except them thinking, "well at least they made an effort". But as for myself, just as my father’s company is fighting to do, and just as each of us should really consider, we should not stop our fights or withdraw from our arguments until a justified apology is given.
Let me give you a little insight as to what the whole process for my father’s company has come to at this point. It was about two years ago that my father’s company was informed of plans to construct new facilities around the area that his business was established. Understanding this, the company approached the co-developer of the new product and asked whether or not they were included in the seizing of property. They were told no, that the plans did not include them. However, the plans changed and the company was not informed until one week before a critical City Council hearing. Conveniently enough for the developer, the company was only informed through a letter, explaining to them that they their property was to be seized. The fight to stay in the place where they had been for eighty-seven years began following that letter.
I do not write this paper to inform you of eminent domain, but more so to the idea of apology. Just looking at the words from Culbertson, who I had quoted to begin this paper, can we honestly say that he is being genuine in what he says? The thing that upsets me in issues such as the one my father’s company is fighting, is the fact people sincerely could care less, yet they still throw out those infamous words of "I’m sorry". Just think back to your day today. How many times did you hear someone utter those words, possibly even you yourself? Now think of in what contexts those words came out of the apology maker’s mouth. More often than not, the utterance of an apology is insincere.
To truly understand an apology or to even make one under the correct circumstances is well explained by Robin Lakoff in her book, The Language Wars. She goes on to explain in one of the chapters of the book that, "In making an apology, the maker (1) acknowledges wrongdoing; (2) acknowledges that the addressee is the wronged party; (3) admits needing something (forgiveness) from the addressee to make things right again."
Can any one of us honestly say that each and every apology that we have given has met these three guidelines laid out for us by Lakoff? I know for one that I have not always met those guidelines, and I am pretty sure I can say that Culbertson falls into the same category, as do each and every one of us. Sure, when we are growing up as a young child and we make a mistake or "boo boo" as some may call it, it is alright for the child to say I’m sorry. The problem with apologies becomes unsettling when people remain in the mind set of the young child and think the expression itself is enough to make up for what they have done. There comes a time when people must start associating responsibility with the idea of an apology. Until then however, people such as Culbertson will make their insincere apologies and others will simple except them thinking, "well at least they made an effort". But as for myself, just as my father’s company is fighting to do, and just as each of us should really consider, we should not stop our fights or withdraw from our arguments until a justified apology is given.
Blog Re-Write Paper
Subconscious propaganda. It's probably the most evil of all types of persuasion because its basis is formed around the fact that the average consumer doesn't necessarily know that he/she is being persuaded. He/she has either grown accustomed to it or he/she does not notice the different variations of it in their everyday lives. The response that is unleashed is what needs to be considered in order to enable consumers to wake up and think about what makes them need the products that they buy.
In the movie, The Persuaders, we can see that all consumers are susceptible to some kind of unwritten, unstated, subconscious "code." Your "code" is basically what you feel is related to you in some aspect of your life. The things that you are physically and emotionally connected to could be used to crack your "code." It is based on experiences throughout your life, both good and bad. Now this seems harmless enough, and it is, if it is used justly. Advertisers attempt to crack these "codes" in order to evoke or trigger some kind of repressed emotion. A good example of this is the new billboards and magazine advertisements that Dove Soaps represent. They took the idea that most women feel badly about their weight and idealized their perceptions of themselves by putting "curvy" women on their advertisements. This would enable women to feel better about themselves, creating more revenue for their product in general.
But the "code" does not always have to evoke some kind of positive emotion. Some of the best selling products sell so well because they instill fear in consumers without them actually being aware of this. One company or organization could have the power to make you feel positive about yourself, therefore cracking your "code" and enabling you to buy their product. That very same company can turn around and use this very same power to make you feel disgusted and ashamed at the same time. An example of this would be the ever-so-popular weight loss bars. The advertisers pick young, beautiful, thin women to represent their weight loss bars. You can basically take what they're saying to mean, "She looks this good, so why can't you? You need our product to be beautiful and thin." They want us to believe that their products are what we will need to make us feel good about ourselves. They create a situation where we create our own fear, and therefore we need their products to feel safe again.
But the "code" does not always have to evoke some kind of positive emotion. Some of the best selling products sell so well because they instill fear in consumers without them actually being aware of this. One company or organization could have the power to make you feel positive about yourself, therefore cracking your "code" and enabling you to buy their product. That very same company can turn around and use this very same power to make you feel disgusted and ashamed at the same time. An example of this would be the ever-so-popular weight loss bars. The advertisers pick young, beautiful, thin women to represent their weight loss bars. You can basically take what they're saying to mean, "She looks this good, so why can't you? You need our product to be beautiful and thin." They want us to believe that their products are what we will need to make us feel good about ourselves. They create a situation where we create our own fear, and therefore we need their products to feel safe again.
In the end, there should be a specific "code" that we can crack on all these advertisers to see whether or not they're "playing with our minds," but there's not. It's basically up to us to tune out all of the billboards, commercials, and magazine ads that we are inundated with every single day and tune into what exact products would actually be beneficial to our lives. Regardless of the many tactics that advertisers use to manipulate us, it is up to us to take responsibility for our purchases. The watchful consumer needs to be aware of these "codes" and allow their common sense to dictate their purchases. If we all took heed of this information, then we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not we are letting repressed memories or fear force us into buying certain products. We would buy what we actually need, and eventually, this type of advertising would be forced to change.
Blog Paper - Advertising
When I sit down and watch an episode of the television classic “All in the Family” I notice that Archie Bunker, the main character, usually is drinking a “beer.” It is just plain beer, not a Budweiser. However, if you turn on an episode of a television show today, you will most likely see a person drinking Starbucks coffee, or going to a McDonald’s. Have we as a society have become so shut off by commercials that we need “sub-commercials” in our shows and sporting events?
In the film “The Persuaders” Douglas Rushkoff sets out to try to figure out basically where the line is between the advertisers or “persuaders” and the public. In the “weblog ethics” reading it talks about how some journalists get some of their information from weblogs and how people who post on the blogs should use good so called journalistic judgment when posting. This is because of the journalists using information they have found on blogs. Now this poses an interesting question; if journalists are using information they have found from the public, who is the real persuader in that situation?
On one hand you have the media (the advertisers, journalists, etc.). The job of journalists is to report news stories. The trick to their job is they have to report the truth, and they are supposed to research, interview, and dig deep into a story to find out what the truth of situations are before they go onto air. If they report something false they have to go back and say they reported incorrect information and correct it. There is also the advertiser whose job it is to show a product and try to get people to buy it. No matter how they do it, they try to get a product to be sold. Whether they use celebrities, humor, drama, or sex advertisers will try to move their product.
The question to me is; is this really necessary? During what should be a game that lasts an hour and a half, I have to suffer through that length of time if not more of commercials that interrupt my game. Note to television stations and advertisers; I don’t need to see any more! Please, if you have a product, make a commercial, not an announcement during my shows or sports.
The media and journalists are not the only people who are to be blamed in this confusion. The American public is also to blame. We as a society have become so immune to normal commercials that they do not have any impact on us. We always want more of something or something to be bigger, better, faster, etc. This has caused every car manufacturer, restaurant, or gas station to have a higher degree of competition with each other than ever before. Also, we have so much influence on things that go across air even in news broadcasts. People post rumors and truths and thoughts on weblogs and there have been some instances where broadcasters have reported things they read on a blog and then later found out it wasn’t true and had to go back and correct themselves.
What really needs to happen is we as a society need to become more responsible for ourselves. We need to make decisions for ourselves. We need to be more responsible for our actions and look into things before we spread them around. Advertisers also need to have regulations. There needs to be some restrictions as to how much advertising can be put into shows. Also, journalists need to make sure things are truth before they report it. Basically, everyone needs to act like adults and be more responsible for things.
In the film “The Persuaders” Douglas Rushkoff sets out to try to figure out basically where the line is between the advertisers or “persuaders” and the public. In the “weblog ethics” reading it talks about how some journalists get some of their information from weblogs and how people who post on the blogs should use good so called journalistic judgment when posting. This is because of the journalists using information they have found on blogs. Now this poses an interesting question; if journalists are using information they have found from the public, who is the real persuader in that situation?
On one hand you have the media (the advertisers, journalists, etc.). The job of journalists is to report news stories. The trick to their job is they have to report the truth, and they are supposed to research, interview, and dig deep into a story to find out what the truth of situations are before they go onto air. If they report something false they have to go back and say they reported incorrect information and correct it. There is also the advertiser whose job it is to show a product and try to get people to buy it. No matter how they do it, they try to get a product to be sold. Whether they use celebrities, humor, drama, or sex advertisers will try to move their product.
The question to me is; is this really necessary? During what should be a game that lasts an hour and a half, I have to suffer through that length of time if not more of commercials that interrupt my game. Note to television stations and advertisers; I don’t need to see any more! Please, if you have a product, make a commercial, not an announcement during my shows or sports.
The media and journalists are not the only people who are to be blamed in this confusion. The American public is also to blame. We as a society have become so immune to normal commercials that they do not have any impact on us. We always want more of something or something to be bigger, better, faster, etc. This has caused every car manufacturer, restaurant, or gas station to have a higher degree of competition with each other than ever before. Also, we have so much influence on things that go across air even in news broadcasts. People post rumors and truths and thoughts on weblogs and there have been some instances where broadcasters have reported things they read on a blog and then later found out it wasn’t true and had to go back and correct themselves.
What really needs to happen is we as a society need to become more responsible for ourselves. We need to make decisions for ourselves. We need to be more responsible for our actions and look into things before we spread them around. Advertisers also need to have regulations. There needs to be some restrictions as to how much advertising can be put into shows. Also, journalists need to make sure things are truth before they report it. Basically, everyone needs to act like adults and be more responsible for things.
Cloning, in the Near Future?
There is no other topic in health care with more potential for controversy than human cloning and its subsidiary reaseraches such as genetic modificationand stem cell research. I decided to write my paper on human cloning for this very reason. I will briefly discuss what cloning is and both its pros and cons. Cloning can be used for different reasons from cloning kidneys to having a clone baby that will replace a child that might have been killed in an accident. The question arises about how safe this is and whether it is ethical.
Many have deep religious and ethical reasons for wanting to dismiss human cloning. However, there are also many people, including some scientists, who believe that the possible benefits of human cloning outweigh the risks significantly.
Cloning is a form of genetic engineering in which the DNA of a person, plant, or animal is used to produce a perfect or near perfect genetic replica of the original. A new individual is created from a single cell. Each group of researchers has its own specific technique . The best known is the Roslin technique, and the most effective and most recently developed technique is the Honolulu technique.
The cloning of Dolly the sheep is considered by many to be the most important event in cloning history. Dolly was created by the Roslin Technique, which was created by the researchers at the Roslin Institute in Scotland. It spurred public interest in cloning and proved that the cloning of adult animals could be achieved. Until then, it was not known if an adult nucleus was able to produce a completely new animal.
Cloning is able to provide numerous benefits and possibilities to the human race as well as animals. Try to think of all the benefits that cloning could provide. Death and disease would be virtually nonexistent. People would be able to live longer, healthier, happier lives. There would no longer be an endangered species list. Survival rates would be at an all time high. Food production would be greatly increased.
Therapeutic cloning is another positive aspect; it is the use of cloning in terms of rehabilitation and organ transplants. Scientists can grow organs, such as ears, kidneys, etc. for patients that are missing those very organs without the endangerment of another human being. Patients will no longer have to wait for a heart if they are on a transplant list with little to no time to live.
Some of the major arguments against cloning revolve around issues such as ethics, religious beliefs, and safety factors. The major argument against cloning is based on a philosophical view that focuses on how cloning could be damaging to society. It is this view that tends to create perceptions that cloning will lead to a major breakdown in society.
Are human beings supposed to live longer? Is the cloned human being an authentic human being? The idea is that individuality, imperfection, sickness and even death is a natural part of human existence and yet one promise of human cloning is to do away with these factors which are a normal part of a human’s life.
Cloning has sparked controversies over the past few years. With the race to map the DNA and its completion, it has foreshadowed our society of what to come. There is no right or wrong answer, just a matter of moral, ethics and what your beliefs are.
Many have deep religious and ethical reasons for wanting to dismiss human cloning. However, there are also many people, including some scientists, who believe that the possible benefits of human cloning outweigh the risks significantly.
Cloning is a form of genetic engineering in which the DNA of a person, plant, or animal is used to produce a perfect or near perfect genetic replica of the original. A new individual is created from a single cell. Each group of researchers has its own specific technique . The best known is the Roslin technique, and the most effective and most recently developed technique is the Honolulu technique.
The cloning of Dolly the sheep is considered by many to be the most important event in cloning history. Dolly was created by the Roslin Technique, which was created by the researchers at the Roslin Institute in Scotland. It spurred public interest in cloning and proved that the cloning of adult animals could be achieved. Until then, it was not known if an adult nucleus was able to produce a completely new animal.
Cloning is able to provide numerous benefits and possibilities to the human race as well as animals. Try to think of all the benefits that cloning could provide. Death and disease would be virtually nonexistent. People would be able to live longer, healthier, happier lives. There would no longer be an endangered species list. Survival rates would be at an all time high. Food production would be greatly increased.
Therapeutic cloning is another positive aspect; it is the use of cloning in terms of rehabilitation and organ transplants. Scientists can grow organs, such as ears, kidneys, etc. for patients that are missing those very organs without the endangerment of another human being. Patients will no longer have to wait for a heart if they are on a transplant list with little to no time to live.
Some of the major arguments against cloning revolve around issues such as ethics, religious beliefs, and safety factors. The major argument against cloning is based on a philosophical view that focuses on how cloning could be damaging to society. It is this view that tends to create perceptions that cloning will lead to a major breakdown in society.
Are human beings supposed to live longer? Is the cloned human being an authentic human being? The idea is that individuality, imperfection, sickness and even death is a natural part of human existence and yet one promise of human cloning is to do away with these factors which are a normal part of a human’s life.
Cloning has sparked controversies over the past few years. With the race to map the DNA and its completion, it has foreshadowed our society of what to come. There is no right or wrong answer, just a matter of moral, ethics and what your beliefs are.
Persuasion: Buy Your Very Own Identity!
In 1928 Edward L. Bernays wrote "Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How", about a technique for “the mass distribution of ideas” (Bernays, 57); a technique he called ‘the psychology of public persuasion.” This psychology, he argued, will “bring about changes in public opinion that will make for the acceptance of new doctrines, beliefs, and habits.” (Bernays 51)
For the majority of history, public opinion has existed as an immeasurable, intangible belief system. During this time, material or consumer purchases were a separate, removed entity unto themselves. There were advertisements promoting a particular brand of soap or cereal, but they mainly relied on facts, or guarantees about the product: this soap floats, that cereal contains fiber. While the advertising certainly appealed to the emotions of the public, marketers hadn’t yet begun to try to change their consumers' reason or rational behind purchasing a certain product. However, over the years, this separation has diminished so there is no longer a clear-cut line of demarcation. It appears that these industries are attempting to – and succeeding in – reassigning our value systems. As prescribed by Bernays and emphasized in “The Persuaders”, advertising or manipulating of public opinion goes far beyond extolling the “virtues” of a brand’s performance. It extols the “virtues” you gain by buying the brand. If you’re not attaining peace of mind from a religious service, why not buy it? Persuaders today are marketing geniuses that run psychological tests on us to sell us our morals, values, and ideologies. They appeal to the deficits we now find in our lives, and attempt to fill them with goods. Persuaders teach us to assign personal value to items, they encourage us to think about products in such a way that we come to associate them with a particular lifestyle. Advertising today doesn’t focus on the product, it focuses on the lifestyle one leads because of the product, or the lifestyle one could have if they purchased the product.
One of the most blatant examples is the clothing company Abercrombie and Fitch. They appeal to the social aspirations of a particular society – high school and college age kids. The company’s effective strategy requires its employees to sell the “lifestyle” instead of the clothing. The associates were (at one point) encouraged to ignore the customers and to act as though they were “better” than them; the catalogue emphasizes a life of ease, good looks, and hedonism. This produces the idea that, by wearing Abercrombie and Fitch, one can attain popularity and coolness. Certain products have evolved to come to stand for a specific sense of worth- in the sense of an intangible value; there's a by-product of consumerism hidden within the questions of self-identity and exterior-identity.
Perhaps this identity crisis springs from a new movement in cultural identity: America was once the “melting pot” of the world. People came here from far-flung places and were expected to drop their old identity and assume a new “American” one. Now, schools and organizations celebrate diversity. It’s the politically correct thing to do, but it’s also considered the “cool” thing to do. Read any magazine aimed at teenager girls and young women; one of the most repeated mantras is: “be an individual; show the world who you really are; be yourself and boys will like you.” And yet, these aphorisms are sandwiched between articles on the latest trends; it’s almost a catch – 22: you can’t be an individual without doing what everyone else agrees is cool.
Bernays equated public relations to "the shaping of reality itself ". In reality, people still want the same things they always wanted, advertisers are now simply distributing goods in a different way, and telling the public they want them for a different reason. It’s the system of delivering them, their framework, and the reason for delivering them that has changed.
And so as Bernays’ work continues to become more refined and more insidious, the public may find they no longer have any control over the decisions they believe they make; somewhere out there, a reseacher has tapped into his primal desires to influence his purchase.
For the majority of history, public opinion has existed as an immeasurable, intangible belief system. During this time, material or consumer purchases were a separate, removed entity unto themselves. There were advertisements promoting a particular brand of soap or cereal, but they mainly relied on facts, or guarantees about the product: this soap floats, that cereal contains fiber. While the advertising certainly appealed to the emotions of the public, marketers hadn’t yet begun to try to change their consumers' reason or rational behind purchasing a certain product. However, over the years, this separation has diminished so there is no longer a clear-cut line of demarcation. It appears that these industries are attempting to – and succeeding in – reassigning our value systems. As prescribed by Bernays and emphasized in “The Persuaders”, advertising or manipulating of public opinion goes far beyond extolling the “virtues” of a brand’s performance. It extols the “virtues” you gain by buying the brand. If you’re not attaining peace of mind from a religious service, why not buy it? Persuaders today are marketing geniuses that run psychological tests on us to sell us our morals, values, and ideologies. They appeal to the deficits we now find in our lives, and attempt to fill them with goods. Persuaders teach us to assign personal value to items, they encourage us to think about products in such a way that we come to associate them with a particular lifestyle. Advertising today doesn’t focus on the product, it focuses on the lifestyle one leads because of the product, or the lifestyle one could have if they purchased the product.
One of the most blatant examples is the clothing company Abercrombie and Fitch. They appeal to the social aspirations of a particular society – high school and college age kids. The company’s effective strategy requires its employees to sell the “lifestyle” instead of the clothing. The associates were (at one point) encouraged to ignore the customers and to act as though they were “better” than them; the catalogue emphasizes a life of ease, good looks, and hedonism. This produces the idea that, by wearing Abercrombie and Fitch, one can attain popularity and coolness. Certain products have evolved to come to stand for a specific sense of worth- in the sense of an intangible value; there's a by-product of consumerism hidden within the questions of self-identity and exterior-identity.
Perhaps this identity crisis springs from a new movement in cultural identity: America was once the “melting pot” of the world. People came here from far-flung places and were expected to drop their old identity and assume a new “American” one. Now, schools and organizations celebrate diversity. It’s the politically correct thing to do, but it’s also considered the “cool” thing to do. Read any magazine aimed at teenager girls and young women; one of the most repeated mantras is: “be an individual; show the world who you really are; be yourself and boys will like you.” And yet, these aphorisms are sandwiched between articles on the latest trends; it’s almost a catch – 22: you can’t be an individual without doing what everyone else agrees is cool.
Bernays equated public relations to "the shaping of reality itself ". In reality, people still want the same things they always wanted, advertisers are now simply distributing goods in a different way, and telling the public they want them for a different reason. It’s the system of delivering them, their framework, and the reason for delivering them that has changed.
And so as Bernays’ work continues to become more refined and more insidious, the public may find they no longer have any control over the decisions they believe they make; somewhere out there, a reseacher has tapped into his primal desires to influence his purchase.
PublicTheology
The article Public Theology: An Open Concept discusses what a public theology should be after the events of September 11th. Theology is often placed in the category of private opinion, so it may seem unusual to associate it with the term public. The constitutional democracies in Eighteenth century made overt efforts to separate the influence of religion from political institutions. These religious divisions had caused great war and human suffering, and still some of the most violent fracas among human beings are generated from religious commitment. It is best portrayed in most circles that the regulation of religion and religious beliefs should be kept to the private, personal realm; the phrase "keep religion out of politics" is widely acknowledged.
The term theology can be defined objectively and has a history
Throughout many different cultures world-wide, humans gather weekly (or at least on holidays) at church to worship. Mainline churches provide spaces for meeting, both "spiritually" when the congregation embraces God and "civically" when various members of the congregation and the larger communities of which they are a part interact with each other. Simply by offering physical spaces, the churches provide "public spaces." From this public space derives the conceptions of public theology. The task of public theology demands the engagement of public dialogue on ethical issues. Awareness is implied when sinfulness is recognized; determining humans and their societies are imperfect. Public theology must arrange and adjust motifs for an emerging global civil society. A serious public theology will have to connect the great religions world-wide to inquire and compare concepts and prospects.
Robert N. Bellah discusses "public theology" in his book Varieties of Civil Religion (1960): "Notions that America is God's country, and that American power in the world is identitical with morality and God's will, have not died even today. Fortunately, these ideas never shaped the normative documents of the American civil religion, nor have they characterized its greates heroes - men like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Martin Luther King - but they have formed an important tradition of interpretation, one carried by nationalistic clergymen more often than by jingoistic politicians. The best antidote to this tendency toward archaic regression is the critical tradition that has characterized American political life from its beginning. This critical tradition has been expressed in what Martin Mary called a public theology and what Walter Lippmann called a public philosophy. A strong public theology opposed our more unjust wars, especially the Mexican-American, Spanish-American, and Vietnamese wars, demanded racial and social justice, and insisted on the fulfillment of our democratic promise in our economic as well as our political life." (Introduction, page xiii)
Note* I plan on having all these ideas discussed in further detail and perhaps in a diferent context throughout my research paper. These are mostly preliminary ideas and an informational foundation block, if anyone can offer ideas and subject matter to play around with, I'm openminded. Thanks, Jessica.
The term theology can be defined objectively and has a history
Throughout many different cultures world-wide, humans gather weekly (or at least on holidays) at church to worship. Mainline churches provide spaces for meeting, both "spiritually" when the congregation embraces God and "civically" when various members of the congregation and the larger communities of which they are a part interact with each other. Simply by offering physical spaces, the churches provide "public spaces." From this public space derives the conceptions of public theology. The task of public theology demands the engagement of public dialogue on ethical issues. Awareness is implied when sinfulness is recognized; determining humans and their societies are imperfect. Public theology must arrange and adjust motifs for an emerging global civil society. A serious public theology will have to connect the great religions world-wide to inquire and compare concepts and prospects.
Robert N. Bellah discusses "public theology" in his book Varieties of Civil Religion (1960): "Notions that America is God's country, and that American power in the world is identitical with morality and God's will, have not died even today. Fortunately, these ideas never shaped the normative documents of the American civil religion, nor have they characterized its greates heroes - men like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Martin Luther King - but they have formed an important tradition of interpretation, one carried by nationalistic clergymen more often than by jingoistic politicians. The best antidote to this tendency toward archaic regression is the critical tradition that has characterized American political life from its beginning. This critical tradition has been expressed in what Martin Mary called a public theology and what Walter Lippmann called a public philosophy. A strong public theology opposed our more unjust wars, especially the Mexican-American, Spanish-American, and Vietnamese wars, demanded racial and social justice, and insisted on the fulfillment of our democratic promise in our economic as well as our political life." (Introduction, page xiii)
Note* I plan on having all these ideas discussed in further detail and perhaps in a diferent context throughout my research paper. These are mostly preliminary ideas and an informational foundation block, if anyone can offer ideas and subject matter to play around with, I'm openminded. Thanks, Jessica.
Language is in what we say and do. It affects us in ways that we are not always aware of. Certain events trigger certain responses and instruct us to act the way we do and common sense is the backing for some of it. Other times, we invoke logic to solve our problems, and then at other times, we use one of our most endearing human qualities, skepticism, to solve our issues.
Common sense has negative effects. In the event of a person saying “I’m sorry”, there is blame attached. Robin Lakoff discussed this in her book, The Language War. Her book reads: “It (an apology) is less important whether or not it is sincere, it is the form of an apology that counts.” What counts is that you say an apology at a given time. But, the negative aspect of an apology is not forgotten then. An apology places blame on whoever says it, so therefore, they have just taken blame for an event or mishap that they did not create or do. This is entirely the opposite of just sympathizing for someone else’s feelings. Common sense for one, instructs us to say “sorry” even when we are not genuinely apologetic.
When one can’t rely on common sense, one can always look for the validity in things and use logic as a problem solver. Logic solves problems and answers through a more scientific, and careful approach known as deductive reasoning. It is a more thought provoked path in discovering the validity in things. Scepticism finds answers through questioning with doubt. It is a third way of seeking answers. .
There is a connection between skepticism, logic, and common sense. This needs to be addressed. Skepticism is: “A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety” It can also be defined as: “A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.” While logic is “The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.” And common sense is good judgement. They all go hand in hand, that is that they all look for the validity in things. Skepticism questions it, logic studies it, and common sense gives us the answer to act according to our experience and values.
Common sense has negative effects. In the event of a person saying “I’m sorry”, there is blame attached. Robin Lakoff discussed this in her book, The Language War. Her book reads: “It (an apology) is less important whether or not it is sincere, it is the form of an apology that counts.” What counts is that you say an apology at a given time. But, the negative aspect of an apology is not forgotten then. An apology places blame on whoever says it, so therefore, they have just taken blame for an event or mishap that they did not create or do. This is entirely the opposite of just sympathizing for someone else’s feelings. Common sense for one, instructs us to say “sorry” even when we are not genuinely apologetic.
When one can’t rely on common sense, one can always look for the validity in things and use logic as a problem solver. Logic solves problems and answers through a more scientific, and careful approach known as deductive reasoning. It is a more thought provoked path in discovering the validity in things. Scepticism finds answers through questioning with doubt. It is a third way of seeking answers. .
There is a connection between skepticism, logic, and common sense. This needs to be addressed. Skepticism is: “A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety” It can also be defined as: “A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.” While logic is “The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.” And common sense is good judgement. They all go hand in hand, that is that they all look for the validity in things. Skepticism questions it, logic studies it, and common sense gives us the answer to act according to our experience and values.
For many Americans faith dictates the way they see the world and the decisions they make, including the ones in politics. This is inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. Religion has helped shape our country from the very beginning. People on both the left and the right cite religion as the reason for the way they vote, but religion is much more prominent on the right than the left. In my paper I am studying how the right uses religious rhetoric.
President Bush often uses religion in his speeches. One tactic he uses is to frame his policies using religious principles. He used this tactic in a recent speech given at The Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. He opened his speech by talking to his audience about how as Southern Baptists they valued freedom and compassion. He said their Creator had called them to build a more compassionate society “where families are strong, life is valued, and the poor and the sick can count on the love and help of neighbors.” Through out the rest of his speech he used freedom and compassion to frame his policies. He says that the foundation of a compassionate society is a strong family and so we must defend families by creating a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage, or as he calls it an amendment to protecting the institution of marriage. He also says that building a compassionate society means building a culture of life. When talking about helping the poor he talks about the importance of religious institutions instead of government institutions like welfare (Republicans usually advocate private charities funded in part by the government instead of the social programs Democrats tend to favor). By saying that all these policies are ones of compassion and God wants us to be compassionate, he is making a comparison between what God wants and what he stands for. The message he is sending is that he is the candidate and the Republicans are the party for Christians because they have the same policies that God would have.
While most prominent politicians won’t directly come out and say that God is on the side of the Republicans, many conservative Christian religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson will. One of the most egregious recent examples is Justice Sunday held by the Family Research Council. Justice Sunday was held on Sunday, April 24 of this year and its official title was Justice Sunday –Stopping the Filibuster against people of Faith. The goal of this event was to get the Democrats to stop filibustering George Bush’s nominees to the Federal Judiciary. The organizers of Justice Sunday claimed that the nominees were being filibustered because they were Christians so in this case the people stopping the initiatives that are important to Christians, getting Christian judges on the Federal Judiciary, are the Democrats. The name of the event says a lot. A filibuster is a political term and is used to stop a bill from passing in the senate. By saying that people are filibustering against people of faith they are saying that the people who are filibustering are stopping the political initiatives that are important to people of faith, in this case Christians.
This type of rhetoric obviously doesn’t work on every Christian. (in the last presidential election the country was almost evenly divided but the majority of the people in this country are Christian). But it can be a very effective tactic. Millions of swing voters voted for Bush in the 2004 election because of the way he talks about religion and helped him win. Even more importantly this type of rhetoric pumps up the Republican’s base and gets them to go out and vote. Using religion to frame their policies has been very successful.
President Bush often uses religion in his speeches. One tactic he uses is to frame his policies using religious principles. He used this tactic in a recent speech given at The Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. He opened his speech by talking to his audience about how as Southern Baptists they valued freedom and compassion. He said their Creator had called them to build a more compassionate society “where families are strong, life is valued, and the poor and the sick can count on the love and help of neighbors.” Through out the rest of his speech he used freedom and compassion to frame his policies. He says that the foundation of a compassionate society is a strong family and so we must defend families by creating a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage, or as he calls it an amendment to protecting the institution of marriage. He also says that building a compassionate society means building a culture of life. When talking about helping the poor he talks about the importance of religious institutions instead of government institutions like welfare (Republicans usually advocate private charities funded in part by the government instead of the social programs Democrats tend to favor). By saying that all these policies are ones of compassion and God wants us to be compassionate, he is making a comparison between what God wants and what he stands for. The message he is sending is that he is the candidate and the Republicans are the party for Christians because they have the same policies that God would have.
While most prominent politicians won’t directly come out and say that God is on the side of the Republicans, many conservative Christian religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson will. One of the most egregious recent examples is Justice Sunday held by the Family Research Council. Justice Sunday was held on Sunday, April 24 of this year and its official title was Justice Sunday –Stopping the Filibuster against people of Faith. The goal of this event was to get the Democrats to stop filibustering George Bush’s nominees to the Federal Judiciary. The organizers of Justice Sunday claimed that the nominees were being filibustered because they were Christians so in this case the people stopping the initiatives that are important to Christians, getting Christian judges on the Federal Judiciary, are the Democrats. The name of the event says a lot. A filibuster is a political term and is used to stop a bill from passing in the senate. By saying that people are filibustering against people of faith they are saying that the people who are filibustering are stopping the political initiatives that are important to people of faith, in this case Christians.
This type of rhetoric obviously doesn’t work on every Christian. (in the last presidential election the country was almost evenly divided but the majority of the people in this country are Christian). But it can be a very effective tactic. Millions of swing voters voted for Bush in the 2004 election because of the way he talks about religion and helped him win. Even more importantly this type of rhetoric pumps up the Republican’s base and gets them to go out and vote. Using religion to frame their policies has been very successful.
Our Language Used Against Us
What if everything we’ve ever heard was a lie? What if it was close to the truth? Would it be okay? The answer to these questions, and any question that deals with the manipulation of our knowledge and opinions as significant citizens needs to be, bluntly put, a resounding no. Instead, we, the public, want to hear the facts about the everyday events that we ultimately have power over (we are in a democracy) because if our decisions are uninformed or, moreover, not presented to us, then we will be led blindly into a future we have no control over.
This scary point illustrates the fluidity or shakiness of language—that what we may hear has a certain meaning on the surface, but underneath it takes on a completely different, more concealed, definition. To understand this idea of language as oral exploitation, we will define it as doublespeak. George Orwell, who sought to uncover these secret “linguistic” tactics used by the government and military to sway public views and opinions, coined the term doublespeak in the earlier part of the 20th century. The way doublespeak “softens” language bears significance because we inevitably make decisions based on these expressions and, from a political standpoint, we are given the opportunity to choose wisely.
Let’s look at some examples in the past when doublespeak was used, and what consequences it had on us as a people.
Every year since 1974 the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) awards somebody in the political sphere a doublespeak award. Past winners include the Bush Administration, Newt Gingrich, and NASA. All of these people, or organizations, somehow distorted facts by softening the way they presented them. For example, NASA called the space shuttle challenger explosion “an anomaly” and said that the dead bodies of the astronauts on board were simply “recovered components” (NCTE). As public listeners we would have no idea of what this means, and in situations where our opinions as decision makers are threatened by doublespeak, it becomes even more dangerous. Recently the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, discussed the torture acts that happened at Abu Ghraib prison by calling them “the excesses of human nature that humanity suffers” (NCTE). Here, Rumsfeld neglects to accept responsibility for the crimes that happened at Abu Ghraib and as the public we are not given some important information.
Perhaps a new question is raised after hearing this distorted language and it is one that Robin Lakoff answers in her book The Language War. The question, simply stated, is why do we hear so many insincere or, as Lakoff says, infelicitous apologies (or doublespeak) emerging from the political realm? The answer or reason that formal apologies are so rare is that the political world is so afraid to relinquish power—which sometimes happens when you admit a mistake. To answer the question of this muddied language Lakoff says, “I suspect it’s because the more perceptive recognize that these apologies, for all their literal meaninglessness, have serious consequences, reallocating as they do the right to determine what events mean, and how they shall be spoken of and who shall speak of them in public” (Lakoff 31).
There are several dangers that the public, then, receive from these apologies, expressions, and linguistic cover up. There is no doubt that doublespeak can move public opinion, for it creates ignorance in the public and, of course, our decisions are uninformed. The public sphere becomes a public satire; it is no longer well informed or aware of this deception. Walter Lippman, a famous political writer, discusses this point more deeply, saying that public apathy is an offshoot of this political trickery. The public is not given a fair chance at forming opinions, and therefore should not be held responsible for mistakes that happen. Nevertheless, we have learned that doublespeak assaults the idea of a true democracy, one that is built on trust and public communication. Doublespeak is unsafe to the people who use it, to the people it targets, and to the public, who hears and reacts to it.
This scary point illustrates the fluidity or shakiness of language—that what we may hear has a certain meaning on the surface, but underneath it takes on a completely different, more concealed, definition. To understand this idea of language as oral exploitation, we will define it as doublespeak. George Orwell, who sought to uncover these secret “linguistic” tactics used by the government and military to sway public views and opinions, coined the term doublespeak in the earlier part of the 20th century. The way doublespeak “softens” language bears significance because we inevitably make decisions based on these expressions and, from a political standpoint, we are given the opportunity to choose wisely.
Let’s look at some examples in the past when doublespeak was used, and what consequences it had on us as a people.
Every year since 1974 the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) awards somebody in the political sphere a doublespeak award. Past winners include the Bush Administration, Newt Gingrich, and NASA. All of these people, or organizations, somehow distorted facts by softening the way they presented them. For example, NASA called the space shuttle challenger explosion “an anomaly” and said that the dead bodies of the astronauts on board were simply “recovered components” (NCTE). As public listeners we would have no idea of what this means, and in situations where our opinions as decision makers are threatened by doublespeak, it becomes even more dangerous. Recently the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, discussed the torture acts that happened at Abu Ghraib prison by calling them “the excesses of human nature that humanity suffers” (NCTE). Here, Rumsfeld neglects to accept responsibility for the crimes that happened at Abu Ghraib and as the public we are not given some important information.
Perhaps a new question is raised after hearing this distorted language and it is one that Robin Lakoff answers in her book The Language War. The question, simply stated, is why do we hear so many insincere or, as Lakoff says, infelicitous apologies (or doublespeak) emerging from the political realm? The answer or reason that formal apologies are so rare is that the political world is so afraid to relinquish power—which sometimes happens when you admit a mistake. To answer the question of this muddied language Lakoff says, “I suspect it’s because the more perceptive recognize that these apologies, for all their literal meaninglessness, have serious consequences, reallocating as they do the right to determine what events mean, and how they shall be spoken of and who shall speak of them in public” (Lakoff 31).
There are several dangers that the public, then, receive from these apologies, expressions, and linguistic cover up. There is no doubt that doublespeak can move public opinion, for it creates ignorance in the public and, of course, our decisions are uninformed. The public sphere becomes a public satire; it is no longer well informed or aware of this deception. Walter Lippman, a famous political writer, discusses this point more deeply, saying that public apathy is an offshoot of this political trickery. The public is not given a fair chance at forming opinions, and therefore should not be held responsible for mistakes that happen. Nevertheless, we have learned that doublespeak assaults the idea of a true democracy, one that is built on trust and public communication. Doublespeak is unsafe to the people who use it, to the people it targets, and to the public, who hears and reacts to it.
Terrell Owens on Public Apologies
On November 8, 2005, Terrell Owens made a public apology to the world. He included in this apology Andy Reid, Head Coach of the Eagles football team, Donovan McNabb, leading quarterback, the president and owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, and the fans who have so desperately been watching as their world of football has been turned upside down. One year ago, Owens was "The Man of the Hour”. He owned the media and the fans it produced, with coverage from his exhilarating performance of athletic ability to the “shows” he exhibited after his incredible, game-winning touchdowns. This year, however, is one hundred and ten percent the opposite. No more do those dedicated Eagles fans chant the song that was sung in every bar by every one of T.O.’s followers when he made those winning plays. No more will they forget that there is no “I” in “team”. And no more will T.O. ever be recognized as a member of the Philadelphia Eagles.
For the last year, anyone who watches football, or even follows sports at all knows about the T.O. ‘problem’. After the Super Bowl last year, T.O. made a crude remark about how his team had basically “gotten tired” during the big game. He never dropped any names, but it was understood by everyone that he was speaking mainly about Donovan McNabb. From then on, it was war. Back and forth, all summer long, McNabb and Owens shared their true feelings about the situations at hand. Soon after this, Owens turned over to a new agent, then asking for more money in his contract with the Philadelphia Eagles, believing that because he was such an important part of the team, he should receive more money, and also stating that he needed to “feed his family” Eagles personnel did not feel the same way, so the battle continued. Commercials on ESPN like “The Days of our Lives” by Donovan McNabb were introduced during interviews and such, and the media coverage was unbelievable. Everyone knew it was the start of something bigger yet to come. And soon it did.
On November 3, 2005, in an interview with ESPN’s Graham Bensinger, Owens “took shots” at the Eagles’ franchise for not acknowledging his 100th touchdown, and suggested that the Eagles would be better off with Packers’ Quarterback Brett Favre instead of their own, Donovan McNabb. That was the last straw. After a suspension that came about a week earlier because of a confrontation with Andy Reid, his career with the Philadelphia Eagles had come to a bitter end. Reid, along with many others, decided that they no longer wanted Owens as a part of their team. Seemingly enough, Owens made the public apology with his agent right by his side. But who says he had to apologize? What is it about our society today that makes one feel that they have to say the words “I’m sorry”, even if they don’t mean it? Owens, in his public apology, was clearly doing it for one reason only; everyone hated him, he knew it, and he believed the only way to make it better was to apologize. Yet a few months earlier, in that interview with Bensinger, he said “I have no reason to be sorry for the interview after the Super Bowl. I did not say McNabb individually, so if people want to think that is what I meant, then go ahead. If I was talking about McNabb personally, I would have said McNabb‘s name.”(Owens). However, in his later apology to the world, after he made all the remarks about the Eagles as a whole, he stood up in front of the entire nation, and made his apology. The question of “Why?“ is still on everyone’s mind. But for now, “You are not fooling anyone Owens. Not even me!”
For the last year, anyone who watches football, or even follows sports at all knows about the T.O. ‘problem’. After the Super Bowl last year, T.O. made a crude remark about how his team had basically “gotten tired” during the big game. He never dropped any names, but it was understood by everyone that he was speaking mainly about Donovan McNabb. From then on, it was war. Back and forth, all summer long, McNabb and Owens shared their true feelings about the situations at hand. Soon after this, Owens turned over to a new agent, then asking for more money in his contract with the Philadelphia Eagles, believing that because he was such an important part of the team, he should receive more money, and also stating that he needed to “feed his family” Eagles personnel did not feel the same way, so the battle continued. Commercials on ESPN like “The Days of our Lives” by Donovan McNabb were introduced during interviews and such, and the media coverage was unbelievable. Everyone knew it was the start of something bigger yet to come. And soon it did.
On November 3, 2005, in an interview with ESPN’s Graham Bensinger, Owens “took shots” at the Eagles’ franchise for not acknowledging his 100th touchdown, and suggested that the Eagles would be better off with Packers’ Quarterback Brett Favre instead of their own, Donovan McNabb. That was the last straw. After a suspension that came about a week earlier because of a confrontation with Andy Reid, his career with the Philadelphia Eagles had come to a bitter end. Reid, along with many others, decided that they no longer wanted Owens as a part of their team. Seemingly enough, Owens made the public apology with his agent right by his side. But who says he had to apologize? What is it about our society today that makes one feel that they have to say the words “I’m sorry”, even if they don’t mean it? Owens, in his public apology, was clearly doing it for one reason only; everyone hated him, he knew it, and he believed the only way to make it better was to apologize. Yet a few months earlier, in that interview with Bensinger, he said “I have no reason to be sorry for the interview after the Super Bowl. I did not say McNabb individually, so if people want to think that is what I meant, then go ahead. If I was talking about McNabb personally, I would have said McNabb‘s name.”(Owens). However, in his later apology to the world, after he made all the remarks about the Eagles as a whole, he stood up in front of the entire nation, and made his apology. The question of “Why?“ is still on everyone’s mind. But for now, “You are not fooling anyone Owens. Not even me!”
Monday, November 21, 2005
Blog Re-Write Paper
The "PR" Song and Dance
In the years before and after the 9/11 tragedy the airline companys were beginning to struggle, airlines had lost their majestic feeling. Many of the smaller companies went out of business after 9/11 and the larger ones lost millions of dollars. Delta has begun to overhaul their company and has begun a new project that they hope will reshape the industry. What they came up with was Song airlines; the question was how to present it in a fresh new way that would promote air travel.
-
They needed someone who could shape a brand; they found what they needed in Andy Spade, a veteran, and co-creator of the Kate-Spade Company. He said that it was a neat new idea and he was happy to be the one to make it happen. They would really need to gain popularity quick in an industry as big as this; which is the true art of PR work. Finding out what you want to communicate and accomplish it.
-
They decided that what they wanted to communicate was choice; no other companies they thought were offering a real sense of choice. You could create your own style when you fly with Song. You can choose your gourmet meal, you're in flight movie, what type of music you listen to, all from your seat. They wanted to bring air travel back to the way it was back in the 60's, something that was new and exciting. "Flight is and should be a very glamorous experience," Said Spade.
-
One of the benefits of Song airlines is that they really had the power to build from the ground up, make it whatever they wanted it to be. It would have been hard for Delta to try to change their image because people already have their own prior feelings towards Delta. Song however was something that was purposefully not directly associated with Delta to allow it to not be framed with Delta's name.
-
How do you reshape an industry and create a brand name that would be positively accepted? Spade says, "You can't say it; you have to demonstrate it." Their first television ads had no words, no promises, just beautiful images. The newest TV adds will be music video oriented; they feel that people are more inclined to pay attention to entertainment then normal advertisements. You may have seen such commercials from the Nike. More on Song advertising campaign.
-
From reading "Trust Us We're Experts" I really found the third party technique interesting. There is no real third party technique for Song, they are simply trying to get the viewers attention, then come through on their promises. However you could argue that Song the airline is a third party for air travel or Delta in particular. They know they can't sell something new through Delta so they come up with Song to be something totally different and transmit their new ideas.
-
It can be hard to advertise a feeling or the spirit of Song. Spade argues that you can't just come on television and say that we have spirit; it's something that has to be demonstrated. You have to show them something like fresh food, or private video screens, something that will make them say out loud, "Wow, that's great!"
Recently for breast cancer awareness month song painted all their planes pink in order to promote the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Proceeds from special pink products will be going to the foundation to help find a cure for breast cancer. This is not only a good cause but great PR, showing people that you may be a small company but you still care; it makes a connection for people and will leave a good thought in their mind.
-
Song has been growing by leaps and bounds, and on October 28th Delta converted 50 Delta aircraft into the Song fleet. This shows that there is more demand for Song among the public. This comes from the great PR work of Spade, and is a good example of how clean PR can really move a product if there is a demand for it.
Reagan's Rhetoric Bleeds Violence
The apartheid in South Africa proved to be one of the most criminal events in history. Although much of the world was aware of the inhumane acts that the Afrikanen dominated government was implementing, it wasn't until 1977 that the United Nations began to intervene. The United Nations resolution of 418 stated: "that all States shall cease forthwith any provision to South Africa of arms and related material of all types, including the sale or transfer of weapons and ammunition..." Despite the effort of the United Nations, some States still continued to have trade and commerce with South Africa, one of these being the United States. Through the misleading rhetoric of Ronald Reagan's, "U.S. Economic Relations with South Africa" speech he manipulated, the United States citizens into helping enforce South Africa's unjustified Apartheid.
One of Reagan's major strengths in his speech is his effective use of Orwellian language. During his speech he states: "The primary victims of an economic boycott of South Africa would be the very people we seek to help. Most of the workers who would lose jobs because of sanctions would be black workers” (Reagan). What Reagan fails to mention is the United Nations did not ask to halt all trade and commerce with South Africa, just “arms and related material.” Therefore, the only people this would affect would be the ones directly affiliated with any type of weapons, such as the South African government.
Reagan’s speech also exemplifies a great deal of the third- party technique. His speech alludes to Alan Paton, a South African writer, Paton states: “ I am totally opposedisambiguatedtment. (in South Africa) It is primarily for a moral reason. Those who will pay most grievously for disinvestments will be the black workers of South Africa,” (Reagan). Because Paton is a respected South Africa citizen, this allusion helps give Reagan’s speech more validity. However, what Reagan once again fails to mention is that Alan Paton is a white citizen, he has not spent a night in a township, he has not been lashed because of the color of his skin, and he has not been deprived any of his essential human rights. Of course Paton is in favor of continuing commerce with the United States, he has not been victim to any of its brutal repercussions.
Reagan once again draws to the third party technique, he states: “As one African leader remarked recently, South Africa is like a zebra: if the white parts are injured, the black parts will die, too” (Reagan). Although this “African leader” is left ambiguous, I would be my future social security check that the “leader” is a white male. Since he is labeled a “leader,” it can be assured that this is a man of great power, maybe a man greatly aiding the South African government, a man who perpetuates racism and believes that blacks are inadequate of ruling themselves. Reagan’s use of the third-party technique, is completely irrational and one sided; however, it proved to be successful for him. As Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber state in Trust Us We’re Experts, “marketing is a battle of perceptions not products”(58). Despite the fact the United States citizens were not familiar with Reagan’s third-party technique allusions, it still had validity to them because they were South African natives.
By way of rhetorical manipulation, Ronald Reagan made the American public feel responsible for the future of South Africa. Through his use of Orwellian language and the third-party technique he managed to plant a false seed in the mind of the American public, a seed which disguised the influence that America really had on South Africa, supplying their government with weapons that were necessary to keep the violent racial segregation alive.
One of Reagan's major strengths in his speech is his effective use of Orwellian language. During his speech he states: "The primary victims of an economic boycott of South Africa would be the very people we seek to help. Most of the workers who would lose jobs because of sanctions would be black workers” (Reagan). What Reagan fails to mention is the United Nations did not ask to halt all trade and commerce with South Africa, just “arms and related material.” Therefore, the only people this would affect would be the ones directly affiliated with any type of weapons, such as the South African government.
Reagan’s speech also exemplifies a great deal of the third- party technique. His speech alludes to Alan Paton, a South African writer, Paton states: “ I am totally opposedisambiguatedtment. (in South Africa) It is primarily for a moral reason. Those who will pay most grievously for disinvestments will be the black workers of South Africa,” (Reagan). Because Paton is a respected South Africa citizen, this allusion helps give Reagan’s speech more validity. However, what Reagan once again fails to mention is that Alan Paton is a white citizen, he has not spent a night in a township, he has not been lashed because of the color of his skin, and he has not been deprived any of his essential human rights. Of course Paton is in favor of continuing commerce with the United States, he has not been victim to any of its brutal repercussions.
Reagan once again draws to the third party technique, he states: “As one African leader remarked recently, South Africa is like a zebra: if the white parts are injured, the black parts will die, too” (Reagan). Although this “African leader” is left ambiguous, I would be my future social security check that the “leader” is a white male. Since he is labeled a “leader,” it can be assured that this is a man of great power, maybe a man greatly aiding the South African government, a man who perpetuates racism and believes that blacks are inadequate of ruling themselves. Reagan’s use of the third-party technique, is completely irrational and one sided; however, it proved to be successful for him. As Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber state in Trust Us We’re Experts, “marketing is a battle of perceptions not products”(58). Despite the fact the United States citizens were not familiar with Reagan’s third-party technique allusions, it still had validity to them because they were South African natives.
By way of rhetorical manipulation, Ronald Reagan made the American public feel responsible for the future of South Africa. Through his use of Orwellian language and the third-party technique he managed to plant a false seed in the mind of the American public, a seed which disguised the influence that America really had on South Africa, supplying their government with weapons that were necessary to keep the violent racial segregation alive.
Ground Rules
In October of 1997, Donald Lazere wrote an article called "Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of lynne Cheney's Truths." This article introduced a set of nine rules or standards in which Lazere came up with to evaluate the works of oponents in the media and writing world.
In this article, Lazere, of the left (liberal) persuasion, analyzed comments and writing of Lynne Cheney, who is a righty (conservative). I can understand how members from opposite sides can critisize each other, as was done in Lazere's piece. The purpose of my research paper will be to take Lazere's nine ground rules and apply them to a piece that Lazere wrote himself. I can be considered "on the fence" when it comes to lefties and righties, and, if anything, I lean a little to the left. Find out where you stand by clicking here. Having that in mind, I should be free of bias when judging the work of Lazere.
The article I chose is called "The Contradictions of Cultural Conservatism in the Assult on American Colleges." Lazere wrote this article in July of 2004, after he came up with the ground rules. This article was written in response to the Academic Bill of Rights Resolution, modled by a righty named David Horowitz. This called for colleges to promote more academic freedom and steering away from as Horowitz claims; "totally dominated by the left."
It will be interesting to see if Horowitz remembers his previous set of ground rules and takes them into consideration, or if he takes on the role of a hippocrit.
In this article, Lazere, of the left (liberal) persuasion, analyzed comments and writing of Lynne Cheney, who is a righty (conservative). I can understand how members from opposite sides can critisize each other, as was done in Lazere's piece. The purpose of my research paper will be to take Lazere's nine ground rules and apply them to a piece that Lazere wrote himself. I can be considered "on the fence" when it comes to lefties and righties, and, if anything, I lean a little to the left. Find out where you stand by clicking here. Having that in mind, I should be free of bias when judging the work of Lazere.
The article I chose is called "The Contradictions of Cultural Conservatism in the Assult on American Colleges." Lazere wrote this article in July of 2004, after he came up with the ground rules. This article was written in response to the Academic Bill of Rights Resolution, modled by a righty named David Horowitz. This called for colleges to promote more academic freedom and steering away from as Horowitz claims; "totally dominated by the left."
It will be interesting to see if Horowitz remembers his previous set of ground rules and takes them into consideration, or if he takes on the role of a hippocrit.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Blog Paper
Robin Lakoff describes the American political and social structure as a language war, even going so far as to call her book The Language War. While I don’t see the language itself as something hostile and harmful, political rhetoric surrounding civilian issues possesses some war-like qualities. It is decisive. Two distinct sides are often created: conservative or liberal. And people on both sides feel they are right and can’t see how the “other” can possibly think a different way.
The debate regarding the constitutional ban on gay marriages displays several rhetorical strategies. One of the most interesting is an appeal to common sense, as discussed by Lakoff. Lakoff denounces the universal reliance on common sense, saying that common sense is not universal.
On March 23, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Cass Sunstein and Katherine Spaht, both law professors, offered their testimony. Spaht defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, stating that “Every dictionary defines marriage in those well understood, millennia-old terms.” Sunstein, addressing the same committee on the same day, argued that a constitutional ban was unnecessary, saying “…the proposed amendment would respond to an old and familiar problem that has heretofore been settled…at the state level.”
Both arguments are modified common sense, and both have the same flaws. Spaht’s dictionary definition argument acts on a general principle: the dictionary defines words. Of course, dictionaries may differ on their definition of marriage. Sunstein asserts that the federal government should not get involved in marriage because it is a state issue. However, as No Child Left Behind shows us, the federal government doesn’t always respect traditional boundaries.
During the presidential debates in the 2004 election, many people thought both candidates made a huge deal out of this issue. Often times, people would say “Why are they arguing about gay marriage? There is a war going on!” Ian Angus, in his book Emergent Publics would say that the government tells people which issues are important, rather than the other way around.
Interestingly, of all three presidential debates totaling about 55 questions, the two candidates only had to answer one question about gay marriage. That’s less than 2%. Even though the candidates may not have made gay marriage a big issue at the debates, other groups who considered it an important issue may have helped the campaign.
For example, churches considered this issue very important. And, in a way, isn’t this what Angus wanted? Angus said that people should have access to public places where they could discuss politics.
Maybe Angus is wrong. Do politicians present us, the public, with what issues they deem worthy? Or do they mention issues because a large number of people will make a fuss over them? It might have been a diversion from the war in Iraq, but we created the diversion.
The debate regarding the constitutional ban on gay marriages displays several rhetorical strategies. One of the most interesting is an appeal to common sense, as discussed by Lakoff. Lakoff denounces the universal reliance on common sense, saying that common sense is not universal.
On March 23, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Cass Sunstein and Katherine Spaht, both law professors, offered their testimony. Spaht defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, stating that “Every dictionary defines marriage in those well understood, millennia-old terms.” Sunstein, addressing the same committee on the same day, argued that a constitutional ban was unnecessary, saying “…the proposed amendment would respond to an old and familiar problem that has heretofore been settled…at the state level.”
Both arguments are modified common sense, and both have the same flaws. Spaht’s dictionary definition argument acts on a general principle: the dictionary defines words. Of course, dictionaries may differ on their definition of marriage. Sunstein asserts that the federal government should not get involved in marriage because it is a state issue. However, as No Child Left Behind shows us, the federal government doesn’t always respect traditional boundaries.
During the presidential debates in the 2004 election, many people thought both candidates made a huge deal out of this issue. Often times, people would say “Why are they arguing about gay marriage? There is a war going on!” Ian Angus, in his book Emergent Publics would say that the government tells people which issues are important, rather than the other way around.
Interestingly, of all three presidential debates totaling about 55 questions, the two candidates only had to answer one question about gay marriage. That’s less than 2%. Even though the candidates may not have made gay marriage a big issue at the debates, other groups who considered it an important issue may have helped the campaign.
For example, churches considered this issue very important. And, in a way, isn’t this what Angus wanted? Angus said that people should have access to public places where they could discuss politics.
Maybe Angus is wrong. Do politicians present us, the public, with what issues they deem worthy? Or do they mention issues because a large number of people will make a fuss over them? It might have been a diversion from the war in Iraq, but we created the diversion.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Cyclical Thoughts
Tuesday's class got me thinking about problem solving. We were using examples from Rampton and Stauber's Trust Us We're Experts, specifically the lead in the water issue and the section on silicon mining. Then Dr. Mahoney drew a chart on the board to illustrate his points. He seems to like drawing charts, but that's cool. I respond well to charts. That one got me thinking, so I looked through my class notes and found this:
He had used this chart to illustrate another point. Apparently, I didn't feel the need to add any information to the chart to lend any contextuality to the diagram. As I have said before, I respond well to charts. They simplify things and, quite frankly, I like them. So back off!
I'm interested in the mind, how it works and patterns in thought. Not to get all controversial but I think that thinking is what separates man from beast. I should be more clear; critically thinking separates man from beast. I also feel that the more you examine your life the the more you learn; and in turn, the more you examine your thought and behavior pattern the more you can mature.
So, back to the chart. I liked it a lot because of the simple truth it illustrates. This cyclical thought pattern is plaguing our society because of it's stagnation. Cyclical thought does not encourage progression because you are destined to end up back at the beginning. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart made light of this fact during a sketch bashing FEMA. They aired a screenshot from FEMA's actual website which illustrated the flow chart which they use when addressing a disaster. Stewart worded the sketch in a manner which suggested that FEMA is inherently responsible for causing added disaster simply by following their own flow chart. I like Jon Stewart almost as much as I like charts.
Well, thanks for suffering through this ramble. I was just testing out the link functions of this site.
He had used this chart to illustrate another point. Apparently, I didn't feel the need to add any information to the chart to lend any contextuality to the diagram. As I have said before, I respond well to charts. They simplify things and, quite frankly, I like them. So back off!
I'm interested in the mind, how it works and patterns in thought. Not to get all controversial but I think that thinking is what separates man from beast. I should be more clear; critically thinking separates man from beast. I also feel that the more you examine your life the the more you learn; and in turn, the more you examine your thought and behavior pattern the more you can mature.
So, back to the chart. I liked it a lot because of the simple truth it illustrates. This cyclical thought pattern is plaguing our society because of it's stagnation. Cyclical thought does not encourage progression because you are destined to end up back at the beginning. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart made light of this fact during a sketch bashing FEMA. They aired a screenshot from FEMA's actual website which illustrated the flow chart which they use when addressing a disaster. Stewart worded the sketch in a manner which suggested that FEMA is inherently responsible for causing added disaster simply by following their own flow chart. I like Jon Stewart almost as much as I like charts.
Well, thanks for suffering through this ramble. I was just testing out the link functions of this site.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Propaganda shaping public opinion: very dangerous
The realizations of the American public that diseases like silicosis were serious and recurring prompted efforts to stop them. However, this took a large amount of time to happen. It wasn't until 1997 that a formal conference was set up called the National Conference to Eliminate Silicosis that the public was beginning to understand that what Rampton and Stauber tell us is inherently true: without propaganda, pollution would be impossible.
Knowing this, we are once again brought back to the matter of trust. The public's knowledge, to say the least, can only be based on what they here through various reports or statistics. When what they hear is skewed or, moreover, completely wrong and misleading, they nonetheless are accepting the consequences (however concealed) which happen to be their lives. It is scary to think that the propaganda "effort relied heavily on questionable statistics designed to create the impression that excessive regulation was stifling American creativity and prosperity" (87). Furthermore, these companies communicated that it would directly affect the public to implement such regulations on pollutants because it would take a blow to the economy. Talk about doublespeak; in other words, what they are saying is that it is better for people to die than for the public to shovel out money. I would hope that the public would much rather pay a few extra dollars than a few extra lives. Nevertheless, we have here exactly what Lippmann showed us--the public simply has no knowledge of the manipulation they are under and they cannot be the ones to blame.
Knowing this, we are once again brought back to the matter of trust. The public's knowledge, to say the least, can only be based on what they here through various reports or statistics. When what they hear is skewed or, moreover, completely wrong and misleading, they nonetheless are accepting the consequences (however concealed) which happen to be their lives. It is scary to think that the propaganda "effort relied heavily on questionable statistics designed to create the impression that excessive regulation was stifling American creativity and prosperity" (87). Furthermore, these companies communicated that it would directly affect the public to implement such regulations on pollutants because it would take a blow to the economy. Talk about doublespeak; in other words, what they are saying is that it is better for people to die than for the public to shovel out money. I would hope that the public would much rather pay a few extra dollars than a few extra lives. Nevertheless, we have here exactly what Lippmann showed us--the public simply has no knowledge of the manipulation they are under and they cannot be the ones to blame.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Public Discourse and Argument
Tonight in class we discussed a little bit of Trust Us We're Experts (and I'll emphasize the "little" aspect) and then I got off on this thing about public argument and exigence. I guess it's my preoccupation with kairos that is sticking in my head, or it's that damn book I am working on.
Dying for a Living
Hawk’s Nest workers did just that, die for a living. Rampton and Strauber discuss in detail the incident that was held in secrecy. Doctors knew why the men were dying and couldn’t tell them about their sickness. Beyond that, men were given a placebo as medication. Would so many workers have met their demise at Hawk’s Nest if maybe they we’re not predominantly poor and black? Committees formed from time to time and companies reformed policies to ensure less health risk to employees but illnesses like this are still prevalent today. It’s interesting to see how the media and propaganda surrounding these types of “working to die” diseases show them as rediscovered “new” diseases when in all reality they have never dissipated. Looking at lead levels found in children today and having them correlate to each child behaviorally, mentally and physically shows how serious these cover-ups contend in our own lives. “What we do know is that the lead industry continues to lobby, against measures such as an exercise tax on lead that would discourage its use and generate funds to help clean up its toxic legacy.” Unbelievable!
Workers
Shocking as this may sound, I actually sympathize with Rampton and Stauber on the subject of workers. As they said, I had never read anything about Hawk's Nest in a history book, but it seems like a rather significant event.
It does seem strange how European countries that used to be monarchies all have better regulations for workers than the US. Of course, the US is a very young and diverse country. Its history probably plays a role in the difficulty of obtaining workers' rights.
Would the story of Hawk's Nest have made history books if the workers had been white? Probably not, since they were still only poor workers. If someone high up in the company had died though, we might have seen some different results.
Because people come to America from every other country, every new group becomes the lowest step on the social ladder. While blacks served as slaves in the South, Irish people worked for debt in the North. If the companies even hired Irish workers. Therefore, every group in the country jumped on the newest group that arrived in an attempt to move up the social ladder.
Irish people got along with Italians by making fun of black people. Black people and white people got along by trashing Puerto Ricans and Chinese. Because the different factions in the working class hated each other, unionizing became incredibly difficult.
And yes, the Titanic tragedy. Rampton and Stauber say that because it affected rich people, it made the history books. That is true, considering the poor people were buried on the bottom and drowned first. Only the rich could survive.
Only the rich survive. That seems like an accurate mantra even in today's society. Change will happen, but it will happen slowly. While that slow change occurs, more workers will inhale asbestos, and more rich people won't notice.
It does seem strange how European countries that used to be monarchies all have better regulations for workers than the US. Of course, the US is a very young and diverse country. Its history probably plays a role in the difficulty of obtaining workers' rights.
Would the story of Hawk's Nest have made history books if the workers had been white? Probably not, since they were still only poor workers. If someone high up in the company had died though, we might have seen some different results.
Because people come to America from every other country, every new group becomes the lowest step on the social ladder. While blacks served as slaves in the South, Irish people worked for debt in the North. If the companies even hired Irish workers. Therefore, every group in the country jumped on the newest group that arrived in an attempt to move up the social ladder.
Irish people got along with Italians by making fun of black people. Black people and white people got along by trashing Puerto Ricans and Chinese. Because the different factions in the working class hated each other, unionizing became incredibly difficult.
And yes, the Titanic tragedy. Rampton and Stauber say that because it affected rich people, it made the history books. That is true, considering the poor people were buried on the bottom and drowned first. Only the rich could survive.
Only the rich survive. That seems like an accurate mantra even in today's society. Change will happen, but it will happen slowly. While that slow change occurs, more workers will inhale asbestos, and more rich people won't notice.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Photo- journalism
This isn't really related to what we've been speaking about in class recently, but I think it does relate to some major concepts we've discussed.....
Last weekend I was watching a documentary on the role that photo-journalism plays on society- and I was kind of shocked. Although these are photo=journalist, who are in the midst of the event, and capturing the moment through their media, so much of their work was not being shown to the public. They interviewed so many who had the same story: "they could not get their work published." It's like our government is trying to blind us of the harsh realities in all that are happening in other countries. If we can't get accurate information from photo-jounralist then who are we going to get it from ? How censored are we? They all said they went into this dangerous profession because this was the only way to alert people of what was really happening, and yet the majority of their work is still not being published. How can we accurately judge a situation (such as Iraq) if we are only looking through the censored version our government wants us to see?
Last weekend I was watching a documentary on the role that photo-journalism plays on society- and I was kind of shocked. Although these are photo=journalist, who are in the midst of the event, and capturing the moment through their media, so much of their work was not being shown to the public. They interviewed so many who had the same story: "they could not get their work published." It's like our government is trying to blind us of the harsh realities in all that are happening in other countries. If we can't get accurate information from photo-jounralist then who are we going to get it from ? How censored are we? They all said they went into this dangerous profession because this was the only way to alert people of what was really happening, and yet the majority of their work is still not being published. How can we accurately judge a situation (such as Iraq) if we are only looking through the censored version our government wants us to see?
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Strange. I always thought these "rules" were more comparible to necessities.
Reading Lazere's "ground rules" elbowed me into a realization: I have long been aware of his standards in evaluating the soundness of an argument. Unconsciously, I have used similar standards in analyzing both my own arguments, and those coming from others. For one reason or another, I have unknowingly considered the “ground rules” to be requisite to the concept of argument itself, thinking them to be necessary in order to feel satisfied with one’s own argument. It doesn’t make sense that someone would conclude that any of Lazere’s ideas are unreasonable because I perceive them as stemming from pure reason. They only seem logical; I see no reason to think that Lazere's ideas are anything but necessity. But some would feel that way. Some do feel that way. I wonder why anyone would try to argue something unreasonable?
With full awareness of the realities of demagogury--the intentional use of fallacious arguments, which can appear so sound to the person who lives in the fluidity and passion of the moment--we must consider why an argument is supported to begin with. Shouldn't someone feel confident that his/her argument is correct in order to argue it? Why would any rational animal support an argument that is not analyzed under these logical standards; standards that are nothing more than a rational "checklist" for one's own correctness? For reasons, I think, that fall outside of rationality.
Not every argument is to find the best outcome, or the right choice. Not every argument is vying for truth. Some arguments come from our own flaws--the thirst for power, the proclivity to satisfy one's own emotional wants, the need to feel right.
There are those who would reject Lazere's standards because of a distaste for relative truth. Some arguments can seem to have no compromise because of the appearance of absolute truth on either side. Absolute truth does not work well alongside of relative truth. Relative truth, after all, has the potential to destroy the solid infallibility of purist beacons such as the Ten Commandments. So why, one might argue, should someone who "knows" her/his argument is correct give any quarter to the opposition?
For the reason of our own human fallibility: we are not perfect, and to assume our arguments is an ironic representation of our imperfection. Lazere's ground rules have the high idea of rationality flowing through them; the concept of arguing while remaining ever conscious of the imperfections and fallacies that affect the human mind. That means actually listening to the opposition to find out if you have made a mistake. That means evaluating your own arguments and that bias that it brings. It means recognizing that, within your own faction, mistakes can be made & fallacies can be found.
I have a tendency to assume the ultimate goal of an argument is to be as correct as possible. The more I consider Lazere's ground rules for argumentation, the more I think that there's no other way to argue if one wishes to argue with credibility. Lazere's rules are a kind of rational proof to check for one's own correctness; a tool to account for the imperfections that humankind bring to their arguments. If you do not care whether your argument is correct or not, then reconsider why you are arguing to begin with. Your true motivation may not be very appealing to those whom you would try to convince.
With full awareness of the realities of demagogury--the intentional use of fallacious arguments, which can appear so sound to the person who lives in the fluidity and passion of the moment--we must consider why an argument is supported to begin with. Shouldn't someone feel confident that his/her argument is correct in order to argue it? Why would any rational animal support an argument that is not analyzed under these logical standards; standards that are nothing more than a rational "checklist" for one's own correctness? For reasons, I think, that fall outside of rationality.
Not every argument is to find the best outcome, or the right choice. Not every argument is vying for truth. Some arguments come from our own flaws--the thirst for power, the proclivity to satisfy one's own emotional wants, the need to feel right.
There are those who would reject Lazere's standards because of a distaste for relative truth. Some arguments can seem to have no compromise because of the appearance of absolute truth on either side. Absolute truth does not work well alongside of relative truth. Relative truth, after all, has the potential to destroy the solid infallibility of purist beacons such as the Ten Commandments. So why, one might argue, should someone who "knows" her/his argument is correct give any quarter to the opposition?
For the reason of our own human fallibility: we are not perfect, and to assume our arguments is an ironic representation of our imperfection. Lazere's ground rules have the high idea of rationality flowing through them; the concept of arguing while remaining ever conscious of the imperfections and fallacies that affect the human mind. That means actually listening to the opposition to find out if you have made a mistake. That means evaluating your own arguments and that bias that it brings. It means recognizing that, within your own faction, mistakes can be made & fallacies can be found.
I have a tendency to assume the ultimate goal of an argument is to be as correct as possible. The more I consider Lazere's ground rules for argumentation, the more I think that there's no other way to argue if one wishes to argue with credibility. Lazere's rules are a kind of rational proof to check for one's own correctness; a tool to account for the imperfections that humankind bring to their arguments. If you do not care whether your argument is correct or not, then reconsider why you are arguing to begin with. Your true motivation may not be very appealing to those whom you would try to convince.
Whose Rules?
I remember reading the beginning of this article back in the first few weeks. Just from reading Lazere's actual ground rules, I thought that by the time any writer following those rules got to his point, a reader would have seen so many conflicting arguments that he would have no clue where the author stood.
See? Even that last sentence I just wrote was a little hard to follow. Sure enough, as I read through Lazere's article, I had no clue what his point was. Actually, that's not true. I did gather that he thought Lynne Cheney indulged in "invective."
Wow, people on opposite sides of the political spectrum using "abusive language"? Who would have thought? And does Lazere make his argument any more valid by using phrases such as "hyperbolic overgeneralizations" and "manichean oversimplifications." My, what a fine example of redundant repetition.
After Lazere spends 20 pages hiding behind big words and references to references and assuring us that he isn't attacking everyone (only those who don't agree with him), he finally gets to what I believe might be his point on the pentultimate (I can use big words, too.) page of the article, not counting his sources.
In typical Batman-Voice-Over fashion, he asks a serious of suspense building questions regarding whether the Olinites will "take the pledge to abide by...my ground rules for polemecists." And then Robin Hood called "conscientious conservatives" to join together to raise the level of ethics in their field that argues about argument and never comes up with solutions to real issues.
See? Even that last sentence I just wrote was a little hard to follow. Sure enough, as I read through Lazere's article, I had no clue what his point was. Actually, that's not true. I did gather that he thought Lynne Cheney indulged in "invective."
Wow, people on opposite sides of the political spectrum using "abusive language"? Who would have thought? And does Lazere make his argument any more valid by using phrases such as "hyperbolic overgeneralizations" and "manichean oversimplifications." My, what a fine example of redundant repetition.
After Lazere spends 20 pages hiding behind big words and references to references and assuring us that he isn't attacking everyone (only those who don't agree with him), he finally gets to what I believe might be his point on the pentultimate (I can use big words, too.) page of the article, not counting his sources.
In typical Batman-Voice-Over fashion, he asks a serious of suspense building questions regarding whether the Olinites will "take the pledge to abide by...my ground rules for polemecists." And then Robin Hood called "conscientious conservatives" to join together to raise the level of ethics in their field that argues about argument and never comes up with solutions to real issues.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Paper 2 -- Fear
For paper 2, I’ve focused on a pattern of persuasion we haven’t mentioned in class yet, and one that I think is particularly popular right now, especially with Bush and Iraq.
These are some excerpts from my paper:
Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of the right people. It’s such a common emotion; insidiously sneaking into rationale of society, oftentimes leaving no trace of the havoc it’s wrought. Clumsily used, it is at best a bargaining tool, found in the hands of a schoolyard bully or highly trained terrorist. Wielded with acumen, it becomes one of the most influential forms of persuasion available, both compelling and commanding.
Instigating fear can range from raising doubt about a particular product to an all out assault on someone’s senses. Fear is a powerful motivator, and can be used by companies including the government to encourage behavior, influence public opinion, and monitor societies’ movements.
We’ve discussed Bernays’ managed public opinion, Luntz’s doublespeak, and the ideas present in Trust Us, We’re Experts as means of persuading a public to consume something- be it a material good, or governmental policy regarding the environment, or their own image of themselves. We have brought up the technique of the “apology”, and the appeal to common sense. This paper introduces the technique of scaring someone into submission.
I’m not sure how valid this method is, if it can even be called persuasion- or if it’s a form of coercion. I’m sure I’ll be taking a closer look and re writing for a better grade!
These are some excerpts from my paper:
Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of the right people. It’s such a common emotion; insidiously sneaking into rationale of society, oftentimes leaving no trace of the havoc it’s wrought. Clumsily used, it is at best a bargaining tool, found in the hands of a schoolyard bully or highly trained terrorist. Wielded with acumen, it becomes one of the most influential forms of persuasion available, both compelling and commanding.
Instigating fear can range from raising doubt about a particular product to an all out assault on someone’s senses. Fear is a powerful motivator, and can be used by companies including the government to encourage behavior, influence public opinion, and monitor societies’ movements.
We’ve discussed Bernays’ managed public opinion, Luntz’s doublespeak, and the ideas present in Trust Us, We’re Experts as means of persuading a public to consume something- be it a material good, or governmental policy regarding the environment, or their own image of themselves. We have brought up the technique of the “apology”, and the appeal to common sense. This paper introduces the technique of scaring someone into submission.
I’m not sure how valid this method is, if it can even be called persuasion- or if it’s a form of coercion. I’m sure I’ll be taking a closer look and re writing for a better grade!
Civility in public discourse
In the wake of recent trends which include privatization of governmental services such as health and education, intensified competition, globalization of the economy, reduced real wages, drastic cutbacks in social welfare and the soaring unemployment rates; how is the community to capture its’ individuals? Social movements are possessed by the idyllic expanding consumer society and can help one discover new directives for future economic and social development. Imagine if civility could find its place in social movements.
An endless cycle of confrontations over difficult distributional and moral issues is produced in our increasingly diverse society founded on our different intents and interests. This “continuing confrontation is inevitable, the enormous destructiveness which commonly accompanies these confrontations is not. “Constructive confrontation” is an approach that harvesters an understanding of conflict processes, dispute resolution, and advocacy strategies to facilitate advancement of individual interests.
CHECK OUT THIS SITE!!! http://www.etchouse.com/cpd/
An endless cycle of confrontations over difficult distributional and moral issues is produced in our increasingly diverse society founded on our different intents and interests. This “continuing confrontation is inevitable, the enormous destructiveness which commonly accompanies these confrontations is not. “Constructive confrontation” is an approach that harvesters an understanding of conflict processes, dispute resolution, and advocacy strategies to facilitate advancement of individual interests.
CHECK OUT THIS SITE!!! http://www.etchouse.com/cpd/
Paper 2
I decided to write my paper off of paper 1 a little. I was going to discuss how language effects different ppl in the matter of persuasion and also with the different languages we have to use in our lives. I figured i'd talk about how important language can be with the way you use it to the way ppl understand it. I will also discuss from paper one how language is most effective in persuasion with the way you use it as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)