Paper 2

For Paper 2, I decided to look into President Bush's language in a couple speeches to the American public about the Iraq War. After 9/11, although some protests still existed, many Americans supported Bush for going to war. Even I did. But years later, especially after no weapons of mass destruction were found, many people began to doubt the reasons for being in Iraq, especially because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The War in Iraq became the War on Terror and we were suddenly fighting for the freedom that we possess today. But my paper discusses how Bush uses language to gain support for the war in Iraq when he uses no facts. I think he tries to create meaning and emotion in his speeches because he knows this is what Americans respond to. I used Lakoff's discussion of language and meaning along with Luntz's framing and language tactics. I also wove Lemann and Rampton and Stauber in throughout the paper.

Rampton and Stauber

In Rampton and Stauber's chapter, The Birth of Spin, they talk about the Great Depression and how economic and political 'experts' didn't see it coming and had no way to deal with it once it came. It's hard to imagine a time when the average citizen believed in these 'intelligent people who knew what was going on.' Not for long though, because the experts were wrong and the depression continued. Is this situation possible today? I have to admit that as an average citizen who doesn't follow economics much, I would probably believe an economics professor over my own suspicions. But if they had no clue back then, who's to say we're any smarter today?

It's interesting to me how public relations were used even back then. With newspaper headlines like "optimism gains as US speeds jobless relief" and slogans like "be patriotic and spend money" I can only imagine how the public must have lost faith in their newspapers. Or did it give them hope? Obviously, these happy words weren't going to change the economy on their own, but if they gave people a sense of hope for better days, then that's a lot of power. Just makes me think how much I want to believe about current events. This book sheds a light that almost everything is spun some way- so what is the truth? I guess it depends what you want to believe.

Lakoff Response

In Lakoff's chapter, Language: The Power We Love to Hate, I found it interesting how she spoke about the Americans fascination with seemingly frivolous television and media. She begins her chapter with a list of popular stories in the news over the last couple years. Among them are the death of Princess Diana, sex in the Oval Office and the Nancy Kerrigan/Tanya Harding faceoff. Although I don't believe Lakoff is saying that American media ignores more global or important issues, I think she is saying that Americans are more interested in the salacious, gossipy stories in real life.

Is it our fault for being interested in these stories? Or is it the media's fault for giving these stories so much attention? I think both are at fault, in a way. People get caught up in the dramatics of these stories because they're fun; it's the same as when people read tabloids as they enter the checkout line. It's easy. And after a long day at work, it's much easier to sit down and listen to a fascinating story about how the president is having sex with someone he shouldn't be than to be drained out by a story about how many people are dying in the Iraq War. But news channels are also at fault for giving in to the easy stories they know people will listen to simply to gain ratings. News isn't supposed to be fun; it's informative.

But in the end, I think as a public, we're going to pay for these choices. Lakoff explains that language details who has the ability to make meaning for everyone. Well, in our society, the meaning is made by what we deem important. And when the most popular news stories are gossipy and salacious, that is where meaning is being made. Our society will care less and less about global issues such as poverty and economic development in third world countries, or even poverty here in the US, because we already have meaning in stories that make us feel better about ourselves, or even worse, just amuse us. So what other time do we have to think about other stuff? Now if you ask me, that's dangerous.

Final Paper/Guidelines

As I began writing my paper, all procrastination aside, I decided that I didn't like my stupid topic. I guess you can say that sometimes I feel like I need to look so deep inside something for meaning when, in fact, meaning can sometimes be found out in the open. So I switched my dumb Derrida/Saussere idea to a more light hearted topic, one that is seen every day in the media and in the public world. I am going to be looking at the role humor has in shaping politics, and, in turn, shaping public opinion. Suprisingly, however, when I dove into the books this weekend, I found little support for my topic. I hope the library will help me posture my argument.

I guess my next step is to ask a question. After starting to write I couldn't find any guidelines for the paper. I'm pretty sure it is supposed to be 8-10 pages, and I'd rather be positive than pretty. So, does anyone have specific guidelines on length, amount of resources, et cetera? Thanks for the help!