When writing about manipulating public interest, it’s best to be as discrete about it as possible while still conveying the desired hidden messages. As I read the two author’s confounding political ideals the more I feel I’m being framed with each passing page. Lakoff and Luntz, though totally different in political affiliation, are similar in that they write books emphasizing the importance of public awareness, but write with the intention of persuading their audience. What better way to capture public interest than in what Bernays would describe as a constructed persuasive motivator? Though not technically any type of organized event, writing books about the necessity of persuasion in democracy might really motivate somebody of the opposite party to change their voter affiliation. I don't honestly believe that these guys are completely out to persuade, in their own eyes I'm sure they feel their doing there civil duties in educating voters whether for either party.
Once in a while, I found both authors to be talking about similar concepts using different analogies, such as Lakoff’s apology compared to Luntz’s word labs, both give the one being persuaded what they're looking to hear. This whole learning about persuasion while being persuaded, is a little tricky to get around at first. But the more you’re exposed to this stuff the easier as a reader it is to differentiate from what’s practical truth and what’s persuasion. Anyway, both are interesting figureheads of each of their respected parties, and provide an interesting read.
No comments:
Post a Comment