Luntz VS. Lakoff

As we have said numerous times in class, persuaders have made turned linguist framing into a science. Linguists such as Frank Luntz and George Lakoff can tell you exactly what words and combinations will make their party's ideas appeal to the public. Lakoff even says that "... Language use is a science. Like any science it can be used honestly or harmfully" (23) Both Lakoff and Luntz believe in their corresponding parties. In their opinions they are not lying to the public, they are just choosing how they communicate their ideas to their audience.
I think that a person would have to read both Luntz and Lakoff to get a more concrete idea on framing. Luntz focus's on what words the public wants to hear but he never really goes into why they want to hear them. Whereas in "Dont Think of an Elephant", Lakoff goes behind the meaning of each frame. For me it was a lot easier to understand Lakoff because he explained why each "words work."
The relationship between Luntz and the public reminds me of Lippman's idea of the executives. Lippman said that the common man would not have to worry about politics, he could go about his everyday life while the executives would tell the public who to vote for. In Luntz's opinion he is not lying to American citizens by manipulation words, he is merely "clarifying" government policies so that the public will know which way to vote. His relationship is that of a teacher and a student. Whereas Lakoff acknowledges that merely supplying one with the facts will not convince them that that is the truth. Lakoff's idea of a persuader reminds me of that of an actor and an audience. The persuader must act and tell the public what they want to hear if they want to believed.

Even though I find both men to be extremely interesting I did enjoy Lakoff's book a lot more. Not only did he tell democrats what they should say to the public, he explained why.