Chomsky & Herman

When I first started reading this piece, I was confused as to why exactly Chomsky and Herman decided to include financial information of the 24 big media corporations. When I stopped just skimming and started to read more in-depth, I realized the authors were not just placing financial information at our fingertips, they were prodding us to see a bigger perspective. Just as the Frontline reporter investigated in the video we watched, news sources are being more and more controlled by their parents ("parent companies.") This reminded me of Lakoff's book, in the sense that a strict controlling father tells the young disobedient child what to do, and if they choose not to listen, they will bear the consequences.

On one hand, I am not fully against this growing trend of large-corporation monopolistic ownership. Postivitely speaking, this "new blood" into the tainted family-owned big media businesses sometimes brings new ideas and a new way of thinking. Even if the desired outcome is profit, that's what makes our economy work! However, this isn't really how it works. Usually, these large-corporation's who own the media empires are like Rupert Murdoch--who offered to pay an ungodly amount for the Wall Street Journal ensuring his success in the takeover-- and gave over $1 billion of his sold-stock money to his kids. This unhealthy focus, obsession even, turns the perspective from making a living in America to making more money than most families ever will see in their entire lifetime. Through this shift of focus, it's concerning because the next thing that is coming is the dumbing down of our news medias. And honestly, do we really need any more coverage of people being famous for doing nothing?

We are too close for comfort in the marriage between media & money.

Is this post due?

Umm.. I wasn't really sure if we were supposed to post on the Chomsky article, but I guess I'll do it anyway.

So Herman and Chomsky weren’t exactly the most engaging writers I’ve ever had the opportunity to come across, but the article itself was kind of interesting. But the most interesting thing about it—at least to me—is the fact that it was written twenty years ago, and still holds a great deal of validity, which is kind of sad because you would think that we would have changed more of this by now.

I thought the most interesting part was the second filter. Let’s look at the reliance on advertising first. When opening a newspaper, ads seem to cover about seventy percent of the paper. When you think about it, it is kind of ridiculous, but it works for the corporations, who not only advertise, but put coupons and incentives in the papers to urge the consumer to test their product. When I was thinking about this, the memory of a certain high school substitute teacher kept popping in and out of my mind. This woman (I don’t even know her name because she was only ever addressed as “Coupon Lady”) would buy five/six local and national newspapers each day, and just cut every coupon out of it. She never read the news, but she bought a lot of newspapers. And I guess that’s what the CEOs care about ($$$). The news is important to them also, but the ads do have an impact on the sales and that’s what matters.

And I’m sure some of you would say that you don’t care about the ads and just ignore them. But the ads are there, and they are usually can manage to grab your attention enough to make you skim it. And even if you don’t scour the ad, the name is still embedded freshly in your brain, so when you pass the store on the highway you have that association.

The only thing that I think has evolved a little is the first filter. With all of the technology we have now, it is much easier for alternative news services to from. Actually I think now there are more news services available than ever before. That’s not to say that they are going to sell as well as the Washington Post, but they are available.

Luntz

Although some may view Luntz as a snobby guy, I did find that he made great points that we can relate to. For instance "The sounds and texture of language should be just as memorable as the words themselves," found in rule six. I find this to be the single most important part of grabbing our attention. I makes me think of phrases like "Just Do It," "The Few The Proud The Marines," etc. If companies can make us repeat and remember these catch phases, then their work just got a whole lot easier.

As for politics, Luntz hit the nail on the head when he said, "Messages need to say what people want to hear." He later goes on to mention that an effective speaker has to have the power to trigger our emotions. Like Dave Brown said in his post, this is what made FDR, JFK, and even Reagan so popular to the American people. They were able to embrace our hopes and dreams and in a way, people didn't just look at them as political figures but more as figures of hope and change. This is what I believe Obama is trying to capture. Our hopes and dreams are alive and "we" can change the way things are. Unfortunately it seems we know so much information about political figures that their office is overshadowed by prostitution and affairs. (Spitzer and new New York governor Patterson)

Luntz blog

Politicians and the big brains of the world are afraid of the “dumbing down of America”; but is speaking in verbose language and sounding intellectual important to win an audience? Luntz doesn’t think so, and I’m sure more than half of America would agree. We just want to get the message; clean and clear.

We speak to communicate an idea, so it’s important to know that our audience is with us. When speaking you don’t want your ideas obscured or misunderstood, so it’s important to speak in the language of everyday utility.

I think a lot of people are turned off from politics because of this. Many people just don’t get what’s going on. Luntz points out just over 50 % of Americans Graduate high school and only around a quarter of Americans graduate from College. The average Joe doesn’t have a Harvard doctorate degree. If you’re speaking to a large audience you need to speak clearly, repetitive to solidify your point, and you need to establish credibility so that people will listen to you.

It’s hard to establish credibility in political races we’re every spec of dirt possible is found on opponents, and I think a lot of people are getting sick of that. This country needs a leader who can speak and inspire and get across a clear message. But so many politicians flip flop on issues and lose credibility by attacking opponents.

Luntz’s seventh rule is to speak aspirationally. That’s why JFK and FDR are remembered as such great presidents. Barack Obama reinforces that we the people have power. In his speeches he states “we can change things”, not “I can”. Obama is a talented speaker, and he has won many followers by aspiring change. (Sorry Mahoney).

If only it was as easy as “I like Ike”…and then you get the W.

Frankly Luntz.

Instant gratification. That's what we're all used to. Text message. Answer! Text message. Answer! Click. Pictures, information, our interests, what we want, when we want it. Click.

They know this. This is what our world revolves around. Instant. Personal Gratification.

Clearly described in Luntz' Ten Rules of Effective Language is how American business and political propaganda is bridged to us in an effective manor. His rules is the system that govern corporations techniques to pierce though the thick competitive smog of media, entertainments, and fellow advertisements. Yet it can be toned down to the way we all communicate to each other while in argument or even just telling a story. Luntz isn't necessarily stating the obvious, he's organizing in such a way that all our light bulbs can go "bing" (maybe its a ding, don't quote me on that) and understand what businesses and even we are doing in communication from the time we start talking until the time we shut up.

The section of the essay that gave me my "bing" (ding) was early on in his references toward that last two presidential elections. "Simplicity counts." Not to say that America is dumb, which I'm sure a hand full of you would agree. It relates back to my early statement about instant gratification. People want to be able to instantly process what is being told to them and not have to research words, and decipher and decode what is on display. He explains that Al Gore and John Kerry both slipped up in this rule in that some of their speeches required a translation of terms in order to receive the correct gist of their argument. This is most likely a good reason as to why Bush had the upper hand and a greater connectedness to his voters. Despite the fact that sometimes he makes up his own words, people could find a defined line in his political stance because of his simplicity and explicitness.

The same goes for businesses. People want to know what they are looking at so they can make the decision if they need it or not. Instant Gratification. As he puts it, "What is this guy trying to sell me?" He states the more clear and simple an idea is presented the more creditability it will carry because people will fully grasp what they are witnessing and what is being thrown at them. People know what they want. There's always exceptions but I feel this is a good starting point.

In the words of Culture Beat's 1993 smash hit Mr. Vain, "I know what I want and I want it now."

Luntz Response

I did not mind reading this essay at all, I found it very easy to read and i thought it was laid out well having all the rules in their own separate sections. I did think that most of the things I was reading where things that I already knew. Obviously a person should not have huge sentences with 30 words to make a point. The shorter the better in my opinion.

My favorite rule though was rule number nine. I think that advertisements that use questions as their slogans are extremely catchy. For some reason they just seem to stick out to me because I feel as if it is directed towards me personally. It is almost as if it puts the consumer on the spot, like they really need to take a moment and actually answer the question that is being directed towards all viewers.

I think the most important thing that I read throughout this essay was: "What matters is not what you say, but what people hear." I find this statement completely true. Luntz was smart in my opinion for putting this statement before all of the rules because they all reflect upon it. For example, a person is going to zone out if the speaker is going on forever using big words that go in one ear and right out the other. They are not going to want to listen to a person who only ever has the same thing to say. They also don't care about something that has no point to what they are saying. In all, being straightforward with what it is a person has to say is the best choice.

Luntz Response

I agree with Courtney. When I was reading through the essay I thought to myself, "Wait, people don't do this already?" I never understood the importance of using really big words, particularly in political speeches. When Luntz claimed that his main focus was on the "small town, middle class America", it made absolute sense. The majority of this country's population is the middle class and to communicate effectively, language that makes sense to that class should be used if anyone is going to get anything done.

Luntz's rules made absolute sense to me and once again, I questioned why we even needed him to tell us this. Using small words, short sentences, and consistency have always bee extremely important in getting messages across in my opinion. What caught my interest the most was the novelty rule. As much as I knew this already it was fascinating to hear a real-life example with the trial case of Christian Brando. When Luntz mentioned that although we as humans appreciate the reliability of many things we also have a innate desire to try different things so we do not become bored or easily satisfied with our lives.

And that's all I have. I want sleep.

Good night all.

I enjoyed the casual tone that Luntz used in writing this piece. It demonstrates his point that using simple language and relating your content to your audience will help readers to better understand what you're trying to say.

Although, like Courtney, I think a lot of what Luntz has to say is common sense, I found rule number five interesting:“Novelty: Offer Something New.”I think it’s amazing that through repetition, Robert Shapiro not only created the phrase ‘accidental manslaughter’ but made use of it. Also, I would have thought it likely that the phrase would have become one that would be used again, a norm; instead Luntz says the phrase has not been used since. I also thought it was interesting to hear about the way that Shapiro questions his jury before a trial, manipulating their prejudgements about his client.

Luntz, Frank

Even though most of his rules seemed more like common sense than anything else, they really do make a lot of…well…sense. Rule one specifically seems important to me. I think all too often, even in every day life, people feel the need to use colorful words and twelve syllable adjectives to get theirs ideas across to an audience when all they end up doing is confusing people. Even in everyday life, when people want to impress someone with their speech, they pull out all kinds of words that are not even close to being in everyday casual dialect. It’s like the higher the level of difficulty in your vocabulary, the more credibility and respect you’ll get. Although, as Luntz points out, this doesn’t really hold true. When you use simple vocabulary, it’s easier to say exactly what you mean. Going along with this, when you use “hard” words, it’s almost like putting yourself above your target audience, and in doing that, they lose the ability to identify with you. And as we all know by now, the identity thing is a big deal.

I also liked his emphasis on the importance of visuals. What people see is so much more important than what they hear. I think most people are more likely to recall things they see rather than things they hear. Also, I liked his example of Lesley Stahl and her report on Reagan. It really emphasized the fact that as long as you have a great, resonating visual, you could be singing the alphabet and no one would really care. Well that’s a bit of a stretch, but you get my point.

His writing style was casual, easy to read, and I appreciated the fact that he genuinely tried to engage his audience. By using pop culture references and then fading in to political examples, Luntz really gave a thorough depiction of the rules; making sure that they were understood from every angle.

Luntz Response

"Americans are easily bored. If something doesn't shock or surprise us, we move on to something else. We are always in search of the next big thing, whether it be the next American Idol, a new television "reality" show, a new gee-whiz techno-gizmo, the latest Madonna makeover, or something else that we haven't seen or heard of before. Our tastes change as quickly as the seasons, and we expect the rest of society to keep up" (Rule 5).

This part really stuck out to me. It's true how fast everything has to be for us. We want the best that's out there, and we want it to work fast. I know sometimes I'm sitting down at my computer, waiting for it to load and it runs so "slow." It only takes like 5 minutes to boot up or 30 seconds for a page to load, but it seems so long. And I know loads of people who want the new blackberry phone (Or whatever it's called) when their old cell phone is perfectly fine. This new phone is like a computer, mp3 player, and a phone combined. It's new, and it's flashy, so people want it. We get bored with things fast. I've had my laptop for 2 years and I catch myself saying "This peice of junk is so old." We just assume everyone now-a-days has a computer, and do so much through e-mail, AIM, and blogging, that people who do not have a computer get left behind.

hmmm.I think I know what to do...I hope.

I'm sure this paper is not hard. It's weird, we have the freedom to write on past texts, whatever way we want, yet, we struggle because we have no guidance. At a chance at creative and free writing we are stuck wondering where to start. I guess the best way to do this paper is to find what makes us click. Sure, politics can be confusing (Texas primary and caucus?) but believe it or not, our beliefs all have a place in politics. For example, in Lippmann's essay, he states that this nation is comprised of both agents and bystanders, which is us. Most people that I associate with (college students) lack the knowledge of what exactly politics mean, myself included. However, it is up to politicians to find ways to catch our attention. An example is Barack Obama saying he wants to lower the cost of higher education. That then in effect catches our attention, the college student. Another college student may be more interested in immigration. If he likes Obama's stance on immigration then he/she may vote for Obama. Like we went over in class, Lippmann says that one idea could represent a1 another a2 and so on, but in the end, our votes all link in the end to form an A. I think this makes sense to others. The idea is, try to link the reading up to events an/d or beliefs in our own lives that we feel strongly about. That is where you will find what to write about.

I hope Lippmann is not right that we have no guidance and therefore don't take place in public events. He seems to make a good point especially with this paper we are writing.

We are at the same place

My fellow classmates (mostly Lena because she spoke up), I have no idea where or what this paper is about or will be about when I force myslef to put confused words on a page just to meet a deadline. I have not yet started this paper mostly because I just don't know what is going on. I can faithfully say that I am he, as you are he...as you are me and WE ARE ALL TOGETHER, or so I presume. I am sure things will get cleared up tomorrow

this is where i'm at part II

so i'm an idiot...if you are confused by this statement (which you hopefully are as oppose to nodding in agreement) simply look down to the previous post. enough said.

so i am at a crossroads in life, love, happiness, and adv comp because i dont know what the f*** this paper is on. yes. i know i stayed after class asking what to write..i nodded, smiled, and inserted ideas, but i did not have a clue of what i was saying. i sit here tonight, a virgin to the paper writing process, unsure of what to do next. i am hopping someone else feels this way too. i need guidance, i need help. perhaps tomorrow we can thorougly discuss this in class. perhaps we will not and i will cry. perhaps i am tired and rambling incoherently. perhaps i bought a lipgloss from old navy flavored strawbery mint that everyone men included should try. perhaps i need to stop listening to the beatles out of speakers that look like kush ball with eyes. perhaps the world's tallest snow woman should be 123 ft instead of 122 ft tall. perhaps spring break should start tomorrow. perhaps i should stop writing. ok. i will.


there we go.

well don't you know that it's a fool who plays it cool

this is where i'm at