The Third Party Technique is Awesome

On page 17 Rampton and Stauber explain a specific strategy in the PR world known as the "third party technique." It is quite simple and accounts for the many "experts" (i.e. scientists, doctors, historians) that jump in on sometimes random issues to prove someone else's point: hence the title of the section--"Someone Else's Mouth." The view taken on this technique, if you will, is, of course, a negative one. Rampton and Stauber perhaps see this as a violation of the real "truth" behind certain issues, and rightly so. However, as a completely independent marketing strategy, it is very effective.

People will trust and believe these "third party experts," and since the overall intellect of the public isn't always astounding then why shouldn't they be able to take advantage of that. I understand that if we looked at this with Lippman in mind, he would thoroughly reject this idea, but it does not necessarily attack the public as mush as the medieval example used by Rampton and Stauber does. Perhaps I don't see this being used in other arenas besides advertising, but even if I did, the public still has this awareness and knowledge to construct their own opinions. If this technique was completely secret, then I may think otherwise. Or, maybe I should just read a little more, which I think I will.

I didn't realize that one profession was responsible for everything that's wrong with our society, well that's at least what Rampton and Stauber want us to believe. To tell the truth I came in to reading this book a little on guard, I’m public relations minor and so it's hard for me to go read a book bashing my chosen profession with out feeling defensive. They only mention in one short sentence that public relations has some use beyond giving us fake science so we do something that's bad for us like breathe in toxic fumes. Every public relations class I’ve had has talked about how to get your organization's name out there for the good they do and what to do if something goes wrong. When dealing with a crisis we were told not to lie and never to stonewall the media. I must have missed the class on how to manipulate the entire world to believe what you want in a giant conspiracy using fake experts. I will admit that ethics is a problem in public relations and something that needs to be addressed but I really think Rampton and Stauber are blowing it out of proportion. From what I’ve seen most people who work in the public relations field are good people and do their jobs with integrity.

What experts?

I couldn't really find much on the book. But I guess my own opinion is just as good. I do hate that a lot of societies use propagation against their own to corrupt a society into the way they want them. But what is a perfect society? If it never existed how do you make it. I learned in history about Romans having such a close-knit society yet they killed eachother out of spite and did some crazy things that I could never imagine being aloud in our society. A lot of people say "that's the life!" well I don't think that at all.... I don't believe we were put on this earth for a Utopian society that is free from negative energy. Life is a mystery and people need to start concentrating on themselves rather than trying to manipulate everyone else because we're in this world alone and can't rely on anyone else. All you have is yourself...you make the decisions for yourself...someone else shouldn't. I guess maybe this subject bothers me because i've been watching the news all week and I can just see how our world is so corrupt and manipulative. There are never happy touchy stories on the news...all news is bad. How can society be happy when all they are exposed to is bad?

Trust No One, Their are no experts

I did a yahoo search for "Trust Us, We're Experts!" and found mainly sites selling the book, and book reviews. The book reviews said pretty much what was expected...great book...Displaying great truths....IM really just propaganda myself.... The reviews were all done by people praising the book, so of course they were just used as positive propaganda for Rampton and Stauber.

The book brought up some valid points, many that we had already been addressed in our readings such as humanity is inadequate to make their own decisions and must be swayed by propaganda. The aspect I found the most interesting was the third party propaganda, in particular Mothers Opposing Pollution. If you remember correctly, "this was a campaign said to be set up by mothers who were against plastic containers for pollution reasons." When realistically it was a group working for association of Liquadpaperboard Carton manufacture. I mean come on, how much lower can you go. For some reason that particular issue really sickened me...

The book was ironic because in a sense it was doing exactly what it was telling its readers to be aware of: presenting propaganda is such a discrete fashion that we are not aware of it. Sneaky...Very sneaky.. Essentially though, there is no away around it. In a society where you want a product to sell you must present propaganda or you will be unsuccessful. It just makes me feel less like an individual and more like a robot when it's laid out in front of me. I've been critically assessing everything as propaganda since ive started this course... and sadly sometimes i think it would be better to be naive about the whole process. But I guess that why it continues because most people are naive about it, or at least claim to be.

side note: Was Dr.Rapaille the same guy from the persuaders?

Unbiased Experts

I did an Internet search on the book and found what I had expected. Watchdog sites. There's nothing wrong with watchdogs; they're actually quite necessary. However, I find it interesting that no dogs seem to be watching Rampton and Stauber.

Even the quotes from the back of the book are misleading. Talk about experts with your own point of view. They do all that talking about companies trying to make people seem separate from their cause, and Rampton and Stauber do the same thing. I looked up some of the people quoted on the back cover. Barbara Ehrenreich is a political activists who heroically took minimum wage jobs to write and sell a book. She also publicly dumped out a Dasani at a conference because Coke is apparently violating human rights in Columbia.

Jeremy Rifkin leads organizations such as the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation and the Beyond Beef Coalition. He wants people to eat less beef because cows release methane. Aside from the fact that cows release less than fresh water, I'd like to point out that, without beef consumption, more cows would live longer and produce more methane.

I felt the need to look them up because I didn't notice a periodical next to their name. Usually anyone on the back of the book has some sort of organizational affiliation. The USA Today review seemed the least fanatical, so I left it alone. The first two obviously wanted to start the wave.

Needless to say, I was interested in Brill's Content, the periodical. Brill's Content had gotten itself into trouble in the past. It is a for profit magazine with corporate affiliations that attacked a Time article. Unfortunately, everything Brill's Content had said was false turned out to be true. Another company bought it in 2001.

In essence, I'm merely pointing out that they didn't exactly get unbiased and objective quotes for the back cover. Even the Center for Media and Democracy seems a bit biased. Their web page has a fist above a sign that says "STOP GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROPAGANDA." Ironically, it doesn't say "buy ours instead."

Lakoff and Angus

Angus's view of the rhetorical situation is based on an image of community forming and learning. His portable handbook addresses social movements and democracy, which he invites his readers to bring their arguments to the table. It is clear that we as people need to spend more time discussing and affirming laws, values, norms, and especially governmental concerns. In this cause democracy does seem to be a radical concept. I mean people can slow things down, forfeiting democracy so few people can rule, and then the wide range of power had disintegrated. All because people have no time or care to little? Now considering this, according to Angus people should come together and determine the to-do's for democracy across assembly halls and universities world wide, he's putting the cart before the horse. Personally I think educating others on democracy is necessary, for more then some are completely ignorant and do leave the power in just few dominant hands. Helping others to form their own opinion on the right issues could change how we embrace democracy as a people.

Lakoff discusses language and discourse to the extent of showing the reader how to determine if there is more than one meaning to a concept or concepts to a meaning. We make choices of what we want to say in words in our everyday language which effect conveyance of meaning. I love the example of the apology, who really likes to say they’re sorry or admit they were wrong. There are ways to imply those meanings without using the exact pervious words like. “Wow, you were right,” acknowledging that you were wrong by telling the other they were right- not directly saying, “I was wrong.” I thought she was a structuralist in her way of breaking down language and word connotations, as I argued in class; my argument was shut down… I guess I still have more to interpret and analyze myself.

Robin Lakoff: Unapologetically Liberal

An author's political stance can often be obvious or can easily be extrapolated from a writing (Lakoff is crystal clear about his political orientation in "Don't Think of An Elephant") but what I find sort of comforting is R. Lakoff's need to explain herself. She has some very reasonable doubts concerning objective truth, and she is in good company. Why attempt to write objectively if you are ultimately being dishonest in doing so? Lakoff's openly liberal stance could potentially repel any number of conservatives, but none the less I find it respectable that she freely admits her subjectivity. Being honest seems like such a difficult thing to do in the media. It seems like a rarity.

I was considering Lakoff's observations about political apologies, and it seems to be the case that no matter what is done, no matter how terribly mistaken a politician might be, the savvy political being must remain "on top," and should pull some sort of rhetorical trickery. A synthetic apology of sorts. Never lose face. There are exceptions to this (another rarity), but apparently the political system that is in place discourages genuine admission of error. Is this a vestige from the days of the infallible absolute monarchs or evidence of the public's need to believe those in power are not making mistakes? Either way, it is disheartening, and somewhat baffling that those who are the making the most dire of decisions cannot afford the admission of their wrongs, and therefore must always keeping moving forward with their mistakes for the sake of consistency.

paper 1

In the first paper written for advanced comp., I think that i had some important information about how the media keeps us in a fearful mindset so that are always needing them for "security" or "guidance." "I feel a certain connection with things that have been important in my life and relevent to me, personally. We can see that through this, maybe this is my "code." But no two people have the same exact "code," debending on experience, situations, and many other factors based on individuality.
The persuaders also know how to play on our weaknesses or negativity. In addition to this, they also play a big role in how we view ourselves and can use this to their advantage. They can make us feel good with a product that honors our insecurities, and then they can make us feel bad about those same insecurities with a billboard or commercial for something else.
My whole paper basically studied why exactly certain products are more successful than others. This "code" really holds some meaning, even though I was not so much of a believer before. The media seems to be able to lead us to believe something that we, ourselves, are not aware.

Language War or Love of Language

After reading Lakoff's Language War I was immediately struck by the many pertinent, and quite excessive, realities it revealed. I especially found her segment on apologetics interesting. So many times we see how apologies, or the absence of them, can calm or ignite a situation. When she points out how they work according to gender she says that, "Women seem especially prone to this usage, apologizing even when no discernible wrong has been done or the speaker has had no imaginable part in the wrongdoing that has occurred." Though she simply grazed the topic, it felt as though she gave us part of her take on the rhetorical situation. She perhaps feels that we as Americans are too immersed in our "rich" history, along with how we have come to where we are, that we forget what we need to do as citizens. She says that, up until the 90's, politicians didn't offer apologies. However, they may owe it to other countries, as well as their own, for they have stripped Americans of their right to make "meaning" in their lives. She continues by saying that even our culture is created by these people who are able to use and manipulate us through language. She argues that our culture is a "construction of shared meanings." Lakoff continues with this idea when she looks at the very concept of reality. She understands that language is the most "real" yet unreal tool in our lives. Reality is created through language, even though language itself is not concrete. Therefore, we have, and will continue to be, unconsciously manipulated and deprived of some basic human thinking. The keyword in the last sentence was "unconsciously," because if we as Americans simply delight in these highlighted and “Hollywoodized,” if you will, areas of the human experience, than we truly gain no understanding of a meaningful existence.

She also delves into the language of politics and the media and how, in turn, the language is used against and for us. But here lies the question. Is the language of politicians used against us or for us? Even more interesting is the question of whether we as citizens need it. Though we would be quick to say that that is ridiculous, some people would be less inclined to think that way. Today people like and subsequently need this spectacle that creates meaning for them. Since it seems as though meaning (and happiness) today can only be acquired through some type of struggle, people are in search of it. They want empathy with the media, with the government, and with other people like themselves. They simply need this linguistic reality that is placed in front of them because, let's face it, it's simple and dramatic. This is what people love.

Mr. Magruder Goes to Washington.

My girlfriend and I took advantage of the Colombus holiday to make a road trip. We drove down to Washington D.C. and spent the day there. We had a fantastic time, which is irrelavant, and I suggest that you all make the trip down if you can because D.C. looks completely different now that I'm not some bright-eyed eighth grader.

For this class, the relevant part of our trip conserned our destination. We spent the day on Independence Mall. We only had time to visit two museums because they close at 5:30 pm, but my girlfriend picked out two fantastic choices.

First stop was the National Holocaust Memorial. This is not a "date" museum. My girlfriend has wanted to see this site for years. I had already been to the museum on my last trip to Washington. We both were dramatically moved by the exhibits. In my opinion, if there ever was a war worth fighting it would have to have been World War II. However, the museum does a fantastic job of exhibiting how effectively persuasive the Nazi party was. Hitler makes modern "evil-doers" and any comparisons between them look paltry. The propaganda that he used and the manner in which he employed his tactics, and this is my opinion, is a model for our modern approach, especially how he kept so much of his operations under such lock and key that the general public was unaware of what he was perpetrating. Though I think Nazi ideals and tactics are too deplorable for words, I found myself in utter awe at their success rate. Hitler, unfortuately, is probably one of the most successful men in history. I suggest that you go see the exhibits. They are incredibly powerful in their subject matter, and then you leave the building, as if it were a movie theater, and realize that all of that happened, all of it is true.

Our second stop was at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Talk about propaganda! This building was teeming with it. Starting with the huge pro-America banners on the exterior, it felt like I was walking through a politically correct view of America. The upper floor was dominated by an exhibit celebrating Latin music queen, Celia Cruz. Then there were exhibits praising Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, and Ray Charles. The second floor felt basically like walking through the First Ladies' closet, as there was an exhibition of their actual gowns. Tucked away on the bottom floor was an exhibit that praised American scientific advancement, which none of its displays were in working order. And presiding over it all was a huge American flag. I was most offended by the "Disney-like" sugar coating that everything was presented with. Judging from these displays, Latinos and Blacks alike are only significant based upon their musical contributions, and women are only good for fashion; not to mention that science is a dead field not worth advancing. I think that ignoring the struggles that these people went through weakens their importance in American History. I would completely write off this museum if it were not for its one saving grace - an exhibit about Brown vs. Board of Education. This is the single exhibit that I felt accurately showed "American History" in a manner which makes me both sad and proud to be an American. As for everything else, it all seemed like fluff especially compared to the Brown vs. Board of Education exhibit.

I wish we could have seen more of the museums that surround Independence Mall. They are free to the public. We spent $30 on a tank of gas and $13 on a pair of Metro tickets so we could avoid parking fees and city traffic. Make time to go see your National Capital.

Lakoff

Lakoff brings up a lot of interesting ideas about frames. She states: "We need our frames and conventional assumptions. These form the glue that holds cultures together and allows individuals within those cultures to feel like competent members of a cohesive community." I've always thought that frames defeated the point of individuality, but in this sense I begin to see them in a positive light. I believe frames tend to give us a sense of community and belonging, and we migrate to people with similar frames. Without certain frames, I wonder if the world would be in chaos. Or would it ever be possible not to have frames? Frames are everywhere; from our political party to the sports team we endorse. Every promotion we see is focused on a certain frame.
I believe Lakoff's frame idea completely correlates with why Conservatives have kept control of the government. She states: "What makes conservative ideas go down smoothly, while new ones stick in the craw, is their blind familiarity." Conservative write in a certain frame that attracts a large mass of the population. They don't go outside of the frame like many liberals tend to do. They have a set frame (which tends to be a great deal of the voting population) and write towards that. People feel they can identify with their frames, and therefore they vote for them. It kind of goes back to what the clip we heard in class demonstrated, although the man agreed with more of the ideas for kerry, he still voted for bush because he saw himself in the Republican frame.

War?

Lakoff makes it very clear in the beginning that she is not forcing her opinion on anyone. After throwing around a few classifications of linguists, she explains (I think) that she does not have the power to make meaning for everyone. All of her observations are merely the meaning that she derives.

Lakoff mentions the use of language in the political sphere to create us and them atmosphere in America. Of course, that's not really a huge breakthrough in linguistics. What I found interesting is that she says there is a negative connotation to "liberal" but not "conservative."

Really? No negative connotation to conservative? So people don't think of old, rich, white men sailing around on yachts and cutting their own taxes? In all fairness, I don't know how old this book is, but conservatives definitely have a negative frame.

By the way, she focuses a great deal on frames just like the other Lakoff. In relation to frames, she talks about having to identify ideas of minority groups but not majority groups. Doesn't that just make things easier?

Think about it. If one black guy is standing in a group of white guys, he's easiest to identify as "the black guy." The same would work for a white guy in a group of black people. So yes, the ideas of minority groups will be identified as such.

So obviously, white males like myself are using language to keep everyone else down. Apparently, I've been oppressing people since before I was born. At least, I'm being asked to pay money, so fault must be mine.

Paper 1 response

I believe that the American culture is being affected by persuasion and advertisements. I think by the time i'm in my golden years that the world is going to run out of room for these types of methods they use such as billboards and what not. Sometimes I wonder if it's our own faults for falling into the crowd or maybe we just don't know any better because we grew up with it. It's strange when you take a step back and realize what our culture really is. Europeans state that we're a nation of fat, lazy, idiots. Maybe that can be true in a lot of ways...we do live the life of luxury compared to other cultures. But we are also very ignorant to the truth. Our government tries to "protect" us of the truth. Look at Area 51 for instance....we're not allowed to know what goes on there. What if there are aliens and they are planning to take over the planet...they would know about it but we wouldn't. How can that be fair to a free country? Our government hides things from us because they think it is in our best interest but we all live to learn. That is the point of living...seeing and experiencing new and exciting things...taking thrills. So why is it so bad that we know the truth about everything...it might even help to mold our society into something better for the future. Some things I guess are left better unsaid but I think it would help a lot to know.

Paper 1

Free is never really “free” is it? Even worse, imagine those individuals who do get ripped off and have to find out the hard way by getting taken by some advertisement scheme. There is no model of our culture’s democratic communication, because our culture’s communication is not based on democracy. The only hope we as consumers have while falling prey to money-hungry companies and corporations is that ethics will become a value to be possessed and maintained through persuasion.

Instead of adding any ethical principles advertisers and marketing agencies are now trying to master the skills of managing public opinion. Integrating products into programs, by using product placement with "seamless" transitions has been a key to successfully reaching a targeted broad audience. What better way to be introduced to a brand name line of clothing now being worn by your favorite actor and can be seen on a nationally famous primetime fall lineup television program? Consider that radio commercial for the automotive dealership describing another random great new sales event going on, the disclaimer isn’t emphasized and barely audible at the end of the advertisement.



really cool advertisement, check it out!
http://www.hypnoticsalesforce.com/

Angus

Wow. Yeah so 45 pages and the conclusion is...yay activist groups. I'm so sick of hearing the same message over and over. "The people aren't ruling and need to band together..." Well, not everyone can rule, and the group in power seems to be doing a pretty good job right now.

I'm not talking about social squabbles but the basics. When you turn on the faucet, water comes out. You can eat every day, and we're all going to college. Complete democracy would never work. Hell, confederal systems don't even work.

Some people have better things to do than sit in assembly halls and discuss politics like Angus wants us to do. People have jobs and want to enjoy their lives. Some people like discussing politics and law. They should be the ones in the big assembly halls. The rest of us just don't care. We'll tell you when something makes us mad. Until then, the government can just do what they want.

Little more Angus

Angus really very interesting, but maybe a little too idealistic. I personally believe the democracy needs some sort of change, and that in fact they culture in which we are living cannot be literally defined as a democracy. However, I believe that some of the reason that we lack some democratic aspects is because of the laziness in the US people (not excluding myself). If we set forth this meetings, where everything can be freely addressed, and everything will be freely answered, what percentage of US citizens would attend? People are so caught up in their lives that they are too busy to understand that what we are living in is not a strictly defined democracy, let alone do something to change it. I'm not saying that this is write, but a government ran strictly by the people is a little out of our range. I mean we can't even get a large portion of our citizens to come out and check a box once every four years, how are we going to get them to go beyond that?

Is it possible to Change?

As much as I want to sit here and write about how much our world needs to change, and how if everyone just got along, the world would be a better place ("All we are saying... Is give Peace a chance"), I honestly cannot bring myself to do it. No matter how hard we try, there is too much diversity in the minds of our leaders, workers, and even in the young minds of America. Noone will ever agree on everything, and that is why there can never be "perfect peace" as some like to call it. There can never be a perfect justice system, or a perfect government, or even a perfect country for that matter. It is truly ashame when you realize how the real world works, and how hard it is to get things the way you want them. Just a thought I had, so I decided to post it.

Angus

Although I've indeed voiced frustration about our so called democracy in the United States, this reading actually made me feel less so. I didn't take Angus to be berating how democracy 'has gone downhill' but instead saying that we simply need to change our practices because of our changing world.
Angus talks of how citizens of a democracy need to be able to debate, agree, and argue with one another in order to formulate views on important issues. He also talks of how citizens need access to relevent information on issues they deem important. This is where TV comes in because it does not allow for the listener to either debate or choose the topics. I think most people can agree that in our country (non-politician) citizens have become accustomed to receiving information on a daily basis. But how many times do we debate about issues a) with someone who does not agree or b) on issues not talked about on TV?
I think Angus, realizing this, is merely saying that it is our duty as citizens of a democracy to change in order to sustain a democracy. I have voiced the notion all too often that "I am frustrated because I have no voice, and I can't change anything." Not that changing a lifestyle is easy, but if it's possible to--over time--modify our nation to one that encourages political debates among citizens, that's something to hope for--right?

Politics/Democracy: A Way of Life?

Somewhat idealistic in his political centered arguments, Ian Angus has some worthy and, to say the least, questionable opinions. Though he does raise the question of apathy among Americans, he isn't sensitive to the reasons why Americans are the way they are. From a rhetorical approach, and looking back at the readings of Lippman, Angus may take on a different stance which is more or less probing at different American ideals and involvement. For example, he raises the point that, "We call other countries non-democratic when they don't have an institutionalized system of elections like ours, but do we ever look closely at why we call this democracy?" Here he is arguing that since we (apparently each of us shell out money for campaigns) run such competitive and demanding campaigns, we cannot, and are not a democracy, however, if this is how candidates feel they should run, then it is their money (for the large part) they are spending.

To elaborate on his idealized arguments I would like to try at least to form some counterpoints. When he is pointing out ways we "the people," need to get more involved in our government in order to make it a functioning democracy he omits some important ideas. First, he says that "widespread access to relevant information" must become available to the public. Though this would be great, I don't believe the public, by and large, would care. Second, he says, the public needs to be given the opportunity to "decide what is important politically at a given time." Again, we could simply argue that people wouldn't care because they aren't empowered. Though this may lead to empowerment, we are still, as Angus purports, "subjects" under the "public sphere." So, in a way he contradicts his beliefs in calling the apathetic American "subjects," especially when he says that, "Citizens have this double role--they both originate the law and are subject to it." I understand that he is calling for change, which is a good thing, but he doesn't account for the simple needs Americans must receive before fully immersing their lives in politics.

Angus Reading

After reading the assignment in Angus I became very tired of the whole polictical debate. I am now to the point of being frustrated, as a few in class already indicated they were during discussion. I mostly agree with what Angus has to say but I believe he is overlooking a few concepts. He cristicizes television and the internet as being tools that are against Democracy and are blamed for Democracy's blurred image of today. Even though I dont use either tool much (Tv or computer) I dont believe everytime one engages in doing so that they are thinking politics. To me, a tv or computer has nothing to do with politics, and I could care less about politics when I want to do homework, check the weather, or watch a show.

In todays world as technology advances people will be using these sources more and more to communicate or get work done. I dont think we should change for democracy, I think Democracy must change for us.