I Don't Have the Energy to Create a Good Title

Bernays: I would say that Bernays and his examples are borderline coercive. His title, after all, includes the word "manipulating", which I'm sure in today's PR text books would be considered an ugly, non-PR word and a definite no no. Bernays uses more examples than he does actual discussing of theory and the ways of public manipulation. I think that's pretty effective.

The minimal amount of intelligence credited to American consumers in the hat example is staggering. That the leaders of the hat industry (if there's such a thing as the "hat industry") could conspire to dupe the public into buying a certain type of hat, and that such a conspiracy could work so effectively is kind of frightening. Through the hat example and several others, Bernays conveys how easy it is for public opinion to be swayed and almost controlled by companies, politicians, or special interest groups. In all likelihood, putting hats on the six most beautiful women and publicizing that fact would probably work just as well today. Back when Sex and the City was on, didn't whatever goofy purse or stupid set of shoes Sarah Jessica Parker wore in any given episode start flying off the shelves? I don't know cause I never watched that show (not even for the nudity), but I think it's safe to say that I'm probably right.

I suppose it's possible to ask the moral question of whether or not this trickery of the public is "right". In a way, I feel as though it's wrong that the public should be mislead and directed into buying into whatever product is being peddled. At the same time, the public is somewhat culpable in their own deception, so maybe by buying the ugly hat that they don't need, the public is sort of getting what they deserve (Was that pretentious enough for everybody? No? I can go further if I need to... no, I can't).

Lippmann: Lippmann points out that the American public seems to have a distinct lack of interest in politics, government, or voting. He trots out numbers from the 1924 election (and who doesn't remember that one?) to prove his point. I bet it's worse today than it was then. There certainly are a lot of people around who simply don't care enough to pay attention to the news, let alone vote. That's probably got something to do with the general consensus that one vote won't make a difference, and that all politicians are crooked so it doesn't matter who you pick, and that nothing will change no matter who wins. Wow, I think I just talked myself out of voting.

Lippmann's contention is that to get at public opinion you need to approach people with a sense of what their self-interest is. Obviously people are going to do what is best (or what they think is best) for themselves. Hence, if you can start changing public by appealing to self-interest, you can start getting people to care about politics again.

Why the hell did I write so much? And this after I badmouthed Ramage for being longwinded. Well, I'm a hypocrite...