Paper #2

For my second paper I am continuing the discussion from last class about Lakoff's interpretation of apology. My argument will be how people should only have to apologize for things they have personally done themselves and for nothing else. I also plan on showing the differences between an apology and feeling remorse for someone because I felt that there was some misinterpretation of that in last week's class. As of right now I have only used Lakoff's book because my paper is still only in its beginning stages.

Goals for Paper 2

I have long been interested in the rather recently coined political technique called "doublespeak." It is a way of conveying a particular meaning, which rhetoric does, through softened, if you will, language. Doublespeak’s trickery is its real genius; it not only makes terrible, sometimes inhumane acts justified, but it makes the person who uses the device (most of the time a political leader) sound superlative. Take, for instance, the candy-coated validation of the Iraqi war by George Bush when he said we must continue in the war because of “unsubstantiated statements, for the lack of evidentiary support, and for the purported manipulation of intelligence data.” This, to the public, may come across as pure linguistic genius, but it is nothing more than unnecessary banter. My job, then, is to examine why this rhetorical device known as “doublespeak” successfully manipulates or dismisses public opinion in light of the events that can, and do, directly affect them. Perhaps Angus would agree with this technique, disputing that it propels the public to understand political discourse so that they can form opinions based on the arguments beneath the language. Lippman and Bernays, in contrast, would and probably do disagree with this tactic, as it not only disguises human error—for example, the use of military terms like “collateral damage” which actually means the unintentional death of innocent civilians by military action—but it also displaces that fault on other people.

paper 2

I'm analyzing the way the republicans and conservative religious leaders frame the policies of the right with religion to get swing votes and pump up their base so they go out and vote. Although I am looking at a speech given by President Bush to a group of southern Baptists most of my paper focuses on press releases given out by the Family Research Council about Justice Sunday-Stopping the Filibuster against People of Faith and Justice Sunday II-God Save the United States and this Honorable court. These were events on Sunday evenings that were broadcast on television and over the radio. They used religion to talk about politics and the fight against liberals. I was expecting them to have a small audience and feature speakers who were radical conservatives with no real power in politics but Justice Sunday II featured six current Congressmen and was watched in 79 million households. This is not a huge part of the American population but it is still a significant number of people.

paper 2

I am going to write on the Apartheid in South Africa, and how through the rhetoric of the white South African government the public was persuaded to think that the Apartheid was a good idea. I think I am also going to find documents from Ronald Reagan, who continued to trade and have commerce with South Africa, regardless of the way they were treating their citizens. I'm not really sure what text I am going to refer it back to. I'm still in the process of researching the topics... so we'll see where it goes from there. Good luck everyone!

Thought about paper #2...

After last Tuesday's class, I feel somewhat compelled to write about the patterns of discourse in relation to human responsibility. I found Lakoff's writing about patterns in apologies very interesting and I want to go further into that. Also, I would like to use some of her arguments to discuss one major argument that we discussed in class as well. I want to talk about the act of apologies, themselves, and then I want to try to relate that back to certain degrees of accountability we should/ should not have for issues of the past. A rhetorical analysis of metaphors and references will be key in my paper. I want to find out why we feel guilty or ashamed to apologize for acts of the past that we were not present for, yet still affect us day to day. I also want to figure out why it seems it's harder to apologize for something when it is evident that we are wrong in a certain situation. The art of skirting apologies with generic half-assed "I'm sorry"s is another area that I would like to look firther into.

Trust us...

The reading of Rampton and Stauber to me, was definitely the hardest of the readings thus far. In the beginning of the first chapter they started to discuss Microsoft and the claims against them in general. Microsoft's idea behind their public backing of the product is actually ingenius in itself. Getting the public to be all for their product so that no other product could pass them in sales. They also use software that is specific to Microsoft and will only work with other Microsoft products, which is actually really annoying for any college student who has to work with not only their own computer, but the computers of their university as well.
One part of the reading that I thought was interesting was when they say that advertisement are the obvious kinds of propaganda, and they're what we're used to seeing every day. But the third party technique in its more subtle forms is designed to make their audience numb to what they're hearing or seeing or experiencing. They say, "You'll never know when a PR agency is being effective, you'll just find your views slowly shifting." This is kind of scary to think about; that we might be that numb to some kinds of advertising that we don't even see it as advertising at all. We just view something in a completely different light and we assume that it's because our attitude has shifted. Really though, it's someone elses attitude or views. They state, "Every new means of communication carries within itself a means of deception."
They talk about how public relations industries have become invisible because their ideas and persuation is virtually everywhere. We don;t even see them as advertisements anymore, more of a way of life.
They talk about expert opinion as opposed to the feelings of the general public. But really, the general public has no say because we see things like, "nine of of ten doctors agree..." and we believe it because we are not experts, ourselves. So we are generally an easily manipulated public. But how far will these experts go to manipulate and control our perceptions of reality? It's actually kind of scary, if you think about it. They talk about how whoever gets its version of the truth out there most effectively, wins. So then really, are we believing someone who lies extremely effectively, or do we really make our own decisions?
The section of science and the "intelligent few" really shed some light for me. The "democracy" that we have is seen as dangerous, and that's why we leave the decisions up to a select few. Bernays added to this theory by saying that being herdlike led people to be remarkably susceptible to leadership. Therefore, he saw public relations as an applied science. So our leaders could use this idea and bring order from chaos.
John Scalon really made me think when he stated that truth can be liquid, not solid. "What seems to be true is not necessarily the case when we look at it and we dissect it...whose truth are we talking about, your truth, or my truth?" That basically states the fact that sometimes we are not even conscious of our own decisions, even attitudes and beliefs because of all that is going on around us. We have people trying to persuade us in one ear, and then we have our inherent morals and beliefs, but who wins in the end?

The Language War

Lakoff calls herself a linguist, and through the reading I couldn't really tell that at all. I just saw her as a debator of rhetorical situation more than language itself. She really gets into the issue of gendered discourse and I think you really had to read between the lines to get her ideas and controversies about the topic. She discusses language choices and the use of metaphors in writing that can persuade us as readers, or get us to think in a certain way. One part of the reading she talks about how we cannot let word associations and word meaning interfere with our general understanding of issues or products. This is basically what I wrote about in my first paper. I discussed the fact that the media has a code for us as individuals and it plays on our weaknesses and our fears in order to get us to buy. Government does this as well when they want us to agree on a particular issue or when they want us to understand what they're saying, without really understanding it at all. They try to manipulate us so that they we are on their side. In my paper I stated that the media makes us feel good about ourselves at first, but always keeps us needing them in the end. "They create a situation where we create our own fear, and therefore we need their products to feel safe again." I think that this is basically what Lakoff is trying to convey to us in her book.
One specific part of the reading that I thought was pretty confusing as I read it was the apolgy section. The phrase, "I'm sorry I stepped on your cat," as opposed to, "I'm sorry your cat got stepped on," or, "Why'd you leave the cat in this room?!," or, "Can't the stupid animal watch where it's going?" all shift the blame of the issue itself. When you say that you're sorry the cat got stepped on, your not actually taking blame or accountability for doing the act, itself. When you ask why did you leave the cat here in the first place, you're actually shifting blame to the innocent party completely. When you say can't the stupid animal watch where it's going you're shifting blame to the cat, the innocent animal whom you stepped on. I now see how government officials use this technique to get out of certain situations. Apologizing is humbling and a lot of people have a very hard time doing this, especially if they know they are wrong in the situation. Certain government officials will sometimes shift blame entirely, or apologize without taking responsibility. This is kind of an art, if you think about it. Because they have the power to say that they apologized for something that they never even held themselves accountable for.
In class we discussed this in firther detail about history in general. I would not have felt comfortable apologizing for acts of the past that I was not even around for. Plus, the issues weren't even things that I agreed with in my life today. But some students pointed out that if I had lived back then, my whole mindet would definitely be different, so really, who am I to say what I would have agreed with or been against? Things that I never even really thought about was that fact that history repeats itself and the past affects the present. We also discussed practical reasoning for apologizing for past issues like trade with countries and the direct link of the wealth that Americans now have with the past. I now would agree that there is significance in apologizing for certain things, even if I had no direct coorelation to them to begin with. It actually helps the whole cause in general. I now kind of see that I was pretty ignorant to this logical kind of thinking before.

Connections

As I researched my selected "instance" in public discourse, the gay marriage debate, I couldn't help but wonder how I could make more of a connection to our reading material in class. First, I thought I could take a look at the language surrounding the debate to see if I could find frames or appeals to "common sense."

Just before I started researching that, I thought of class discussions that involved people saying things such as "I can't believe gay marriage was such a big issue in the 2004 campaign. " That, in turn, made me think of Angus who talked about politicians deciding what the big issues were. How many times have you heard someone say they should have focused more on the war, or the economy.

So before finding arguments on the gay marriage debate, I went to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) website. It turns out, that in all three presidential debates, consisting of about 55 questions total, there was only one question about gay marriage. The Iraq War and Homeland Security were the subject of about 22 questions.

So, in addition to the language in that particular debate on gay marriage, I thought I might look into why people thought it was such an important issue. Obviously, the politicians were focusing more on the war and security in their debates. Maybe people actually do care about morality (how awful) in their everyday lives and just thought they should care more about the war.

Trust us, yeah right!

Isn’t it amazing that everyone in some point in their lives will ask for an expert opinion? How are these experts manipulating us into believing they are experts? According to Rampton and Strauber there are two different types of experts, the mad-men “spin-doctors” that linger behind the scenes and the selected and cultivated readily prepared for an audience. The persuaders can reach groups in the large public by contracting leaders and/or experts that mold public opinion. This third party technique can prove worthy and valuable if applied properly.
Personally, my attention was focused on the statement that forbids the federal government by law from spending money on public relations. Excuse me? So the heading for PR is now Public affairs and the attributes stay the same, how convenient. Who said there can never be enough loop holes? And I bet you can find an expert to justify and concur. So who do we trust?

Trust us, yeah right!

Isn’t it amazing that everyone in some point in their lives will ask for an expert opinion? How are these experts manipulating us into believing they are experts? According to Rampton and Strauber there are two different types of experts, the mad-men “spin-doctors” that linger behind the scenes and the selected and cultivated readily prepared for an audience. The persuaders can reach groups in the large public by contracting leaders and/or experts that mold public opinion. This third party technique can prove worthy and valuable if applied properly.
Personally, my attention was focused on the statement that forbids the federal government by law from spending money on public relations. Excuse me? So the heading for PR is now Public affairs and the attributes stay the same, how convenient. Who said there can never be enough loop holes? And I bet you can find an expert to justify and concur. So who do we trust?

How did America amass her wealth?

The United Fruit Co.
(1950)

Pablo Neruda

When the trumpet sounded, it was
all prepared on the earth,
and Jehovah parceled out the earth
to Coca-Cola, Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other entities:
The Fruit Company, Inc.
reserved for itself the most succulent,
the central coast of my own land,
the delicate waist of America.
It rechristened its territories
as the "Banana Republics"
and over the sleeping dead,
over the restless heroes
who brought about the greatness,
the liberty and the flags,
it established the comic opera:
abolished the independencies,
presented crowns of Caesar,
unsheathed envy, attracted
the dictatorship of the flies,
Trujillo flies, Tacho flies,
Carias flies, Martinez flies,
Ubico flies, damp flies
of modest blood and marmalade,
drunken flies who zoom
over the ordinary graves,
circus flies, wise flies
well trained in tyranny.

Among the bloodthirsty flies
the Fruit Company lands its ships,
taking off the coffee and the fruit;
the treasure of our submerged
territories flows as though
on plates into the ships.

Meanwhile Indians are falling
into the sugared chasms
of the harbors, wrapped
for burial in the mist of the dawn:
a body rolls, a thing
that has no name, a fallen cipher,
a cluster of dead fruit
thrown down on the dump.

Translated by Robert Bly

Notes:

The United Fruit Co. is a real company incorporated in New Jersey in 1899 by Andrew Preston and Minor C. Keith. United Fruit became the major force in growing, transporting, and merchandising Latin American produce, especially bananas. The company is also notorious for its involvement in politics and is a symbol for many people of "Yankee" imperialism and oppression.

Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Tacho (Nicaragua), Carias (Honduras), Martinez (El Salvador), and Ubico (Guatemala) were all political dictators.

Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1971

Source: (Kirszner&Mandell Eds., Literature: Reading Reacting Writing, Compact 4th ed., p818-819)

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.

What is it that disturbs us?

I've been carefully considering which writings I should use to support my discussion. At the same time I'm trying to solidify the actual direction of my essay. I want the questions I address in the paper to be specific enough so that I can actually get somewhere with it. So I guess I don't really know what it is I'm doing. But here's my angle so far:

A large percentage of the public is not aware of the lengths to which advertisers will go to convince them of how they should think, and how they should act. What is it about the idea of consciousness construction, and the tactic of appealling to what we generally consider to be the unconscious mind that horrifies many people? Do the American Cultural values of independence and individualism bring about this repugnance? Or is it a reflexive reaction to what seems to be an unethical system of control?

Edging Toward a Paper

I'm prepared to give credit where it's due: the persuaders (some of them- Luntz especially) have a brilliant gig going. They are making money and swaying public opinion in a big way. Like Meredith, though, I think the public is a little smarter than they were portrayed in the video. However amazing a product looks in an ad, most consumers will do a little more research, ask for others' opinions at least, before buying. I think, therefore, that the advertising world, for all its persuasion, is not so dangerous a thing, and can only interest us, it cannot force us to buy anything. They cannot spoon feed us our opinions, no matter how hard they may try. By the advertising world, however, I mean the agencies trying to sell us products and services.
When it comes to politics, I think the persuaders become not only much more powerful in their ability to spoon feed, but also much more dangerous to the public mind. Especially when it comes to the persuaders employed by the ruling government, we see a language shift that takes a concept the public disdains and makes it into a very friendly sounding national plan that everyone is willing to accept. When the government has a significant say in what broadcasters announce on television and what reporters write in newspapers, the public has less access to an unbiased truth. The new lingo, as we have seen, is everywhere. And while Bernays made some attempt to defend his power as a persuader, Luntz boldly goes where no man has gone before and turns public opinion with not a hint of an excuse. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this yet, hopefully my paper will be a little narrower, but I feel that the persuaders involved in the rhetoric of politics need to be very careful of what they're feeding the public, and that the public needs to be very wary of what they see and read, and that an understanding of the semantics of rhetoric is very important at this time in history, and that the public's general lack of that knowledge is in fact allowing the persuaders to spoon feed Americans their opinions. Uh-oh....

Criticism of my paper

Reviewing my paper, I am concerned that I'm being hypercritical of the persuaders and perhaps not giving us (the public) enough credit. I'm spending a lot of energy focusing on where this idea I have of the persuaders spoon feeding us our culture, morals, and ethics came from and not enough on what we do about it. It's very easy for me to get on my soapbox and say that I'm not swayed by the politicians and the advertisers because because I know me, and I know my friends and my family and what we agree and disagree with and why. What I don't know is how other people feel about this bombardment of propaganda. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit and what I consider apathy is in fact a person's choice to, after doing their own research, go ahead and purchase whatever the persuaders were selling, be it a product or a president, not because they were being told to, but because they honestly and for their own personal reasons desired it. In Manipulating Public Opinion, Bernays called propaganda - "the psychology of public persuasion" (52) - "a technique for the mass distribution of ideas" (52) Under that definition, it's down right idealistic: getting as many ideas to as many different people as possible. For you see, Bernays fails to discriminate against who is distributing what. While it's only one sentence, I think it's worth holding on it. It gives the public the instruction and the power to control their own opinion. I think that's an idea I should look at more closely.

George Lakeoff

I found it interesting that within the first page he tell us, "Do not use their language." Yet throughout the article he sighted one example where it paid off to use "their" language; in the case of Bill Clinton. The difference here might be that Clinton took contol and did as he chose to by using "their language and their words to describie it." Instead of the original suggestion that using the othersides' language could back you in w hole like it did Nixon, with his "not a crook" comment.

The parent models refelect to me that there not only is a clash in the moral progressive conflicts of society relating to issues of welfare, protection and class casting in terms of money. Also, no matter what paths as individuals we chose and no matter what values we possess we have no real say on anything government related since we do not exercise power within the government. Like Bush with the permission slip speech, America is the adult and does what it wants to when it desides to. If we refer to the "nations as people" hypothesis- the are many out there that disagree with America the right and portray America the wrong. Our ideas and values might devide us or bring us to the table as humanitarians- that doesn't give us any say-so with the government.

... Feeling overwhelmed !!

Paper blog

Today’s manipulation is placed in the hands of much less respected people who have different intentions of changing public opinion. Bernays says, “In this age, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas. Public opinion can be moved, directed, and formed by such a technique. But at the core of this great heterogeneous body of public opinion is a tenacious will to live, to progress, to move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit.” (Bernays, p 57). If manipulating public opinion is for the good of the public, how do politicians and advertisers justify their manipulation?
And what is the punishment when our government officials intentionally sway the public’s focus to either unimportant issues or straight up lies? There is none. Public manipulation has been happening for so many years, and has been digressing so far from what it at first was supposed to do that we now live in a world where public manipulation is used to give government officials what they want. With the little time I have to devote to reading the newspaper, I would like to think that my government officials can do it for me while still giving me the information I need to know on select issues. But what if I do not agree with the “important issues” my government is promoting to the public?

paper blog ...

Here are some arguments from my paper; however, I must say I'm begining to feel qutie differently about the act of persuasion. I think I'm a little too critical on how it is harming us, and not considering at all how (or if) it is helping us....

After examining some of the acts of persuasion I can’t help but feel like I am living in a Big Brother society, where although it appears to be free willed, every move I make and every desire I feel is ultimately controlled by the persuaders. This is demeaning to humanity. To say that the average man is in adequate to make his own decision, and must be swayed by the act of persuasion is very scary. We are United States citizens, we are suppose have freedoms to do and feel however we want, and although exteriorly it appears that we do, essentially we are all just dictated by society.

The common belief is: we are a democracy, we elect our own leaders, our leaders work to coincide with our values and ethics. However, as Walter Lippmann points out in “The Disenchanted Man,” this is very far from the truth. “The actual governing is made up of a multitude of arrangements on specific questions by particular individuals. These rarely become visible to the private citizen. They are altogether too numerous, too complicated, too obscure in their effects to become the subject of any continuing exercise of public opinion.” (36) Lippmann explains that the average man is incapable of playing a role in our democracy. It is not the common or private citizen who plays a role in our society, but instead an elect few who are not only smart enough to persuade us into voting for them, but also smart enough to persuade us into believing that we have a say in our democracy.
One of the conservative’s real strengths is their use of language. They use words such as “Healthy forest,” “No Child Left Behind,” these words “mollify people who have nurturant values (progressives), while the real policies are strict father policies (conservatives). This mollifies, even attracts, the people in the middle who have qualms about you. This is the use of Orwellian language- language that means the opposite of what it says- to appease people in the middle at the same time as you pump up the base. This is part of conservative strategy.” (22). For instance the “No Child Left Behind” bill which President Bush took credit for; the connotation of the bill sounds like it is implemented to improve education, and make sure America’s schools are giving each student a rightful chance to succeed. In reality, it is implementing standardized test, rewarding the schools that do well (usually wealthy districts) and taking away from schools that do poorly, the ones who really need the money.

Paper Blog

As outlined on the syllabus, the following paragraphs are my main arguments and some supporting ideas:

According to the film The Persuaders, the big bad advertising industry is bombarding the public with propaganda aimed at selling products. However, before The Persuaders was even a gleam in PBS’s eye, Edward Bernays said, “The manipulation of the public mind…serves a social function.” Bernays, in his essay “Manipulating Public Opinion,” cites the example of the NAICP conference in Atlanta.

Soon, it became clear to the NAICP that they needed to do something to attract attention to their cause. They carefully planned the location of their conference and hand-picked speakers from various backgrounds and ethnicities.

Another point of interest, presented by Walter Lippman in “The Disenchanted Man,” is politics, focusing mainly on elections. According to Lippman, political matters confuse common people, and no one individual can possibly understand everything that happens in the government.

The confusion discourages people to the point of apathy, and they just don’t vote when Election Day rolls around. Because of this, the media and campaign managers work very hard to draw people to the polls. They set up campaigns and televised debates, painting the two candidates to be political crusaders both out to save the world using their platform.

Now, why do persuaders try to influence opinions of the general public? In a lot of cases, it’s their job, so they persuade to keep from getting fired. Yes, the evil persuaders do try to make a profit. Profit serves as the main purpose for commercial advertising. Even Bernays stepped down off his platform of wholesome virtue to discuss the rescue of the hat industry and the salad dressing art expo.

Re reading Luntz, I'm struck by his instruction to think about the environment and other issues in terms of a "story". "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth." (pg 132) It makes me wonder why this is; when in the course of our society did we begin to favor this emotional approach? Our ability to feel and recognize emotion, to empathize and sympathize is inherent, instinctual. Public relations has been a part of 'government' as long as government has been around, but when did they - the mysterious "they" who do our thinking for us - decide to prey upon our emotional capacities in this manner? I'm not ignorant of the fact that those responsible for portraying the public image of this institution have always used a form of this appeal, in a "we're looking out for your best interests" way, but perhaps I was labouring under the misinformation that they used a fact-based approach. Hopeful candidates have been told for years that they need to be personable, likeable, approachable. They need to get their ratings up and so they kiss babies. But when did the idea of emotional politics vs objective politics really take off? I wonder if its possible it began when women were allowed to vote, changing the way candidates approached voters with the theory that "rational" men didn't require someone to "tug at their heart strings" to get them to vote on an issue.

But really I think the point of my rambling is to question why we allow this to happen. Why are we complacent about this deliberate cover up? How is it so many of us don't take any accountability for educating ourselves? I admit I fall into Luntz's theory- I'm definitely susceptible to compelling narrative and am lazy about researching all the facts. However, this begs the question- should we be responsible for finding out all the information ourselves? For certain circumstances, we definitely should be, but I'm not so sure about our government. In the true spirit of a democracy, shouldn't we be presented with all the facts of an issue - as unbiased as possible - before being responsible for choosing the party to fix it? I realize this is a highly idealistic position, and that people might not even consider the facts before voting, but I feel it should be easily and readably available to those who want it. Is there no method for succinctly listing the pertinent information without having to resort to fabricating stories full of double entendre and deeply embedded code? Of course there is. But it would put Luntz out of a job.

Persuaders & Kairos

The "clutter crisis" is a struggle to breathe through, advertisers are constant prospectors for new space. The cut- throat economic climate has contributed to the in your face manipulation of marketing. Integrating products into programs, product placement with "seemless" transitions are key in successfully reaching a targeted broad audience. What does the public want to hear? How should the product be presented to the public? What are the best investments in persuading people? The absolute goal of persuasion is to indue others to persuade as well.

Seizing the moment, the exegency of opening oppertunities to possibilities for response. Kairos being of time and space, right there: right then or right here: right now. Kairos is concerned about balance of situations as depected ithrough some of the art. Moreover the world is always changing and knowledge sometimes can't be proved certain. Kairos shows the importance of how different arguments are influenced by differentforces of discourse. The more complex a rhetorical situation; the more increase in the complexity of dynamics involved in the kairos struggle over an issue.

Lakoff Reading/Persuaders

“The Persuaders” proved to be a real eye-opener for me. I’ve always watched commercials and glanced at billboards but never gave a second thought as to the complicated process behind the catchy phrases. In my mind I assumed a man or woman trying to come up with a clever phrase, sitting at a desk with a trash can piled high with crumpled papers. Little did I know how wrong I would be. In one instance I’m amazed at the complicated process behind advertising, but at the same time I feel almost manipulated at how much the “persuaders” try to relate to the public for the sole purpose of reaping benefits.

With this said, I am also surprised at what I read in Lakoff's "Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse". It was the talk of "family values" and how they apply to the nation as a whole, and how the government (President mainly) has used this to his benefit. In his State of the Union address, he used the statement "We do not need a permission slip", this takes the listeners back to elementary school where its the student, not the teacher, that asks for a permission slip. Mr. President was immediately implying that we (United States), indeed are the teacher, which gives a sense of pride to those who knew what he was implying, and who will want to stand behind a proud leader.

I have never been given such an in depth look at the process behind winning public approval/cooperation. I am almost blown away at the way not only companies, but the President of the United States has gone to such extremes to sell something, or win people over. I am left with mixed feelings after viewing "The Persuaders", and readind Lackoff's peice, and I am left wondering if I have ever fallen for an advertisers trick.

Lakoff: Politics in Metaphors

The Persuaders offers an interesting approach to the way we perceive society, specifically, the way the media makes us perceive American ideals. This creative, cynical, and rather depressing look at our money driven world propels us to rethink what we as American's want. Since it is hard today to say that we are proud of ourselves as a nation, at least, to the masses of people who are opposed to the incumbent government, we, or I, must change our perspective of how we view ourselves. In other words, we as a nation need to be more self-reflective. I say this because if we sincerely wish, or hope, for change we must consider the numerous outlets available to make this country better (better meaning more tolerant, less selfish and more selfless, less worldly and more compassionate, and, above all, less egotistical). A few things need to happen before we can change this world set apart by its vibrant array of colors and its overwhelmingly competitive make-up. First, the need for individuality needs to be suppressed. According to Lazere, if we all were perfectly unique individuals with perfectly unique and different ideals then we would be in mere chaos. The notion that our ideas may reflect others and may not truly be exclusive, then, would perhaps calm any uncertainties we have about government or authority. If we as individuals are able to see that each one of us are crucial parts to making this nation work then it may work after all. In other words, though people have varying degrees of struggle, no one person's struggle is more important than another. This essentially breeds community; instead of the seemingly sole ideal that we can only seek progression for ourselves and nobody else, we see that an accord can be reached, one where we can work together instead of competing fiercely against each other.

These ideas are very idealistic, and as a skeptic, they will probably never be attained. However, it is okay to hope for something like this, and this may come about if we put our ideas to work. That is, if we listen to people like George Lakoff who suggests we examine our nation not by what its ideals are, but how we go about acquiring those ideals in a more meaningful way. Lakoff uses metaphors brilliantly when he talks about politics. As a former linguist, he is able to step out of the realm of political specifics and look at politics as it functions in society. His metaphors are much like structuralist tactics in literary criticism. For example, the theorist would argue that it is not what is inside a narrative that is particularly important, it is, however, the way that small idea functions as a part of the larger work or all-encompassing idea. Though it is obvious that Lakoff is a liberal democrat, he is able, I think, to be sensitive toward conservative ideals. He looks at the various techniques republicans use, such as the father figure as moral regulator, and how they use that in their political campaigns (Lakoff, 9). He understands that simply attacking one party will not accomplish anything. People are unwilling to accept that sort of brutality. Instead there needs to be an explicit stance, not just idea, that will spill out into other areas of political, moral, and social standards.

More to Consumers?

Watching The Persuaders gave me a helpless feeling that our world is becoming one big advertisement. As this was most likely one of their points, it begs the question..is this a bad thing? Do Americans consume more than the rest of the world? I think we do. And if so, does any of this have to do with the large marketing schemes that generate millions and millions of dollars in this country?
There is so much emphasis placed on looks in this country: what clothes to buy to feel important, or cool, or smart; what food to eat to "get healthy" whether it be low carb, low fat, organic, atkins, or south beach; to even such trivial things are what to have to drink. It all comes down to one question- is it one big ploy to get us to buy these things? In the end, it is all material stuff. Are we not emptying our pockets and increasing our credit card limits (which is an entirely different topic) to continuously fill up our pockets and shopping bags with more stuff? For what? Could it be that it's a neverending cycle that advertisers are behind in order to keep us wanting more?
It seems ironic: advertisers are constantly trying to lure us in to their products by marketing values and emotions that we need to feel; but in the end, they can never give us what we truly need, or else we wouldn't go back. So it seems like the only thing at the end of the "marketing world" road is just that--lots and lots of stuff.
We, as a society, have to take responsibility for being lured in to this ploy. Can we not start looking for true meaning in life beyond the Gap? I can't say I know much about Europe, but it sure looks as if they've got a better grasp on the meaning of life than we do.

Lackoff Reading

After reading Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" I have come to a new understanding of politics. I really found the piece interesting and the way he explained things helped me better understand where the parties where coming from and why they vote the way they do. I really thought Lakoff had a good undestanding of the parties. I found it very interesting when he mentioned that Democrats value transparency in politics. Obviously this holds true to some extent because our two assigned readings for this week were both manuals on how to use language to get people to vote for your candidate. The Manuel from the Republicans was leaked on the internet while the Manuel from the Democrats was not only printed but was a New York Times Bestseller. I also saw the Ideas of Bernays in this book. One of the faulty ideas that Lakoff claims liberals have is that " The truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they'll all reach the right conclusion." Just like Bernays, Lakoff says this is faulty reasoning because people vote with their identities, even if that means voting against what is in their best interest. If their was any doubt that Bernays' work was still relevant in our society, this piece showed that it is.

Guilty as charged?

I listened and attempted to make some notes while watching The Persuaders in class, and I contemplated as to how I felt about the issue at hand. The entire movie was made in efforts to open our eyes to the countless ways we are vulnerable to the media's influence on us, both as consumers, and opinion holders. Did anyone else catch the brand name on the computer that he was typing on throughout the entire movie? I was thinking that maybe this was him trying to "test" us on the issue. Or maybe the entire thing was made to see how many computers could be sold after the movie came out?

I remeber a time when labels of Coke, Pepsi, Aquafina, Gateway Computers, etc. were all replaced by generic names in movies, television shows, or anything besides commercials that people watched. I guess I just wasn't paying attention between that time and now, when companies have gotten smart and put their product name in big, bold letters for all to see. Great marketing technique, obviously - I didn't even notice.

Maybe I'm alone in this mindset, but I don't think that the persuaders are doing anything ethically or morally wrong because I believe that people are responsible for their actions. Commercials set in between television programs are becoming obsolete because more and more people are purchasing higher forms of cable; they don't have to wait for commercials to end - they can simply fast-forward right through them. So this makes the persuaders go one step further and put their product into movies that we have a general interest in. For example, Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. Obviously the people in charge of advertising for White Castle are trying to build a crowd of consumers, (all about our age) because they think we aren't educated enough to see that they want us to waste our hard earned money on fast-food. But the movie didn't make me want to go to White Castle and spend $50 on a bunch of hamburgers. It just made me smile that it was an actual chain restaurant that they were referring to the entire time. Another example would be Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights. One particular scene in that movie showed like 15 chain stores that we all know of and are familiar with. But it's not like I went there right afterward and bought them out. Again, it just made me relate to the movie more since they were referring to actual stores that I have been in and am familiar with.

The whole idea that there is an "unconscious code for products" is a bunch of bologna, in my opinion. There's no way that a human being can induce someone to persuade themselves. If it's something that you need, or that the advertiser makes you believe you need, that's a different story. But individually, you should know the difference. I do, however, believe that advertisers play on people's weaknesses, but I would call that good advertising. For example, good avertisers today know that there is a multitude of Americans who are weight conscious. Knowing this, they can obviously use it to their advantage and advertise with thin, beautiful people for their products. Or if advertisers pay attention to the ratings of television shows/series, they can tell which shows get the most audience. Therefore, they can pay to have their product all over the screen. (Absolut Hunk - Sex and the City) But again, if you go out and buy Absolut Vodka instead of Grey Goose because Samantha's playtoy of the season was seen on a pseudo ad in the show, then that's your own stupidity.

I can say that I was vulnerable to some things that The Persuaders pointed out to me in the movie. Vulnerable meaning that I didn't even realize what I was being told; not vulnerable in the fact that I bought something that I didn't really need. I know how hard I work for the money I have, as do all of you I am sure. So that makes me skeptical when I see an advertisement for "miracle" cream to clean up every blemish on my entire face for the REST OF MY LIFE!!! But hey, the persuaders know that we're getting smarter. So in turn, they're getting smarter too. They put Jessica Simpson as the spokesperson for the stuff, because hey, she knows exactly what she's talking about!!

Luntz Paper

I just finished reading the Luntz paper (obviously), and I think it makes quite a few good points. However, it is pretty obvious that there is an enormous hole in the ozone layer, so I find it hard to believe that there is still disagreement about pollution causing global warming. Obviously it happened; the only argument is over extent.

Anyway, the whole thing isn't really about the environment. The paper advised Republicans on how to make the American people understand their view and maybe even adopt it. For one thing, yes, the Republicans care about the environment. Think about it. We always say how the Republicans are rich, country club, WASPs. It's true. Of course the same holds true for Democrats. But look at it this way: If the sea level rises, their yacht clubs get flooded. If the grass is destroyed, no more golf. Not to mention that they also have to eat and drink from the food and water that comes from the ground.

So no one is really anti-environment. I do agree that companies should be made to pollute less, but the paper proves very accurate. Federal regulations require a lot of paperwork and rarely prove fruitful. Look what happened with no child left behind. Good idea, horrible results.

Use of "climate change" does seem like propaganda, but think about people for a second. Don't masses of people tend to panic over nothing? Remember Y2K? People aren't smart. If anything, this use of "climate change" makes people laugh and say, "You mean global warming?" Even that relieves the tension somewhat.

All in all, some very good persuasive techniques. Now, if only someone could get the two parties to stop bickering and combine their ideas.

Persuaders

After watching The Persuaders and learning about the different tactics of manipulation they use I began to wonder if this would change the way I looked at advertising industry. I feel like now I know all the secrets, but yet I am still buying into them. It's kind of like you know you're getting cheated on by a significant other, but you're still dating him/her. I've been thinking about it a lot lately and trying to decide if it is the result of advertising and persuasion which make us constantly yearn for more things, or if it just embedded into use innately. Simply put- is it society which makes us consumers or are we born with it? Just a thought I was pondering.

Luntz Reading

After watching the video in class and reading the piece on the environment by Luntz, I was a bit disappointed. I am an Environmental student, so this topic sort of hit home to me. I noticed first of all that the author seems to be republican, and, therefore obviously I thought the story he told was a bit biased. How can we be expected to believe a republican arguing against democrats, or even vise versa.

There was a lot in the paper I disagreed on. In all my classes thought my four years at KU, and especially last year in Environmental Science Senior Seminar, we touched base with a lot of the issues discussed in this article. I want to first clear up the misconception that Luntz and people everywhere make about global warming. The "warming" part of "Global Warming" is true, yet also a misnomer. We are taught in environmental Biology that global warming doesn't necessarily mean that the earth is just warming. It means that winters are colder, summers are hotter, storms are more violent and more frequent, etc. It means the earth's climate as a whole is changing. Lisa Newton and Catherine Dillingham wrote in their book Watersheds 3 that "predicted warming by 2100 will be 3 to 10 degrees F." They also state that 25% of the world lives less than 1.1 meters above sea level. To me, this is disturbing.

This brings me back to politics, and how they try to persuade people of what the people want to hear. The whole paper by Luntz is directed at giving the people the words they want to hear. Well, I want to see what I want to see. I don't believe people anymore when they say they will do something: I want to see it. I do like his idea of involving scientist's and researchers in a campaign, because the public will believe them much sooner than the politicians.

Bernays: Your Friend & Mine!

I could easily a see a knee-jerk reaction to what Bernays writes, so I'll write against that.

There is a definite tendency to negatively perceive the notions of propaganda and manipulation. Certainly these methods can, have, and will be used for the wrong purposes. In fact it was mentioned in class that wrongful manipulation of the public has been a problem since the days of Socrates. Plato wrote a work entitled "Gorgias" that basically shows that there are some people who consciously exist outside the common realm of logic, reason, and decency, and that knowingly and willfully use rhetoric to get what they want out of a situation, no matter how wrong that seems to the rest of us.

But really, that isn't everyone who gets up to a podium.

Firstly, we can sometimes overlook the fact that not everyone who wants to use propaganda to manipulate the audience is good at doing it. Actually, I think most people are very bad at it-- those are the people doing three-hour infomercials about the Egg Wave in the middle of the night. Yes, we can cut our way through ninety percent of the crap if we keep our minds attentive, and that goes for politics as well. There are probably only a handful of corporations and politicians who really know how to play the game, and people like that will always find a way of getting what they want. They always have.

But there really are GOOD uses for Bernays' tactics such as using "manipulation" to convince someone that Physics explains motion & energy and not their crazy parents or a magical talking bird. Bernays gives an example of a "proper" use of his ideas. The example is in reference to the Civil Rights movement, and how to overcome the obstacle of convincing all those die hard racists that racism is bad. Case in point, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech is not hinged on reason, necessarily, but on "manipulative" rhetoric. There are good, responsible people in the world that could make use of these methods to work against what the bad people do with them. Logic and reason can't always work because logic and reason aren't the best persuasive tools. Fear and flattery are.

Furthermore, writers of any genre can make use of Bernays' concept of "manipulation" for everyone's benefit. A reader can be entertained, a writer can make money and have the pleasure of pleasing. In fact, it's likely that most successful writers are highly conscious of when and when not to use certain words. That in itself is manipulation because it is twisting a description or situation to get a particular emotional response. If you use sophisticated ways of leading your audience in order to create a mood, what do you call that? Do you call that scary? Do you call it ethically questionable? Personally, I call it craftsmanship.

Polemics: The Never Ending Debate

(I also accidentally posted this as a response to the previous blog. I'm a bit challenged when it comes to the Internet)

This article clarified the way to approach arguments but unfortunately failed to extract the essential reasons/topics that are most widely debated today. It is easy to lay down "ground rules." I could do the same for the way we need to wash ourselves in the shower, but not everyone will wash himself or herself the same way. Likewise, Lazere's somewhat simplified way of battling over issues doesn't account for numerous other ways of conveying a particular point. This is not to say I agree or disagree with this article but, in most cases, it is nearly impossible to sensitively incorporate everyone's ideas into one set of rules. Nevertheless, I believe Lazere's "rules" could work (I like to keep an open mind), however once a topic is opened up, say for instance the morally delicate topics like religion and sex, there is no clear cut way to convince someone on how to considerately debate.

Although I am, in some way, hypocritical in that I am not offering a specific approach to remedy this problem, I would just like to point out why ground rules aren't the ultimate cure. First, when dealing with moral issues, or even some financial and social issues, people become more passionate and less sensitive to the opposition. Second, people turn to their faith (or beliefs) which limits the opposition from convincing them, and limits them from keeping an open mind. Lastly, people will take ideas the wrong way. Perception, then, becomes reality; there is nothing that you can, or cannot, say that the opposition won't find a way to point out that you are being politically incorrect or simply insensitive or ignorant.

Ground Rules for Polemicists

I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. Do I think it could ever be possible in this day and age to see two people with different views have an actual debate without throwing insults and berating the opposition? Why not? Anything's possible. Or better yet, if my country has belittled itself into this act of politics, why can't I hope for better days? I'm not a fan of politics for the simple reason that I don't trust any public figure anymore because there's always that AGENDA. Sure, I could agree with what you have to say, but are you only saying it to get my vote?
But that doesn't mean I excuse myself from politics altogether, like I've heard so many do, because politics is in everything- I'd simply be taking my thoughts out of the ring. Not that I'll most likely ever change anything, but I'd like the chance to know, as much as possible, what's going on in this world. Whether it be by reading newspapers, or online blogs, or gasp! even TV, I reserve the right to then make my own judgements as I believe everyone should do.
This list of ground rules that Lazere goes through may not change anyone's belief in how they debate, but what if it does? What would happen if we just took the ethics out of journalism because no one thought they had to listen?
I understand the goal in politics is getting elected and any means necessary is considered acceptable. But shouldn't the real goal be to make this country better? I'm as much as citizen of this country as anyone, and I find myself frustrated that the fate of our country in its whole is lost to most. And when I watch debates, or even a debate between coworkers who have different views, the same thing ensues- attacking. What happened to listening to one another in the slight chance that we might learn something? We are here for the same reason. If we all started listening to eachother, maybe the politicians would stop using tricky campaign maneuvers and start getting down to work.

More thoughts on Bernays

Reading Bernays essay, I was also struck by how little has really changed in the world of public relations and advertising. It is frightening to think that as far back as 1928 people were already attempting to re-shape the public’s reality through propaganda and selective dissemination of information. I’d like to think society as a whole only recently came to that. I think his ‘new’ technique of “the psychology of public persuasion” is the prevailing means of public relations today. It is upsetting to know Bernays encouraged advertisers to actively research the public in order to discover their weaknesses and prey upon them. It’s even more frightening to think that this still occurs, and that we go along with them, sometimes willingly.
Perhaps because of the date, and perhaps because I also just finished the essay on kairos, I am reminded about how much more fervent public relations/ the manipulating of public opinion became after September 11, 2001. Bernays discussed an experiment in New York endeavoring to chart relationships and attitudes towards specific subjects including religion, morality, and nationalism. He concluded that the attitudes were “often created by a circumstance or circumstances of dramatic moment.” (Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How, pg. 53) I apologize in advance if this offends any readers, but I can’t help being reminded how bombarded we were (and continue to be) by images of that day by companies trying to sell war, cars, clothing, insurance, presidential nominees, hot dogs, and a hundred other consumable goods. It appeared that every item offered came to us under the guise of patriotism, and while I’m sure this did strengthen our sense of community, and help us feel we as individuals could avenge the attacks, this form of propaganda quickly became just that – propaganda. It ultimately served to diminish and even ridicule the events: you need to drive a Hummer to protect your family in the event terrorists come to your street; you should refer to french fries as “freedom fries” to show your support for America and dissatisfaction for a country unwilling to blindly follow yours into war; you should buy American products, vacation within America, sticker an American flag on your car and insist the rest of the world adhere to American beliefs and ideals to give yourself peace of mind.
Bernays states, in his argument against the dangers inherent in dealing with public opinion, “ So that every man who teaches the public how to ask for what it wants is at the same time teaching the public how to safeguard itself against his own possible tyrannous aggressiveness.” (Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How, pg. 52) Why is it we as the public haven’t risen up to defend ourselves against the dictators of public opinion?

Weblog Ethics

I would have to strongly agree with the standards set in "Weblog Ethics" by Rebecca Blood. With so much garbage littering the Internet now, I think it would be nothing short of beneficial to follow the steps she has listed. By following these standards, the weblogger will prove to be credible, even if the weblogger posts a new blog to correct a mistake in his/her previous blog. Credible is an attribute that is not found very often on internet search results these days.

By providing the resources that Blood mentions; such as linking references, correcting misinformation, and keeping original postings as they are and available to view at all times, make for a more reliable source. These standards, combined with her other recomendations will help people like myself better able to sort out/distinguish the discredible information that is out there.

Current Kairos

I was just reading "Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation: Seizing the Moment," (another very long title) and was wondering if we are currently in a "kairos" moment. With hurricane Katrina blowing through the Gulf Coast and relief taking up to four days to arrive, I have seen an extensive amount of Bush bashing lately. (not saying i disagree). One particular is a letter to Bush from Michael Moore. If you haven't read it I would encourage you to check it out, http://seattle.craigslist.org/rnr/96399904.html, . Regardless of if what Moore is saying is factual or not, I think it's a great example of Kairos. It not only bashes Bush for late intervention to the hurricane, but also for various other topics such as: the war in Iraq, reducing Army Corps Engineering budgets, bush taking too much vacation time, bush ignoring a dead soldiers mother, you name it and it's probably there. I thought it was a pretty prime example of how moore seizes the moment to of the hurricane to promote his dislike towards bush.

Conflicts of opinion

From what i am reading from both of these articles, they can be relatively the same in certain ways. Both discuss the conflicts of opinion in certain situations involving journalism. But it caught my attention when Rebecca's pocket was talking about journalism. My major involves journalism so I guess that part of the article was more interesting to me. However, it states that journalists are "acutely aware of the potential for abuse that is inherent in their system..." I don't find that necessarily true because journalism is not always factual based. There are many forms of opinion and journalism relies more on entertainment to catch the attention of the viewers/listeners/readers. There are laws against journalists for "abuse" or displaying false information, depending on the case of course. One other thing I found interesting was in Rebeccas's pocket, the writer lists "standards". The first standard states "Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true". Someone very ignorant could post something inappropriate to my ears, yet makes sense to them. So in reality, there are no true boundaries for posting some form of opinion you may have on a certain event, right?

Comments on Bernays

First of all, if anyone knows how to indent, I would welcome that information. I just read "Manipulating the Public Opinion" and realized that, for something written in 1928, a lot of the techniques he discussed still applied today. For instance, the refusal to buy certain products until approved by Paris could be paralleled to reading fashion magazines or watching E! nowadays.

The story about the NAICP also intrigued me. For one thing, I'm suprised that they would say the organization was for the improvement of colored people, like they were defective. I guess that's why they changed the name. It was interesting to discover that they put so much PR-esque thought into factors such as location, guests, and publicity of the conference. Reading that story historically, I wouldn't think anything of it. The problem was in the South, so the conference should be in the South. But it was all part of manipulating public opinion.

Another similarity I see is the complete lack of boundaries for advertising. Case in point: salad dressing art expo. I had to shake my head, but it worked. Bernays made several good points, and I agree that public relations is a science. However, PR as a public service is a little hard to swallow.

Getting people to buy big hats instead of little felt ones is not a public service. It's an industrial service. I suppose in the big picture, it allows more people to have jobs at that company. Even so, it's not exactly providing shelter for the homeless. However, it can convince wealthier people to do so.

Some comments

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it doesn't look like anyone has "blogged," no the reading yet. So I guess I'll start.I just finished reading the articles from “rebecca’s pocket,” and “Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney’s Truths,” wow… that’s a long title. Anyways, these articles brought up some interesting ideas; however, I thought they were kind of unrealistic. I mean it would be amazing if we could actually follow these guidelines before publishing information, but I can not see that happening. For instance, “Do unto your own as you do unto others. Apply the same standards to yourself and your allies that you do to your opponents…” = the golden rule. In an ideal circumstance people would follow this rule, but when we have elections to win, votes to gain, who is really going to stop and say “Well I wouldn’t want him to point out my downfalls, so I’m not going to point out his.” Maybe I just have a pessimistic view of humanity, but for some reason I can’t see anyone truly fulfilling these guidelines. I guess that what’s makes them only “guidelines,” a high standard that we only WISH everyone would abide by.

Reminder about posting to the blog

Hey all,
Well, we've officially passed one week since we last met and won't meet until next week. Given that it's been a while since we discussed posting to the blog in class, I wanted to refresh your memory. I noticed that several people have already posted comments--good to see. As you get ready to post your responses to the reading for next week, remember the following:

• There are still a few people who have not yet accepted their invitation to join the blog. Everyone should have received an invite email with a link to click on. If you have not done so at this point, please accept your invitation ASAP so we can deal with any problems you may encounter.
• While anyone can comment on a post through the ENG 230 blog homepage, in order for your post to appear on the blog main page, you need to log in through Blogger. To do this, go to the blogger homepage and log in there. Once you are logged in, you should be taken to the blogger "Dashboard" which lists the blogs you are subscribed to. Click on "Mahoney's ENG 230 Blog." You can then click on "create a post" and you're off and blogging.
• Please try to post to the blog at least two days before class so others have the chance to read your post and respond. Remember, you can post to the blog as you are reading...don't feel you have to read everything before posting.
• Please let me know if you are having any problems posting so we can work out the kinks ASAP.
  

See you next week, on the blog before then!