brainstorming

So I began brainstorming for the final paper topic last week, and I started by thinking about what I've become interested in throughout the readings for the past couple of weeks. The first thing that popped into my head was to begin with a topic that brought out a lot of strong opinions, emotions, and new ideas, and run with it. That is when an especially sarcastic title came about (yes, a title first)... "A guide on how to master the art of selling things that do not matter"
After the title came the rush of ideas, NOT definite quite yet. I basically want to discuss the art that our market has created over the years in selling everything imaginable. I would like to do extensive research as to what techniques people use to sell certain products and how they get so deeply in the minds of consumers. I would really like to find out what people really are thinking when they feel a need to buy these items being advertised. Is it something that they feel unable to control? I'd like to discuss how this art of advertising and constant marketing has and will foreer manipulate our identities; from the time we are born till the end of our lives- it'll always be around. The market definitly has some control over class differences aswell and it will constantly be affected. I'm not completely sure if this is the idea I'm going to use, but tell me what you think!

Research paper topic

I'm pretty sure that I am going to use the Harry Potter series as the basis for my research paper. The series is HUGE in terms of popularity among both kids and adults, but it has also sparked a large amount of controversy in the realms of religion and morality.

Extremist Christian groups frequently claim that the novel are an avenue for spreading the values of witchcraft and satanism, evidenced by the obvious surface of the plot, but also within the tales, characters, and words used themselves (Hermes, Slytherin, etc. all being real demon names). Meanwhile, there is a huge push from the other spectrum of Christianity that sees the series as a retelling of the Biblical stories and moral ideals, like the obvious struggle between good and evil, and the focus on love being the saviour of all.

But how does this relate to class? Well, we've been dealing a lot with the public opinion and the methods used to sway public opinion. This paper will not be just an examination of the controversy, but I am also going to look at the different ways in which both sides of the debate frame their arguements and attempt to align public opinions with their own.

I am planning to use mostly internet sources for this paper, because of the vast majority's inclination to turn to the web for information, therefore, this is the stuff that will be the most useful in terms of how these groups are trying to persuade the public. So far it has been working out, I have found a couple of really great sites which have some articles that have been really useful.

~Amber~

Final Paper Ideas

For the final paper I am a little lost as to what I want to write about. Its amazing how we ask for freedom on paper topics and then when we are given the opportunity to "let loose" I am so lost and need guidance and strict guidelines..lol ( are we able to use lol? this blog is REAl informal)oh boy...well I have two very general ideas.
First I have been kicking around the idea of democracy. Post Ramage, we have read many papers dealing with public discourse and language. We learned about the tactics and strategies used. After reading all the assignments I am left wondering... Do we still have a democracy? If there are people who know how to manipulate and generate emotions in us, are we still in control of ourselves? I don't know. I don't believe Luntz, Lakoff, Bernays,etc. are trying to manipulate thought control but I do find it frightening that they have the ability to persuade our thoughts. Maybe I could look at a few rhetoricians that we have discussed and examine their roll in a democracy.
Secondly, and this idea is far-fetched, I am really interested in exploring language and public discourse within abusive relationships. It seems language and the tone of which the partner uses is very effective in either making the other partner feel degraded or that the abuse is okay. Its odd, I know, but I think I'm on to something. Abusive relationships definitely incorporate thought control, language and public discourse. I am going to print out stuff about each of my topics and maybe everyone can help me further ideas in class.

I am totally at a lost for what I want to do this paper on. I mean I really dont think that I can add anything new to this discussion, based on the readings because everything was pretty much self explanitory.... words effect how we think, act, vote and make purchases.

Maybe I can use luntz's word that work and Lakoff's book to discuss relationships between familes , friends, couples or ourselves, and how they may be based on these principles. I mean if words can effect the way we think of an issue, Im sure , no I know it effects how we feel on the inside about ourselves and others.

On another note I have always been an celebrity / fashion/ music junky so I am thinking on doing my paper around one of those topics and the results that they have on our society. How we dress, act and respond to issues that happen in our society.

This paper will not discuss how hip hop or rock music are the cause for teen violence but rather the role they play in how we as a society judge ourselves or how our society and culture have
changed overtime. Focusing primarily on language and advertising and the messeages that are conveyed through the media, through television programs, youtube and other mediems, and if there is a connection between them.

This will probably be based off of readings from Lipman and Bernays since they talked about public relations strategy's and how to persuade the public.

To me these topics are still very broad...and Im not very confident that they will make a great paper...so ill play aound with them and see where it takes me.

Paper Ideas

I have a few ideas for this paper that I'm considering. I'm really excited about the freedom we have with this paper. Is it weird I'm actually looking forward to writing it? I'm probably going to do it in narrative form. I have 2 or 3 ideas in my head right now.
I'm mainly concerned with the workings of the major media corporations and how this ultimately affects society. I was either going to look at propaganda and coercion within the larger media companies and how it impacts society - or how the media is possibly dumbing down society or molding our identities to fit their needs.
I was also interested in the examples Luntz put throughout his Words that Work piece about Robert Shapiro's use of words to make the judges feel uncomfortable and allow O.J. Simpson to appear innocent despite the incriminating evidence against him. I'd like to explore this a bit more in order to understand the integrity of our legal system.

it's common sense

I’ve thought a little about the conversation I want to join for my final paper, and though still very sketchy, I’m thinking about using this idea of “common sense”. It has been discussed by most of our authors, Luntz in particular wrote a lot about the norms of which a society follows. I want to take this conversation, look at how a belief achieves the title of “common sense”. I would also like to look into tradition as the ways one of these ideas being passed along through the generations. Some of the most influential beliefs have been carried generations through oral tradition, I might examine our countries holidays and write about the generalities between them to possibly find some bit of underlining common sense.

Spectrum?

My idea for the final project is still in the works, but well on it's way. I actually got the idea from the response paper. I was to compare rhetoric and public discourse. I will use the first page of the paper as a solid discription of rhetoric.. like it is the far side of a spectrum. The last page will end up to be a solid discription of public discourse, the other side of the spectrum. As I go further into the middle of the paper the two sides will blend and end in the middle with a complete comparison, or similarities of the two.

Like I said, it's still in the works. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Song and Spade

Ok so as I said in class, I plan on doing my project on the participation of the Kate Spade Corporation in the Song Airlines advertising strategy. I'm not exactly sure what I want to do yet, but I'm hoping it will be something a little more exciting than just a research paper. Maybe something a little more colorful....hmmmm....I don't know yet.

Song and Spade

Ok, So as I said in class on Tuesday, I plan on doing my project on the participation of Kate Spade Corporation in the Song Airline advertising. I hope to make it a bit more interesting than a research paper, but I'm not sure how yet. I was thinking maybe some sort of a business plan or something. Something colorful....hmmm....I don't know yet.

Autism Speaks Donation Info

I am participating in Walk Now for Autism to help find a cure for autism. Autism is the second most common developmental disorder in the United States affecting one in every 150 children born today. Despite some promising discoveries, the cause of autism is unknown and a cure does not exist. Research is crucial. Every 20 minutes another child is diagnosed with autism. Not only must we find ways to improve the quality of life for children and adults with autism, but we also must find a cure, and soon.
Walk Now for Autism is our chance to make a difference in the fight against autism by raising money for autism research and heightening public awareness. Please join me in my fight as I raise $200.00 to help fund essential research. I will be walking on April 12, 2008 and would like you to support those affected by autism. You can donate to Walk Now for Autism and join my team online through my webpage at www.walknowforautism.org. Donations can also be mailed to Autism Speaks using the donation form located on my page or send me a check made out to Autism Speaks. My team name is Braden's Bunch; please note this on your check and the donation form.
Please join me in my fight against autism. Thank you for making a difference in the lives of the more than 1 million Americans living with autism today.
Sincerely,

Erin McGee
Donations are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. 501 (C)(3) NUMBER: 20-2329938
MATCHING GIFT PROGRAM Many companies provide their employees with matching gifts. Please consult your employer on its matching gift guidelines and attach matching gift forms accordingly.

Link to my donor page...

https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg/donorPledge.asp?ievent=252496&lis=0&kntae252496=1281FB1C852C4D19999E8A274A375E43

Paper topics

As soon as Mahoney said we could write about anything that interests us and in any style my boyfriend Luntz immediatly came to mind. I am going to write a narrative in the voice of a woman who is engaged to Frank Luntz. This way I can write in an style that interests me, cover the material I like and fulfill my hidden desires to date him.
I just can't get over how much time this man takes to pick out particular words and their precise ordering so that he effectively communicate with the public. This got me thinking that if he takes this much time to talk to the public how does he interact in his personal relationships?

That's about all I have so far, I'm going to research more of his work and articles about him by next class.

Second Half of Don't Think of an Elephant

I remember when I first read the "From Theory to Action" half of Don't Think of an Elephant, I felt a little bitter toward Lakoff because it seemed that he just assumed that everyone besides himself was an idiot who needed to be enlightened. I felt he was especially shedding this impression on progressives. But looking over it again, I see the validity in his "back to basics" approach. I like how he lays out what conservatives believe and how they present it. It is good to be sure of your opposing side's viewpoints. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that aren't even sure of what it is they stand for, and this is a good thing to know. Laying out what progressives think also was a necessary move as well. I think he could have coated his descriptions with a little less of a biased attitude, but hey, he can do what he wants. It's his book. No one's forced to read it. Well, almost no one.
The frequently asked questions part seemed rudimentary at first, and I kind of disregarded its value. But thinking about it again, those are real questions that real people are wondering about. Not everyone knows what strategic initiative is. I know I didn't before we started going over these issues. But it is a major component of the overall scheme of politics.
The whole "how to respond to conservatives" section reminded me of a guide book for a womens' self defense class. I think his aim was greater than merely "and step one is STAND UP FOR YOUR VALUES!" and more about reinforcing things that people already know but may or may not be conscious of the actual effect of these actions. Addressing the fundamentals reminds a person of his or her reasons for being where they are, and strengthens and sharpens their mindsets. Heck, it's even a bit motivational. I can almost picture Lakoff in a cheerleading uniform shouting B-E_A-G-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E! I'm going to stop picturing that now.

He's not such a bad guy...

So, I couldn't find Luntz's "The Ten Rules of Effective Language" on E-Reserves, so I did a Google search, and hopefully I got the right thing.

Luntz's rules are very easy and simple, and they don't really seem like they are all that much geared towards trying to brainwash people, which is kind of the sense that I got from him before. I thought of him kind of as the guy that takes our feedback and uses it as a weapon against us, trying to group everyone into the same camp. While he does essentially use our feedback, it isn't so much for use in some evil scheme of his own, rather his rules paint it out more as though he is trying to cater to us, not control us.

For example, rules 1 and 2 are simplicity and brevity. There is absolutely nothing worse than some politician sitting on his high horse spitting paragraph after paragraph of his philosophy at you, using these big ass words that you know they themselves don't even understand, and then expecting you to vote for them. Luntz understands that it isn't about how long or how much you say, it is essentially what you are saying that matters, and if you want people to pay attention to what you are saying, the best way to do it is to be concise and to the point.

The other thing that Luntz gets is our need for entertainment. Rule number 8 is to visualize-describe something and make it become real for the listeners. The best books to read are the ones that have the most imagery, the ones that make you feel like you are right there in the novel, the same goes for speeches. If you really want me to pay attention to you, make it interesting, give me something to cling on to. Don't just babble all kinds of meaningless scenarios, make me feel like I am living whatever point you are trying to get across.

Overall, I dislike him less after reading this, because it doesn't seem as manipulative and one-sided as I originally thought it was going to be. I think that the rules he lays out are general rules which people can, and should, apply to all different areas, political or otherwise.

Democrat...Republican...What's the difference?

Ok, I must say that I did find Lakoff's book to be interesting. I do not, however, completely agree. It seems what Lakoff is saying is that republicans are the only ones who takes words and use them to their advantage. If this were so, then what would be the purpose of having more than one political party. I believe that all politicians, whether they are republicans or democrats, or whatever party Ross Perot was associated with, uses words to their advantage. As far as frames go, I completely agree. Frames are definitely used in every day society. The "don't think of an elephant" scenerio if completely on target. It's just like telling a little kid not to touch something, of course their going to touch it. By not making something out in the open or obvious, makes people oblivious to it. Lakoff seemed to really make democrats see dumb and humble, and made the republican party seem sly and powerful. In all actuality, however, the democratic party does the same thing that the republicans do. Politics is just a play on words. Just because a politician says they're going to do something if and when they are elected, does not mean that they will actually do it. There are alot of other people that they have to go through before any law is passed or tax is reduced. (by the way: not all of those people are republicans) This reminds me of elections in highschool where kids promised all sorts of things that they were at no liberty to promise just because it sounded "cool". (like better cafeteria food) Even though they were just talking "bs" in order to gain popularity and people knew it, they were usually still voted into office. It's pretty sad to me that the politicians that run our country, or try to, have no different morals or "truths" than a highschool kid who promises the student body better vending machines if elected.

Persuasion Gone MAD!

So, what do Bernays, Lippman, Luntz, etc.. all have in companion? Well, they would have persuaded me! Feeling easily confused, or suffocated by Rhetoric, or how about being persuaded into individuality? How about trying a low dose of an election year of being stuck between one candidate and another? Who is the better liar, or shall we just call them a crusader of persuasion. I think not! Your vote matters, your opinion counts, but how so? Its an age old question of who is an individual and how is not in our democracy. Well, according to Bernays, Lippman, Luntz, etc... we all have a point in which we are easily buy able or persuaded. I was walking in the mall the other day when I realized i just needed to put down the items in my hand. Yes, materialistic is what I was being, but was i being persuaded. The answer there involved much thinking over my purse and self proclaimed new watch all because the actresses on T.V. had them. Oh, shit, that's right I was just doped. My life was handed over to me in persuasion. When does the madness ends? How do I catch myself in the act? I can't because unfortunately I'm like most Americans a Consumer... Bernays, Lippman, and Luntz my mind has been persuaded, you've won this round!

don't persuade me, i've been framed officer

When writing about manipulating public interest, it’s best to be as discrete about it as possible while still conveying the desired hidden messages. As I read the two author’s confounding political ideals the more I feel I’m being framed with each passing page. Lakoff and Luntz, though totally different in political affiliation, are similar in that they write books emphasizing the importance of public awareness, but write with the intention of persuading their audience. What better way to capture public interest than in what Bernays would describe as a constructed persuasive motivator? Though not technically any type of organized event, writing books about the necessity of persuasion in democracy might really motivate somebody of the opposite party to change their voter affiliation. I don't honestly believe that these guys are completely out to persuade, in their own eyes I'm sure they feel their doing there civil duties in educating voters whether for either party.

Once in a while, I found both authors to be talking about similar concepts using different analogies, such as Lakoff’s apology compared to Luntz’s word labs, both give the one being persuaded what they're looking to hear. This whole learning about persuasion while being persuaded, is a little tricky to get around at first. But the more you’re exposed to this stuff the easier as a reader it is to differentiate from what’s practical truth and what’s persuasion. Anyway, both are interesting figureheads of each of their respected parties, and provide an interesting read.

We are ALL THE SAME

It is my humble opinion that both LUNTZ AND LAKOFF are the same type of people just on different spectrums. LAoff even mention this is his book on pg 5 when he says
“ these are strange people their positions make no sense, but then an embarrassing thought occurred to me. I have exactly the opposite position on every issue”

However I do feel as if Luntz’s word manipulation is a bit more harmful to the public because it becomes the basis of which every ignorant and uneducated (on the facts) person basis their argument. They hear the words illegals, and that they are going to take jobs and use up welfare. When in reality this has been over stated…NO body wants the jobs…and if they are truly illegals…there is no way they are collecting welfare. The paper work is really gruesome and requires a lot of paperwork and identification. But that is another story.

Sorry about the ranting,

Anyhow, I guess it is not Luntz’s fault that people are so easily moved by words, In his defense I guess it is just the way we have been trained to think….framed.

LAkoff describes framing as getting language that fits your worldview. This is why when ever I hear a view or opinion that does not relate to my world or things that relate to me, or should I say, don’t benefit my people…woman, African Americans, college students, poor, (I kinda fit here )but you get the picture… if it doesn’t fit my frame I am against it.
But that is exactly how everyone feels…its how we live our life. Lakoff even tells us that we vote based on identity which doesn’t have to coincide with our self interest. Which shows that we really think that we are making the best choice, based off how we view ourselves. And who want to think that they are wrong, or not the best choice…lol

Sadly, Americana have just now realized that the government has figured us out to a science and know knows how to pacify us, and gain our trust and have us believing that they have our best interest at heart. But then again so do advertisers, our parents when they want us to eat nasty peas, and sexy guys and girls that you meet at the bar, who want to take you home.
Every one has an agenda…its just up to you to not fall into the trap…REPEATEDLY because we all fall for it once.

I'm an Elephant!!

So...I'm a little offended at the introduction to this book.

I am a Republican, and I don't knock other people for not sharing my political views, nor do I run around trying to get people to believe what I believe. I get a little irritated, not with the fact that people do not agree with me, that's perfectly alright, in fact, very few people agree with me about anything. What bothers me is the way that Lakoff starts out his whole little book by talking about the foundations of the Republican belief system. In all fairness he does go through the basis of liberal beliefs as well, but the tone of voice in which he describes the basic reasoning behind each camp is dramatically different.

The whole time he talks about the conservatives, he uses a somewhat sarcastic and cynical tone, to the point where even I am questioning my own beliefs. He makes them out to be immoral people who put on this facade of morality through tricky language and veiled actions. So what if I don't believe in funding "social welfare" programs. The way I see it, all I'm doing is allowing people to live for free while I bust my ass to try and make a living for myself. Does that make me immoral for not believing in unlimited programs for people in the US? Why?

When he moves onto discussing the family values of the liberals, we switch from a patriarchal point of view to a "nurturing family" idea. Basically, he paints the Democrats as this peace-loving, socially concerned, family-oriented group of people, while us Republicans become the rotten apples.

I don't know, I may be reading far too much into it, but I think he should have been a little more conscious of the fact that many readers maybe turned off by his almost immediate bias, or at least what i perceived to be a bias. After that first section, I got pretty annoyed, and even though I tried to read what he was saying, I couldn't really focus, I was a little too annoyed.

~Amber~

Frame and Reframe

"Frame and re-frame" seem to be Lakoff's favorite phrase in his book, Don't think of an elephant. While there are some commonalities between Lakoff and Luntz ,I felt that the two were a little different. I feel like Lakoff isn't exactly manipulating public opinion but more so letting us be aware that it is happening. Luntz, on the other hand, makes his career off of manipulating words and phrases to appeal more to an audience. However the two are similar in the means of they are both framing and re-framing situations and concepts.



A part I enjoyed, that again showed the depths of language and linguistics, was Lakoff's discussion on the word "evil" on page 57. After reading Luntz I was aware that certain phrasing of words is more appealing but the appeal even goes into our unconscious mind. Lakoff talks of these connections we make, with words, as metaphors. After 9/11 the Bush administration used several words to describe the terrorists who took down the towers. They referred to them as rodents, swamp creatures, etc. Finally, Bush settled on the word evil. I'm sure Bush was unaware of the significance of using the word evil, never the less, he used it and America started making connections. When Lakoff showed the metaphor of evil and "the enemy of evil is good", I think us, as humans, can relate to that. If we consider ourselves good, then that means what our values and morals are good too. Ultimately, everyone wants to feel good and think that what they are doing in life is morally and culturally right. If a politician can make someone feel that emotion, while giving a speech or whatever, that politician can bank on that citizen's vote. It can be thought of as manipulation but I think, its nature. Why wouldn't I go with the candidate who relates the best to me and makes me feel safe and comfortable. It'd be foolish not too. Luntz and Lakoff both have many examples of how to re-frame an issue. Reframing is all part of rhetoric; being able to see things in a new or innovated way.

Both Lakoff and Luntz provide interesting insight on the world of politicians and public speaking. While the two differ, both relate to each other in some aspects. Through each other their writings we can learn and be aware of all our surrounds in attempts to make a well-round personal opinion on issues that are important.

Luntz & Lakoff: Don't Think.

American's are the most fickle human beings. We are persuaded by the simplest of words. Who would have thought that, just by bending a few truths, we would be so quick to conform? It is a very strange thing to think about. How many times in our lives have our minds been changed just by a simple word or phrase? Crazy, no?

Though I believe Luntz's article to be very interesting, I think he's a lunatic. For some reason he just comes off as a jerk to me. Why would you be proud to be able to persuade the masses by your simple intelligence? Oh, right.. because he's a crazy genius! I'm sure we would all be proud of that. He does fail, however, to go into any explanation on why he chooses certain words over others. This is where Lakoff's strength was. He was not only able to find ways to change certain words to appeal to certain people, but he also explained why he did what he did. He tells us about "framing" and the "two different models of a family." He shows us, he doesn't just brag. I think I like Lakoff more because of this.

The one thing that grabbed me in Lakoff’s book was how the world is based on one big metaphor. We, as the public, wrap our selves up in the idea that we can give human characteristics to just about anything. For example, the explanation that Lakoff's gives on page 53. We saw 9/11 as a metaphor. The towers were human, they fell, and therefore they are dead. Our country is human, it was betrayed, and therefore it is upset. It is the easiest way for us to identify and fit our feelings into the current situation.

Lakoff later goes on the explain how the government gets away with their lies, I'm sorry.. I mean their mere exaggerations. The numerous reasons for still being in Iraq are solid examples. Many people believe, as told by Lakoff, that, no matter if any statement is truly a lie, if the person telling it believes it and does not intend to deceive those he is telling it must not really be a lie. This is how our public is "trained." Well, of course if HE says it's true, if HE believes it's okay, then it must be. This is how our country is persuaded. We all fall for it. Scary, isn’t it?

I was looking back at previous blog entries from semesters before and noticed the comparison between “Don’t Think of an Elephant” and the band, Hanson. I must admit that I’m not sure how the author was able to fit MMMBop into Lakoff, but being a true and continuous Hanson fan myself, I must say BRAVO! (I just had to add this as a little side note.)