| Author | Message |
|---|
MontysDouble
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Feb 2010, 07:27 · [Salvaged from Archive]
I'm often annoyed by the vagaries of the mindless twitter that spills from politicians' mouths in nice little packets suitable for ten second sound bites.
They use the most atrociously non-specific words, they waffle, they appear to say very little while -one suspects- they are actually communicating a great deal to a certain kind of listener: A kind of listener who starts by saying "I wonder what he meant by that?" then proceeds to fill in the blanks with assumptions molded by the listener's perspective. It doesn't matter if the politician is for business or proletariat or whether the listener agrees with him: This type of listener hears what he wants to hear thanks to the images that are attached to the buzzwords.
Now, the buzzwords themselves are interesting.
Who could disagree with "Australian/American/English values"? Obviously nobody from the respective countries... but what exactly does it mean?
Nothing and everything: One presumably sees some of one's own values reflected in govt actions and the opinions of other citizens (or even residents?!), and the antithesis of one's own values reflected in other govt actions and the opinions of other, presumptively Un-Australian/American/English citizens.
The point being: Nations are not homogeneous. Come election time incumbent, climbing or wannabe politicians have to keep a finger on the pulse of public discussion and carefully craft their utterances to avoid being seen as outre- left or right.
This PDF is food for thought... much food for much thought:
https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=discussion_papers/DP…
What exactly is being said is apparently only one facet of the whole message... you have to love our minds with their wonderful talent for free-association, or do you? :D |
JooX
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Feb 2010, 08:15 · [Salvaged from Archive]
Crap
I had to save it for later reading.
Where do you get these wonderful toys? |
MontysDouble
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Feb 2010, 09:01 · [Salvaged from Archive]
^^^ J F Sebastian. :D |
HeyBuddy
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 24 Feb 2010, 10:34 · [Salvaged from Archive]
My favorite political strategy is when someone gets up and states a bunch of goals. They never give a plan, but the goals get the crowd all fired up.
Then, there's the old strategy of saying nothing at all. That was Obama's strategy during the election. I used to ask his supporters all the time what they liked about his policy. They didn't have any answer. All they knew was hope and change.
Another favorite of mine is when they talk about education. Politicians love to talk about putting more money toward education, and it's a crowd pleaser. They just never tell you how that money will be used, or how it will improve education. The spending goes up every year at a staggering rate, but somehow people are convinced that money will make kids smarter. Consider this. Indiana has, depending on the school district, as many as 4 to 5 administrators for every teacher. Do we need more money, or do we need to reduce the number of administrators? Maybe 1 good administrator could manage 4-5 teachers.
I like it when a politician gives a PLAN, and it makes sense, but our debates allow for about 30 seconds of pandering, and then you have to give the floor back to your competition. |
MontysDouble
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 24 Feb 2010, 15:08 · [Salvaged from Archive]
^^^ True.
Here's an interesting nugget from the PDF:
The elusive nature of some dog-whistle politics raises some interesting questions. If its essence is deniability, then how do we know for sure that any given utterance is a deliberate dog whistle? Might we not give our politicians the benefit of the doubt, and accept that they are not necessarily sending coded or implicit messages aimed at inflaming the prejudices of certain voters? Might not some statements simply be spontaneous remarks made in the cut and thrust of politics? We cannot know for sure, because a dog whistler will never own up to their real intentions.
Fortunately, there is evidence that politicians sometimes deliberately set out to use words and phrases that allow them to deny their more sinister intentions. In 2004, a confidential memo to the Republican Party was leaked to the American media.
Entitled Communicating the Principles of Prevention & Protection in the War on Terror, it was written by Frank Luntz, the pollster and political consultant famous for helping the Republicans cast doubt on the science of global warming and steer the public towards the more benign term climate change (ABC 2005; Yurica 2005).3
The document includes the following exhortation:
This is not a war of religion but a war against those with radical political ideologies. This has rightfully been part of the Administrations playbook since the days immediately following September 11th. This is not a war against Islam. Extracting religion from the equation and emphasizing the shared radical ideology in support of the fall of Western culture has layered effectiveness. First, you inoculate yourself from criticisms that you are motivated by religious bigotry. Second, it allows you to challenge ALL those who use violence as a political weapon (Luntz 2004, p. 4).4 |
