.
Forget the Facts, M’am; Make ’em Laugh:“People don’t ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts.”
—Robert Keith Leavitt, author & journalist
Speak up! Feedback and suggestions—printable and otherwise—always welcome. After all, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “There are no false opinions.”
Pease’s Soapbox:
This is a pretty fair (and balanced?) capsule of how political decision-making works in this country. Far from the Age of Reason, Campaign 2008 is all about Sales. And Sales means Branding and Message and Misdirection and Emotion. The Bush Administration was famously accomplished in staying On Message, and most in the press and the American Flock queued up like sheep. The results play out daily in Iraq and worldwide.
The candidates of 2008 have learned these lessons well. Rather than offer more complex and difficult policy options, which are required to make significant differences in the lives of Americans, Obama and McCain fall back not just on sound-bites, but on mini-bites: “Change!” “Hope!” “New!” “Improved!” This is straight out of Madison Avenue. It means as much as a Cialis commercial.
What “change”? Whose “change”? What does it mean? We Americans have become so accustomed to the shorthand of the Information Age that we accept the emotional promise as a down payment on the substance it implies. But the principle payment never comes. Of course we all want “change”—70 percent of us do after seven-plus years of the Bush administration. But we need to be a little smarter than Pavlov’s dogs as we digest the latest “change” promise. What does Obama mean when he rides the Change Wave? And McCain’s version of “change”—does it mean Sarah Palin and a rifle, or is there more to it? (This is an important question in assessing a 71-year-old senator who has backed the Bush administration 90 percent of the time....)
Today’s WORDster, Mr. Leavitt, suggests that an emotional pitch—promising cleaner hair and fewer zits, for example—is more palatable and accessible to Americans than facts. Facts require word—hard work—including individual assessment, critical thinking, a knowledge base that most of us are too lazy to acquire. So just promise us “change,” Mr. Wannbe President—Lord knows, it’s worked before.
I agree with the premise that generating a good dose of strong emotion is far more effective at manipulating peoples' decisions, than presenting them with cold facts....sad, true, depressing!
ReplyDeleteAnd you know the old "KISS" principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid! - seems that has become the mainstay of election campaign messaging....
When I was living in Australia, I was involved with Reworking Tomorrow/Australia Connects, a national grassroots affiliation of people interested in working to create a sustainable environment, community, economy, representative (Empty Centre) government etc...
This group was endorsed by Robert Theobald (Canadian social economist, then based in Spokane, Washington, now deceased).
I remember having this exact same debate with the members of this group:
Change - what kind of change, what does it look like, how do you measure it, who is involved in the change-making, who will it impact etc, etc....
So very hard for even the most engaged and dedicated people to articulate and agree on something so fundamentally-necessary (witness the current state of the planet), but not necessarily universally desired - vested interest groups have a lot to lose when change is on the horizon.
I dont know Americans very well, but I wonder if 'lazy' is the right adjective ... lazy to an extent, but also deluded by their own PR that this country (and its system of living) is the best and the self-proclaimed saviour of the world. And it seems that 'fact' gives it the right to do as it pleases, when it pleases, domestically, internationally and globally in terms of the earth being a living organism at the effect of human decisions and actions...
Yes, and today's sound-bite and one-liner TV news coverage furthers that sad state of affairs. How many cumulative hours have been devoted to pointless discussion of whether Obama was talking about Palin when he used the "lipstick on a pig" line? Ditto the pro-and-con chatter on Rep. Cohen's inane "Jesus was a community organizer and Pilate was a governor" remark. True--and Julius Caesar was murdered by legislators!
ReplyDeleteJoseph Benham
Ted...
ReplyDeleteGood points all. However, your comment seems to equate the two campaigns in the "quality" of their appeals. Appealing to emotion with "spin" defined as presenting something in a light most favorable to your objective is different that outright lying. While both campaigns have done the expected spinning, McCain's ads have been singled out for lying. Some border on racist.
Obama has in fact made quite specific "change" policy positions clear both in speeches and on his website.
Whether or not you agree with them is different that saying they don't exist.
Well, whose job is it to uncover and publicise the lies, then? Is that not the job of journalists - isnt that the raison d'etre of journalism - to represent and to get in where 'ordinary' citizens cant and to find out and make public?
ReplyDeleteI have had lots of discussions about this with fellow journalists - here, in Australia and New Zealand (I worked as an editor/newsreader for public radio and television in NZ in the early 1990s).
It all comes back down to the political being personal and vice versa.... and also to those too-often touted catchphrases - "be the change you want to see" (in terms of media neutrality and accuracy) and "think global, act local" - do what you can in your own sphere of influence (your own beat, your own paper, your own radio/TV station), and, if a significant number of others will also act in their own spheres, it will change the larger situation.
I'm probably showing my extreme naivety and idealism here, but....
dont we journalists, personally, individually, have a responsibility to seek out the truth and to work for media outlets that dont have a political or financial agenda? Isnt our responsibility/obligation/duty something akin to the hippocratic oath that doctors take? First, do no harm?
I dont think enough individuals have thought this through and taken it on board/owned it for themselves...
otherwise, we wouldnt be here at the beginning of the 21st Century with the media in this state....
And I know all the arguments about monopolies, and a shrinking industry and job insecurity and all that.... I'm sorry, they're just all excuses for not being personally accountable for what we put out there - they let us shovel the blame up the chain and claim to be victims of the system...
Change in journalism has to start somewhere and that's at the bottom/foundation of the pyramid....
If you destabilise the base and mid-section of the pyramid (1st line staff - reporters, editors, etc), eventually the whole structure will come down.... look at what's happening to the middle class, as the foundation of this socio-economic system - cripple the middle class and the system begins to collapse.... same difference, if you ask me - which you didnt!!! Big grin!
But choices have consequences.
ReplyDeleteBefore we make a choice we may regret for the next four years, the accusations against Barack Obama should be carefully considered, as they are here.