If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
Oratory uses rhetoric to sell a concept; that is, to persuade others to agree with whatever is the message of the day, whether it be political, religious or a product for sale.
Speakers skilled in the techniques of rhetoric use fact and suggestion to imply a conclusion. They build on a strong base of beliefs held by the audience, then start them on a rhetorical road and wait for them to infer a conclusion.
When done right, the speaker leads the audience to jump to a desired conclusion, sparing the speaker the risk of saying it directly. That way, if there is a negative backlash from a larger population, the speaker can deny having said anything negative. The speaker can claim he is not responsible for erroneous conclusions and opinions made by those in the audience.
What's better? Brevity. Say what you have to say, be done with it and stop. Longer is not necessarily better. An editor once said, "If you can't tell the story in 500 words, you can't tell it. And the story hasn't been written that can't be cut."
Politics today seems to be more of a shouting match than anything else. It's a competition to see who can talk longer, louder and say less than the other guy. It's more an appeal to emotion than to reason. That, of course, is one of the techniques of rhetoric, to appeal to emotion. One of the slogans of the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign was, "In your heart, you know he's right." However, many people vote from the head, not the heart.
In the first Nixon-Kennedy presidential debate, those who heard it on radio felt Nixon won, while those who watched on television said Kennedy won. That's an example of image defeating reason.
Smart campaigners use all the techniques of rhetoric and persuasion: especially image, reason and emotion, and tailor their message to the preferences of whoever the audience of the day is.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Ted Offensive
When all else fails, do it again. And again. And again. And again.
That way madness lies.
Be reasonable; do it my way.
Even when you know that truth, fact and reality don't conform to your preconceived notions of what is right, keep going, because that's the road to power. Keep swimming against the tide in the belief that eventually, the tide will turn. And yes, the tide will turn, and you will be swept out to sea, alone.
For Sen. Ted Cruz, the tide has changed, and old hands in the Senate will find ways to isolate the freshman senator to desert islands of subcommittees, where those with no seniority are stranded, with no voice.
Meanwhile, the TV cameras and microphones will move on to the next mouth, to the next flashy topic roused by the next flashy speaker.
Sen. Cruz is a fine orator. He has a strong, pleasant, clear voice, with a confident manner and delivery, calculated to rouse the faithful into following his lead. However, no matter how convincing his manner and how assuring his delivery, sometimes he's just plain wrong.
Keep in mind that half-truths can equal whole lies, when part of the information is left out and the context is incomplete.
Example: Yesterday, Sen. Cruz repeated his charge that UPS had canceled spousal health insurance for 15,000 of its employees because of Obamacare, thus implying that all those people will be without health insurance. He left unsaid the fact that these spouses are employed elsewhere, and already have health insurance through their own employers, so there was no need for duplication.
Hammering away at a half truth is an old technique that demagogues have used for generations.
That way madness lies.
Be reasonable; do it my way.
Even when you know that truth, fact and reality don't conform to your preconceived notions of what is right, keep going, because that's the road to power. Keep swimming against the tide in the belief that eventually, the tide will turn. And yes, the tide will turn, and you will be swept out to sea, alone.
For Sen. Ted Cruz, the tide has changed, and old hands in the Senate will find ways to isolate the freshman senator to desert islands of subcommittees, where those with no seniority are stranded, with no voice.
Meanwhile, the TV cameras and microphones will move on to the next mouth, to the next flashy topic roused by the next flashy speaker.
Sen. Cruz is a fine orator. He has a strong, pleasant, clear voice, with a confident manner and delivery, calculated to rouse the faithful into following his lead. However, no matter how convincing his manner and how assuring his delivery, sometimes he's just plain wrong.
Keep in mind that half-truths can equal whole lies, when part of the information is left out and the context is incomplete.
Example: Yesterday, Sen. Cruz repeated his charge that UPS had canceled spousal health insurance for 15,000 of its employees because of Obamacare, thus implying that all those people will be without health insurance. He left unsaid the fact that these spouses are employed elsewhere, and already have health insurance through their own employers, so there was no need for duplication.
Hammering away at a half truth is an old technique that demagogues have used for generations.
The Riley Factor
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Demagogues succeed only so long as they have an audience. These days, news media enable demagogues by providing microphones and cameras for their rantings.
Politicians learn early in their careers how to manipulate the media for maximum exposure for their views. To the extent that radio, television and print media provide a platform, they are demagogue enablers.
Unplug the microphone and turn off the camera, and the demagogue is silenced. Further, when reporters and editors ignore the speechifying, they serve as news filters, separating the valuable from the dross.
Conservatives are fond of saying they speak for the American people. Reality check: They speak for some, not all. One member of the House of Representatives speaks for one faction of one party in one district in one state as part of one part of the Congress in one branch of government.
That person does not and cannot speak for all Americans, because that person does not represent all Americans.
Demagogues succeed only so long as they have an audience. These days, news media enable demagogues by providing microphones and cameras for their rantings.
Politicians learn early in their careers how to manipulate the media for maximum exposure for their views. To the extent that radio, television and print media provide a platform, they are demagogue enablers.
Unplug the microphone and turn off the camera, and the demagogue is silenced. Further, when reporters and editors ignore the speechifying, they serve as news filters, separating the valuable from the dross.
Conservatives are fond of saying they speak for the American people. Reality check: They speak for some, not all. One member of the House of Representatives speaks for one faction of one party in one district in one state as part of one part of the Congress in one branch of government.
That person does not and cannot speak for all Americans, because that person does not represent all Americans.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Collusion or Corrosion
Do news media collude with governmental officials to degrade the quality of political debate? Or do they corrode the party "message" by asking sharp questions?
The answers depend largely on what side you're on.
Some will say the Fox News Channel, with its lineup of conservative commentators, are in collusion with the Republican Party.
Others will maintain that MSNBC, with its liberal commentators, are allied with the Democratic Party.
Here's another aspect to the question: Do candidates resent the more independent news stations because they don't play along with party strategy?
But should they?
Conservatives are fond of lambasting the "media elite" who, they claim, don't really represent the American people. They toss around insulting phrases like "the lamestream media," and those reporters and interviewers who strive for neutrality and don't parrot the party line are dismissed as incompetent, at best, or enemies at worst.
Some observers take it as a given that "politicians lie." That may or may not be the case, but when dealing with two sides to a story, there is certainly conflict, and one set of informational views will contradict another.
As one young reporter once asked, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're interviewing people that one of them is lying?"
"Of course," replied the editor. "Maybe they both are. But it's not our job to decide that. Our job is to present both sides and let the reader decide."
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
The answers depend largely on what side you're on.
Some will say the Fox News Channel, with its lineup of conservative commentators, are in collusion with the Republican Party.
Others will maintain that MSNBC, with its liberal commentators, are allied with the Democratic Party.
Here's another aspect to the question: Do candidates resent the more independent news stations because they don't play along with party strategy?
But should they?
Conservatives are fond of lambasting the "media elite" who, they claim, don't really represent the American people. They toss around insulting phrases like "the lamestream media," and those reporters and interviewers who strive for neutrality and don't parrot the party line are dismissed as incompetent, at best, or enemies at worst.
Some observers take it as a given that "politicians lie." That may or may not be the case, but when dealing with two sides to a story, there is certainly conflict, and one set of informational views will contradict another.
As one young reporter once asked, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're interviewing people that one of them is lying?"
"Of course," replied the editor. "Maybe they both are. But it's not our job to decide that. Our job is to present both sides and let the reader decide."
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
News Biz Shakeout
The Times, it is a-changing. Also the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer and dozens of others.
Daily newspapers are trimming and consolidating their operations as they search for ways to keep up their financial strength and readership, as well as maintain their influence on advertisers, politicians and consumers.
The heyday of William Randolph Hearst may be long gone, but you wouldn't know it from the shenanigans in Philadelphia as new owners fight each other over control of the newsroom. At stake is whether the editor decides how to handle news stories or whether an owner dictates which of his political cronies gets favorable coverage. The Inquirer has had five owners in the past seven years, and the current batch has fired the editor twice in the past year.
Meanwhile, the new owner of the Washington Post -- Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon -- has promised editorial independence for the newspaper as the parent company goes off seeking new business opportunities in the Digital Age.
The New York Times has rebranded its international edition, for decades published jointly with the Washington Post as the International Herald Tribune. It's now the International New York Times, and its formerly independent news staff has been folded into the directorship of New York-based editors.
The recession also hit hard at some newspapers, forcing them to drop Saturday editions. For some papers, Saturday publication was largely a public service. A few papers have gone further, to publishing only three or four days a week, focusing on days when advertising was big.
Monday remains a big sports news day, carrying reports on weekend high school, college and professional games, and Thursday and Friday are big days for advertisers hoping to stimulate weekend shopping.
All this in the context of competition from broadcast and cable television news operations, mobile devices carrying flash news reports, and Internet chat rooms with instant commentary and opinion.
But there are still many folks who are too busy to stay glued to computer screens and mobile devices all day, and others who either do not have computers, do not want them or do not know how to use them. And for these and many others, there is the time and opportunity to wait for background information and thoughtful analysis pieces, largely in print media.
And, of course, for those who want to know what the local board of education and town council are doing with their tax dollars, plus how well the local police and fire departments are protecting their towns, there are the small daily and weekly newspapers. For them, advertising revenue from local merchants who neither need nor can afford the massive exposure of metro dailies remains their prime support.
As for the metro dailies, they will find new ways to live long and prosper.
Daily newspapers are trimming and consolidating their operations as they search for ways to keep up their financial strength and readership, as well as maintain their influence on advertisers, politicians and consumers.
The heyday of William Randolph Hearst may be long gone, but you wouldn't know it from the shenanigans in Philadelphia as new owners fight each other over control of the newsroom. At stake is whether the editor decides how to handle news stories or whether an owner dictates which of his political cronies gets favorable coverage. The Inquirer has had five owners in the past seven years, and the current batch has fired the editor twice in the past year.
Meanwhile, the new owner of the Washington Post -- Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon -- has promised editorial independence for the newspaper as the parent company goes off seeking new business opportunities in the Digital Age.
The New York Times has rebranded its international edition, for decades published jointly with the Washington Post as the International Herald Tribune. It's now the International New York Times, and its formerly independent news staff has been folded into the directorship of New York-based editors.
The recession also hit hard at some newspapers, forcing them to drop Saturday editions. For some papers, Saturday publication was largely a public service. A few papers have gone further, to publishing only three or four days a week, focusing on days when advertising was big.
Monday remains a big sports news day, carrying reports on weekend high school, college and professional games, and Thursday and Friday are big days for advertisers hoping to stimulate weekend shopping.
All this in the context of competition from broadcast and cable television news operations, mobile devices carrying flash news reports, and Internet chat rooms with instant commentary and opinion.
But there are still many folks who are too busy to stay glued to computer screens and mobile devices all day, and others who either do not have computers, do not want them or do not know how to use them. And for these and many others, there is the time and opportunity to wait for background information and thoughtful analysis pieces, largely in print media.
And, of course, for those who want to know what the local board of education and town council are doing with their tax dollars, plus how well the local police and fire departments are protecting their towns, there are the small daily and weekly newspapers. For them, advertising revenue from local merchants who neither need nor can afford the massive exposure of metro dailies remains their prime support.
As for the metro dailies, they will find new ways to live long and prosper.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Shutdown Goes Viral
Stop the madness now.
A viral disease of shortsightedness has spread across the political spectrum, setting up America as the first to fall victim to the sickness.
And the economic sneeze, already infectng small business throughout America, has started to spread and will soon reach epidemic status, much as the Great Depression caused a worldwide catastrophe, only to end with World War II, as nations jump-started their munitions industries.
Few today can remember those days of unemployment, hunger and the violence of war, and none do so fondly.
Will it take another Great Crash for politicians to wake up? Will it take another war to rescue the world from economic madness, only to deliver it to military madness?
A viral disease of shortsightedness has spread across the political spectrum, setting up America as the first to fall victim to the sickness.
And the economic sneeze, already infectng small business throughout America, has started to spread and will soon reach epidemic status, much as the Great Depression caused a worldwide catastrophe, only to end with World War II, as nations jump-started their munitions industries.
Few today can remember those days of unemployment, hunger and the violence of war, and none do so fondly.
Will it take another Great Crash for politicians to wake up? Will it take another war to rescue the world from economic madness, only to deliver it to military madness?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Shutdown Dominoes
"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." -- T.S. Eliot
As the government runs out of money during the shutdown, billions in domestic spending stops. Government employees, retirees, pensioners, the disabled and others will lose their monthly benefits and be unable to pay the rent or buy food.
Meanwhile, the flow of foreign aid will also dry up, and the economic hit will leave overseas economies beached.
To cite just one example, aid to Egypt amounts to some $1 billion yearly. Aside from the argument that the Cairo government is failing to bring peace to that nation and withholding the cash is a way of making a point, if Washington has no money to pay veterans' benefits and to fund other domestic programs, stopping the cash flow may well collapse the world economy.
Think on it, politicians, while you deny the warnings.
As the government runs out of money during the shutdown, billions in domestic spending stops. Government employees, retirees, pensioners, the disabled and others will lose their monthly benefits and be unable to pay the rent or buy food.
Meanwhile, the flow of foreign aid will also dry up, and the economic hit will leave overseas economies beached.
To cite just one example, aid to Egypt amounts to some $1 billion yearly. Aside from the argument that the Cairo government is failing to bring peace to that nation and withholding the cash is a way of making a point, if Washington has no money to pay veterans' benefits and to fund other domestic programs, stopping the cash flow may well collapse the world economy.
Think on it, politicians, while you deny the warnings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)