Brian Condrey's Spring 2006 RHE 309s Course: February 2006

Brian Condrey's Spring 2006 RHE 309s Course

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Room Changes For This Week

We'll be moving over to MEZES again this week. Today, let's meet first in our regular room. On Thursday, head directly to MEZ 1.118. Note different rooms on different days:

2/28 MEZ 2.118

3/2 MEZ 1.118

¶ 9:53 AM 0 Comments

Upcoming Schedule

Revised March Schedule

Th2—Essay #2 topic proposal due

T7— Essay #2 rough draft due
Reading: Iyengar (handout)

Th9— Reading Response due
Read: GR, Chapter 12-14 (text, visual, and web design)
Revise draft

T14—Spring Break
Th16—Spring Break

¶ 9:47 AM 0 Comments

Essay #2 Description

Condrey
RHE 309s
Spring 2006

Paper 2--Rhetorical Analysis

Length: 5-7 pages
Source Requirement: 3+ secondary sources (including Luntz or Lakoff)

This assignment requires you to analyze and evaluate one or more political advertisements. Your argument will focus on how the creator of the ad or ad campaign uses language and images to rhetorical effect. In addition to addressing how the ad or ad campaign "works," you will also need to judge whether or not it is a "good" one. This judgment will be based on a set of independent criteria, which you will develop and support with the evidence of experts. These experts will include Frank Luntz and/or George Lakoff, whose ideas about language and values can be extended--with some work on your part--to the analysis of political advertising. Your use of Luntz and/or Lakoff in your essay must be more than superficial; in order to employ the expert ideas of a political language consultant in your analysis you will need to demonstrate a thorough understanding of his ideas. It is not enough for the purposes of this assignment to simply quote a phrase by Luntz or Lakoff. You must thoughtfully engage a specific idea or recommendation put forth by your chose expert source(s) in a way that shows me and your reader that you know what you're talking about.

It is also important that you generate a context for your argument by providing the reader with a sufficient amount of background information on the issue, candidate, or race and by addressing why an understanding of the creator's techniques can shed light on broader issues related to political discourse, the use of technology in politics, and/or the quest of political strategists to develop strategies for appealing to the values of the electorate. In order to accomplish this, you will need to consult and employ secondary sources. Although you may quote information from the website of group or candidate sponsoring the ad(s), such sources will not count toward the source requirement. Similarly, you may use Good Reasons as a source for this paper, but it will not count toward the requirement. You should instead look for reliable internet and print sources, including books, news accounts, and online publications of well-establish groups or organizations.

In order to produce a successful analysis, you will need to find out everything you can about the ad or ad campaign. Some questions you should consider:

Who is the audience?
What is the purpose?
What is the message?
What is the tone?
What is the look or style?
What is the story?
How does it employ visual imagery? Music or sound?
Does it use metaphor?
How does it use production techniques to effect?
How does it define or contrast the opposition?
How does it frame the issue(s) or candidate(s)?
How does it personalize the issue?
What "frame" or "narrative" does it evoke? (e.g. "Kerry is a flip-flopper," "Bush is decisive," "D.C. Outsider," "Compassionate Conservatism," "Taxes As Patriotic Duty")
How does it communicate values?
Which values does it communicate or project?
How does it establish or project credibility?
How does it speak to the needs, beliefs, or desires of the audience?
What are the interests or concerns of this audience?
Has it elicited challenges or otherwise generated controversy?
What have people said about it?
Who produced it?
Who financed it?
Where did it appear? On-line only? On television? Nationally? In a specific market?
If it's a web-based campaign, how easy is it for a visitor to navigate the website and find the content?
Is it truthful?
Does it employ fallacies of argument?
Why is it important to understand how and why this ad (or ad campaign) works?

Obviously, some of the answers to these questions can be arrived at by simply viewing the ad. Others will require research on your part. You don't have to address every single question in your essay, but I expect you to know the answer to every question.

Possible Paper Ideas:
An evaluative comparison of the ad campaigns of competing candidates (2-3 ads each)
Compare an old ad or ad campaign with a newer one
Advertising and women voters
Advertising and men voters
The effective or ineffective use of patriotic imagery in political ads
Competing advocacy campaigns (e.g. Supreme Court Nominations)
The use of humor in political advertising
Sex appeal and political advertising
Online and viral advertising
Political ads and the under-25 voter
Effective or ineffective negative advertising
Political advertising and Lakoff’s Parenting Model
Advertising and regionalism
The work of specific advertising agency
Online, non-commissioned citizen-created ads
The long-form ad (60+ seconds)
The use of celebrities in political advertising
Animated political ads

This list is by no means exhaustive, and I'd encourage you to come up with your own ideas or variations. No matter the theme you chose, your essay must be claim-driven. If you're interested in writing about Campaign Advertising in the South, you need to go beyond asserting that politicians do it. Your claim should address how they do it or how it is done effectively.

Additional resources--follow the $:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

This post has a list of sources for finding ads

See course policy statement for additional requirements

¶ 9:29 AM 0 Comments

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Links to campaign and advocacy ads

¶ 9:19 PM 0 Comments

Reading Response #7

If you didn't get a copy of the reading, pick it up outside my office tomorrow after 1pm.

Reading Response #7 - George Lakoff, "Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse"

1. Explain in a paragraph Lakoff's theory of framing.

2. Describe Lakoff's parenting model theory of conservative and liberal discourse. Next explain whether or not you believe it's a valid theory. (1-2 paragraphs)

3. Exluding those identified by Lakoff, identify a frame that shapes some current political debate.

¶ 9:01 PM 0 Comments

Hillary Speaks

¶ 11:38 AM 0 Comments

Student Submitted Images

¶ 11:24 AM 0 Comments

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Icon

"President Tours Biloxi, Mississippi"
Photo Credit: Eric Draper
Linked from http://www.whitehouse.gov

"Compassion in Action"
Photo Credit: Paul Morse
Linked from http://www.whitehouse.gov

"Mourning"
Photo Credit: Paul Morse
Linked from http://www.whitehouse.gov

Photo Credit: AP/NYTimes
Caption: "For a speech that Mr. Bush delivered last summer at Mount Rushmore, the White House positioned the best platform for television crews off to one side. That angle caught the president in profile, his face perfectly aligned with the four presidents carved in stone."

For More See: ELISABETH BUMILLER, "Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights" (May 15, 2003)

¶ 10:49 PM 0 Comments

Public Television Specials on Political Advertising

Website for a 1999 PBS special
The :30 Second Candidate

WGBH Special on the History of Political Ads
"Evolution of Political Advertising w/ David Broder" (video stream)

¶ 10:08 PM 0 Comments

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Reading Response #6

1. Read the two items in the packet:
Gingrich's GOPAC Memo, "language: A Key Mechanism of Control"
Luntz Research, "A New American Lexicon" (untitled in the packet, available in various formats here)

2. Complete the following based on the readings:
1. Find an image online that illustrates Luntz's point about the use of symbolic imagery. It can be a newswire photo, one taken from an official government website, or one posted on a campaign website. Link to it.
2. Find a piece of text (from a speech, an interview, an editorial) that "works" according to Luntz's principles for effective political communication. Explain why and how it works.
3. Find an example of someone using terms found in "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to describe an opponent. Provide a brief excerpt and a link.

3. Post your answers in the comments section of this blog post. You don't need a blogger account to post. Just click on the "comments" link, paste your answers and links in the available space, and log on anonymously. Make sure, though, to add your name somewhere to the post.

¶ 8:00 PM 21 Comments

Frank Luntz Editorial

in response to the appearance of his language strategy guidebook on the internet.
Originally published Mar 18, 2005 in the LA Times. I did a LexisNexis search using the title and a found a reprint in the Windsor Star.

"The simple lexicon of political clout"

I've been a pollster and wordsmith for senators and CEOs for more than a decade, and I have a particular interest in language.

What words do people understand? What's the clear, common-sense way to say what you mean? And how can politicians best educate and express their ideas?

That's why I wrote a A New American Lexicon for my business and political clients. But it soon made its way to the Internet, where it raised a storm among Democrats in Washington, D.C., and in the blogosphere, who accused me of the worst kind of spin.

They say I'm manipulating the debate in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a pro-business, pro-freedom agenda.

Admittedly, in these times, most political language has taken a partisan tone. But my suggestions are meant to help reach that critical, non-aligned swing voter, just as product advertising is designed to appeal to non-aligned consumers.

Yes, there are instances in which language can be used to cloud judgment and obfuscate the facts, but its beauty is that it can also be used to enlighten. I seek to use words to brighten a debate that has been darkened by people who nuance over what the meaning of "is" is, and whether you have smoked marijuana if you didn't inhale.

Let me be specific. "The death tax," "energy exploration," "opportunity scholarships" and "personalizing" Social Security -- I didn't coin those phrases, but they are in the public lexicon and I can rightfully be "blamed" for popularizing them.

They are not, as some people say, Orwellian. I seek clarity in our nation's great debates, and all too often the words we have used until now hinder real discourse.

For example, why not use the term "death tax" for the taxes paid on an estate? What is the event that triggers it? I pay a sales tax when I am involved with a sale, and I pay income tax when I earn income. And when I die, if I'm successful and forget to hire smart accountants, I may pay a tax. What else would you call that other than a death tax -- a "permanent sleep tax"?

Laurie David, a leading Hollywood environmentalist, publicly labelled me "evil" because Republicans had adopted some of my language to talk about her issues. Yet I would assert that "responsible exploration for energy," which includes the search for incredibly clean natural gas, is a far different activity from plunking down a well haphazardly and just "drilling for oil."

To me, calling for a "cleaner, safer, healthier environment" and supporting helicopter rides over the Grand Canyon and, yes, snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park is not a contradiction. I don't believe our nation's natural beauty should be locked up. The environment and commerce can and should co-exist.

The most accurate phrase

That's why I am a "conservationist" rather than an "environmentalist." The difference? Conservationists are mainstream and environmentalists are extreme.

Similarly, I'm for calling the money paid to help parents choose their kids' school a "scholarship" because "voucher" trivializes the powerful opportunity the transaction confers on poor families. I'd argue that it's more accurate to call "school choice" "parental choice in education." Considering how such a program equalizes education for rich and poor, the most accurate phrase would be "equal opportunity in education." Is that Orwellian? Is that calling war "peace" or freedom "slavery"?

That brings me to Social Security. Critics of the president's plan say it is "privatizing" the American retirement system. This is simply not accurate. Even under the most innovative reform proposals, the vast majority of your Social Security contribution (12.4 per cent of your income up to the first $90,000, just in case you had forgotten) would remain completely unchanged and untouched, so Washington, D.C., can continue to spend your retirement savings on other programs and you can continue to collect that great 1.6-per-cent return on your Social Security "investment."

I have encouraged supporters of Social Security reform to counter such inaccuracies by talking about how the president's plan "personalizes" Social Security. When you personalize something, whether monogrammed towels or Social Security, you enhance ownership by allowing the owner to leave his or her mark on it. In this case, personalizing Social Security means partial ownership of our retirement. Instead of Washington making all the decisions, we will personally determine how a portion of our retirement savings should be invested.

In the end, this ongoing battle over language is more about comprehension than articulation. It's not what we say that matters. It's what people hear. I seek simple words that are easily heard and understood.

There are always two sides to every issue, and both sides believe in their soul that they are right. I help communicate the principles of the side I believe in, using the most straightforward language there is. My goal is to make honest political rhetoric that achieves worthy goals, to level the linguistic playing field and to inform Americans of the true nature of our policy debates.

Author Notes: Frank I. Luntz's clients have included Fortune 100 CEOs, leaders of countries and politicians including Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. This column was written for the Los Angeles Times.

¶ 5:32 PM 0 Comments

Today in Class

We watched segment 5 of "The Persuaders." I planned on showing 6 as well, so if you have the chance, check it out:
Here's the link to the stream...
Frontline: The Persuaders | PBS

We visited The Living Room Candidate and viewed 10 or so presidental campaign ads. These included:
"Optimists" (Kerry '04)
"Commitment" (Kerry '04)
"Wolves" (Bush '04)

"Morning" (Clinton '92)
"Rebuild America" (Clinton '92)
"Best Person" (Perot '92)

"The Bear" (Reagan '84)
"Daisy" (Johnson '64)
"Ice Cream" (Johnson '64)
"Jackie O. in Espanol" (Kennedy '60)

We also checked out and discussed Kinky Friedman's online "Kinkytoons" ad campaign here.

Finally, we dropped by Gov. Perry's campaign website and watched this ad. We didn't look at this Perry website, but you might if you're interested.

¶ 7:59 AM 0 Comments

Monday, February 20, 2006

Monday Hours Canceled

We don't get Presidents' Day off, but my son does. I have to cancel hours today to watch him this afternoon.

¶ 7:48 AM 0 Comments

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Wed. Office Hours

I'm holding hours today from 1-2. If you get there before 2pm, I can stay later.

¶ 7:04 AM 0 Comments

Friday, February 10, 2006

Materialism and Happiness

Heads up April D. This article in the Boston Globe reminded me of your essay.
Too much of a good thing - The Boston Globe

¶ 11:01 PM 1 Comments

Reading Response #5

After reading Cole's essay, "Enemy Nations and Freedoms" (481-489), do an internet or database search (see library tutorial here) for an article that raises similar issues related to civil liberties and national security. Consider finding an article or opinion piece with which you disagree. You will bring it to class and prepare a one page response that addresses the following:

1. How you found the article. The search engine or article index database you used. The search terms you employed. Was it on the top of the page? The second page?

2. Describe and evaluate the source? Who published this piece? A newspaper? A magazine? An academic journal? An organization? What do you know about this source? Who are its readers? Does it have an agenda or purpose beyond the objective presentation of news? Do you consider it a reliable source? Is this something you would use in an essay? Why or why not.

¶ 8:23 AM 0 Comments

Friday, February 03, 2006

Salon Review of "The Greater Generation"

I haven't read the book, or the whole of this review for that matter, but it reminded me a couple essays turned in yesterday. Might be worth a look.
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/02/03/steinhorn/
(you'll be asked to watch a brief ad to access the article)

¶ 10:23 AM 0 Comments

Reading Response #4

Reading Response #4 - Wright and Gomes

1. What are the values of the Greek system?
2. In your opinion, are the values of the Greek system at odds with those of feminism?
3. Who is the audience for Gomes essay? Do you think his argument is effective in reaching that audience?

¶ 7:57 AM 0 Comments