Is this for real?
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Saturday, July 23, 2005 19:40
VIEWED: 4249
PAGE 5 of 5
From Lynch
Quote:
1. You imply through the use of "talking points" that those who use arguments in or similar to the document you posted are "neo-con apologists" talking points= neocon apologists
2. You clearly imply that "neo-con apologists" are too lazy or too stupid to come up with original thoughts
3. Quotes like "acknowledged fact that the Bush administration was engaged in an aggressive campaign to discredit a critic." are more baseless attacks on President Bush's administration to imply that they, and by extension Republicans and/or conservatives, are immoral, evil, and/or stupid.
In short, you are using the very tactics you say you oppose.
From Finn
Quote:You know, I tried in my previous responses to separate discussion of the CONTENT of the talking points to the PROCESS of using talking points, focusing on:
So when Wilson implied that he was sent to Niger by Cheney, which was picked up by the New York Time to insist that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger, when in fact Cheney never gave such an order and Wilson went without official CIA support under the suggestion of his wife, that wasn’t media manipulation to boost Wilson’s credibility?
And after it was reported that Rove suggested that it was Wilson’s wife not Cheney who sent Wilson to Niger, Wilson then claimed that the government was trying to out his wife because his wife was a covert agent, thereby exposing his wife as a covert agent, that wasn’t media manipulation? Wilson may have outed his own wife in order to attack the administration.
What is a talking point? (I'm not sure we actually know what a talking point is.) What makes it different from a position statement? Are talking points necessarily non-factual? (I don't think so. I found a number of factually true statements in the Republican talking points.) Are they deceptive? (Not necessarily.) Are they manipulative? (Any attempt to sway public opinion is "manipulative") Is that bad? (Maybe)
Are "talking points" corrosive to informed discussion? If talking points are found to be harmful to public discourse, can their use be restrained? If so- how? If not, how can their effect be blunted?
Soupcatcher, with Sarge's concurrence, expanded the discussion to other potentially manipulative procedures that can be used by ANY political party (but may be more effectively used by the party in power). I would add two more manipulations of public opinion: LEAKS AND LIES.
---------------------------
Hey- as you know, I'm usually more than ready to drag any discussion off-topic. But I'm willing to try a new paradigm because we can never reach any conclusions if we let them wander all over the place, bringing in irrelevant points. Finn and AJ -If you want to make a point about the Wilson's credibility, the presence of WMDs, or whether neocons or Democrats are stupid and lazy- please start another thread. Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. On to the discussion. I don't think talking points are necessarily either lies or misleading. You CAN reduce the absolute truth to a few pithy statements, hand them out to your minions/ colleagues and have them repeated ad infinitum until they take hold. And I view any attempt to sway public opinion as being "manipulative" in the sense of "to control or influence skillfully" (although there is the connotation that you would be influencing someone to their disadvantage).
So, what makes "talking points" so dangerous if they are not necessarily misleading or to the recipient's disavantage?
The only thing that makes them corrosive is the inability of the recipients to question the purveyors of those talking points. When people hear the same thing from the McClellan, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Mehlman (for example) the medium (TV, radio) leaves no venue for individual responses. And if the media is controlled by any political party or any single group with a more-or-less uniform agenda, there is no room for even organized response. I'm not sure this is a problem with "talking points" per se, but the apparent control of the media.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think there's more to it than that. Talking points, as they are currently being used, are an unscrupulous form of manipulation in my opinion. They do this it two different ways.
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only thing that makes them corrosive is the inability of the recipients to question the purveyors of those talking points. When people hear the same thing from the McClellan, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Mehlman (for example) the medium (TV, radio) leaves no venue for individual responses. And if the media is controlled by any political party or any single group with a more-or-less uniform agenda, there is no room for even organized response. I'm not sure this is a problem with "talking points" per se, but the apparent control of the media.
First, as mentioned in the wiki entry on the subject, they attempt to establish the credibility of a phrase (and whatever implicit assumptions it's loaded with) through sheer repetition and uniformity of response. Nothing is more powerful in the uncritical mind that the notion of something being popularly accepted. "Everyone knows..."
Second, they use talking points to distract the debate toward something they'd rather talk about. Take the above document. It almost completely avoids the questions about Rove's actions and the actions of whomever it was that leaked the info. Instead it focuses on further attempts to discredit Wilson.
Now, I have no problem with them questioning Wilson's cred, or Plame's or whatever. But they're seeking to control the content of public discussion, specifically related to the current investigation, and move it away from questions about the appropriateness of Rove's discussions with reporters.
Again, it's not the specific political issues that I find unscrupulous. It's the technique of attempting to control public discourse by 'bombing' it with diversions.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think we are looking at the formation of a new kind of tyranny. It's taken them a while to figure out, but those who desire power over others are beginning to realize that a democracy can be controlled just as effectively as the more traditional authoritarian models. Perhaps even more effectively, because the 'control' is transparent to so many. How can you fight an enemy, when most people won't even acknowledge it's there?
Absolutely. Just because we're a democracy doesn't mean we don't have to work at it. There are certain components of our system that need to function better than they do today. The fourth estate is one of them. A healthy democracy requires transparency. We need to know what our elected officials are doing. Not what they say they're doing. Not what they want us to think they're doing.
It comes down to an issue of control and framing. Talking points are used to control what is talked about. It's like the Lakoff line, "Don't think of an elephant." Well, of course, the first thing you just thought of was an elephant. If the media simply pass along the talking points they aren't doing their job.
What we need, in my opinion, is more media literacy in this country. Every school child should be photoshopping and making their own videos. Once we learn how easy it is to manipulate visual images to get a desired point across we'll be more aware when those techniques are used to influnce our own opinions. I honestly think that, if they could, this administration would spray all their press releases with the scent of apple pie.
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym
Soupcatcher, with Sarge's concurrence, expanded the discussion to other potentially manipulative procedures that can be used by ANY political party (but may be more effectively used by the party in power). I would add two more manipulations of public opinion: LEAKS AND LIES.
Yup. The whole using of anonymity to spread disinformation has got to stop. Public officials abuse the system put in place to protect whistle blowers. Reporters should, in my opinion, burn their sources if they find they've been lied to. And whatever happened to tracking down the paper trail behind anonymous statements? Instead, reporters pass along what they're told without any investigation on their own part. And when we find out later that what was "leaked" was false? Nothing. No accountability.
We could also throw in the use of the press secretary to say as little as possible while appearing to say a lot. Listen to one of Scott McClellan's press conference. You can pick out the one or two things he wants to get across. And also the way he avoids saying anything about any other topic while appearing to answer questions. If you did that in a performance review you wouldn't get away with it.
I tend to apply my parent rule to anything that this adminsitration says. I ask myself, "Would my parents have let me get away with that?" The answer is most often a resounding no. If I had tried to weasel or worm my way around answering questions, misrepresented what I had said or done, or tried to pull the wool over their eyes the way this administration does I would've got the belt/wooden spoon, or more chores, or had my allowance docked, or been grounded (depending on how old I was at the time). This behavior is unacceptable.
---------------------
Dogs think that everything you do is their business. Cats think that everything they do is your business.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All the administration has to do in order to win any argument is slow down and impede discourse across the board. Silence always aids the status quo, those in power. The loyal opposition may foolishly dabble in the same tactics, but their shooting themselves in the foot in order to "compete."
I think the reason liberalism has been virtually abandoned in this country is because liberalism requires a sense of abundance. The liberal says, "I have more than I need, have some of mine." Terrorism has succeeded in the respect that we, as a nation, no longer feel that we have the "luxury" of liberalism. As long as fear controls policy, we will accept greater and greater abridgements of our freedoms, greater and greater misconduct by the men in power whom we must cleave to in order to survive. Control and stability require continuity and unity over all else.
"So shut up and consider yourselves lucky!"
It's getting so we feel we cannot afford to be a democracy, at least not all the time. The founding fathers set up our government specifically to make it slow and deliberative, to blunt the power of the state. Democracy is supposed to be messy and contentious (democracy is therefore inimical to military domination of the planet, oh well). But now we believe that swift action, no matter how misguided or monumentally destructive, is required just to survive.
It is believed that Bush et al are only doing what is necessary to ensure our survival, and how dare we question these noble men? Are they not faced with the impossible task of sacrificing their own good natures to keep us safe? How can we possibly understand the pressures they are under every day? How can we judge the decisions they have to make, so we can sleep soundly in our beds? All you can think to do is tear these good men down, thus imperiling us all! Etc.
You know, I seriously do not believe that we have a right to dominate the world militarily. I believe such domination has corrupted us. I think the love which the peoples of the world have showered on this country, the hope which this country promised immigrants for over a century and a half began to erode the moment we dropped the first atom bomb and killed over 100,000 innocent people in one day. I don't blame America, but with the best intentions we have certainly sown the seeds of our own downfall. Can you see the distinction?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME