Random thoughts on the presidential election of 2008
by Richard L. Weaver II, PhD

back to page top
> Random thoughts on the presidential election of 2008
> What qualities make a good president?
> If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion
> Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
> Make a Choice

What qualities make a good president?
by Richard L. Weaver II, PhD

back to page top
> Random thoughts on the presidential election of 2008
> What qualities make a good president?
> If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion
> Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
> Make a Choice

If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion
by Richard L. Weaver II, PhD

We live in a mediated blitz of images. They fill our newspapers, magazines, books, clothing, billboards, computer monitors, and television screens as never before in the history of mass communication. We are becoming a visually mediated society. For many — especially those who have been raised and nurtured in a television/Internet culture — understanding the world is being accomplished, not through reading words, but by absorbing and digesting images. Reading is losing to watching because viewing requires little mental processing.

We live in an image-hungry society with screens embedded into airplane chairs and phones doubling as cameras. Images compel us to look at them, and their message is instant, unlike text which requires some time and effort on our part. Consequently, when images and words compete, the consensus is generally to go with the image because often it’s the image people will remember the next day, the next week, and perhaps for the rest of their lives.

Media images have tremendous power. Often, they define how we see ourselves, and they can define what others think of us as well.

Why do images have such power? It is part of the human condition. We are visually oriented systems, programmed to store more pictures than text in our long-term memories. According to research cited by educational psychologist Jerome Bruner of New York University, the average person remembers only 30 percent of what is read but nearly 80 percent of what is seen.

Actually, it was Johann Gutenberg’s magic printing machine that disrupted the harmonious balance between words and images. With his machine, text-based communications had a quick and easy method of dissemination. The development of an equally efficient means of reproducing the color, depth, form, and movement of visual communication languished far behind. Words sped out of printer’s blocks and left images in a cloud of ink. In a race for cultural superiority, text crossed the finish line first, and pictures came in a distant second.

The intellectual valuing of words over images was passed on from generation to generation. It is just this history and precedent that causes educators to bemoan the pervasiveness of the visual culture. They blame TV for the decrease in analytic ability and students’ poor writing skills. It is true that the sheer weight of time students spend immersed in television, computer games, and other visual distractions keeps them from other educational activities.

The shift from words to images began with television which emphasizes the moving image over written and spoken language. Television is image-driven, image-saturated, and image-controlled. This is precisely what television does that books, recordings, and pictures cannot do; it brings us visual action. Now, television programs can be watched from direct broadcast, from cable and fibre optics, from satellites, from VCRs, from laser disks, and from hand-held receptors. On some television sets you can watch more than one program at a time. In a television commercial for Kodak’s Photo CD technology, the announcer reports, “Pictures have never been so powerful.”

But just because we are moving toward a visual orientation, does not mean we should be moving in this direction. The problem is that when the image dominates the word, rational discourse ebbs. These technologically animated images move and combine in ways unknown only a few decades ago, thus increasing their power to mesmerize.

The visionary reality of connected images doesn’t allow for critical discourse, explanation, duplication, or reflection — all rational activities required for separating truth from error. This is because images require viewers to be continually involved in the action. Images keep words in check because words strip images of their hypnotic and magical power.

When images overwhelm and subjugate words, the ability to think, write, and communicate in a linear and logical fashion is undermined. Television images have an immediate effect on us, but the effect is seldom to cause us to pursue their truth or falsity. Often television images are shorn of their overall context and meaning and are reduced to factoids (at best). That is, ideas located within historical and logical settings are replaced by impressions, emotions, and stimulations.

Images communicate narrative stories and quantitative information such as graphs and charts. Words are required for more linear, logical communication. Propositions and beliefs can be true or false; images don’t have truth value. Images are arresting, alluring, and entrancing, but because they shrink events into factoids or create outright falsehoods, viewers are manipulated by their normal way of operation and presentation. Viewers then assume that what they saw on television is something they saw with their own eyes.

What viewers don’t realize — because they are so totally consumed by images — is that every television minute is edited. Viewers don’t see events, they only see edited symbols or edited images of events. An aura and illusion of objectivity and truth is built up which cannot and does not exist. Despite that, reality becomes the image even when that image does not correspond to any objective state of affairs.

Think about the effect this can have on viewers during a political campaign. Truth and logic are socially constructed, and they can be deconstructed and reconstructed at whim.

What is the remedy? If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion. Teachers are correct: the desire to read, the ability to read and write all suffer under the ruthless regime of television, the Internet, computer games, and other image-dominated media.

Print, on the other hand, demands to be understood. Written sentences call upon readers
to know the importance of what is said. To read effectively, readers must come to print in a serious state of intellectual readiness not necessary with images. The mental act of reading is active, engages the mind and imagination, and makes truth possible and knowable. When language is the principle medium for communication, ideas, facts, and claims occupy a central place in our thoughts and require mental processing — little mental processing is required with images.

back to page top
> Random thoughts on the presidential election of 2008
> What qualities make a good president?
> If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion
> Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
> Make a Choice

Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
by Richard L. Weaver II, PhD

One question I am constantly asked is, “Because you are in the speech-communication discipline, don’t you just love all the political rhetoric in the presidential campaigns?” To phrase it a bit differently, “Because you majored in speech, don’t you just love speeches?” The answer is “No,” no matter how the question is phrased, and I’ll tell you why. The main reason is that most speeches are boring. And, with respect to political rhetoric more specifically, so much of it cannot be believed or trusted. The real question is, “How do you make sense of all the political rhetoric?”

There is no way I can adequately do justice to that question in a short essay (although I’m going to try), let me recommend an excellent book that handles the question in less than 200 pages. Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson have written a book, unSpun: Finding facts in a world of disinformation (Random House, 2007) that helps tell fact from fiction. In reviewing the book, Mara Liasson, NPR national political correspondent, wrote that these authors “have written a citizen’s guide to avoiding the malarkey of partisan politics.” “With this book,” it states on the back, “and a healthy dose of skepticism, anyone can cut through the haze of biased media reportage to be a savvier consumer and a better- informed citizen.”

As an important point of credibility, it must be noted that Jackson and Jamieson are the founders of the acclaimed website FactCheck.org, which is one of Time magazine’s “25 websites you can’t live without.”

The key to understanding political rhetoric is to understand that we live in a world of “spin,” which is a polite word for deception. “Spinners mislead by means that range from subtle omissions to outright lies,” write Jackson and Jamieson, “Spin paints a false picture of reality by bending facts, mischaracterizing the words of others, ignoring or denying critical evidence, or just ‘spinning a yarn’—by making things up” (p. ix).

It is not news that politicians purposely fill voters’ heads with disinformation about both their opponents and about their own policies. There are a number of techniques they use to deceive, and applying any of these techniques to the rhetoric you hear will serve as an introduction—a beginning place—for your analysis and evaluation.

The first technique is to recognize claims that are too dramatic. This often occurs when you hear statistics used. To believe statistics, you must know who generated the numbers and how, the credibility of the source from which they were drawn, how current they are, and whether or not they are designed to tell what is happening right now or reveal information that shows a trend. Since it is seldom you get enough information to make even a cursory analysis and evaluation of the statistics politicians bandy about, it is better to remain skeptical. The problem, of course, is that you want to believe the statistics of the politicians you support.

The second technique Jackson and Jamieson label “the dangling comparative.” As an example, they cite George W. Bush’s 2004 TV campaign ads which used the line, “[John] Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.” The obvious conclusion would be that Kerry had voted to raise taxes an alarming number of times, but that is not the case. Bush counted every vote Kerry had cast against a proposed tax cut—which meant voting to leave taxes unchanged. Also, to get the figure 350 he padded the count by including the procedural votes on the same bills. In Bush’s mind, a vote for cutting taxes became a vote for “higher taxes,” but as an example of “the dangling comparative,” he left unanswered the question, “Higher than what?”

The words “larger,” “better,” “faster,” “higher,” and “more” when used to compare two things—left dangling without a statement of what’s being compared—is called a dangling comparative.

The third technique is “the superlative swindle,” or the use of adjectives or adverbs that elevate a situation or circumstance to its highest or extreme degree—superior to all others. The point is to be on the lookout for claims such as “biggest in history” or “smallest ever.” Just as succumbing to the other techniques, being convinced by superlatives can lead you to make shallow political decisions.

The “Pay You Tuesday” con is the fourth technique. Politicians will promise you anything today—especially something you desire a great deal—if you will just vote for him or her. The con is that you won’t have to pay for whatever it is until Tuesday—if ever. You can’t promise new social programs without mentioning the future costs to taxpayers. You can’t promise reduced taxes without mentioning future deficits or program cuts. Pay on Tuesday means your kids will pay.

The fifth technique is the blame game. People who find their own position weak or indefensible often attack. Casting blame is always a clue that the attacker may need a closer look than the person being blamed. Bush blamed greedy lawyers as a major factor in the rising cost of health care—a claim that was disputed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Liberals blame “big oil companies” when gasoline prices shoot up; conservatives blame liberals for being “soft on crime.” The incumbent president is always blamed when the economy goes soft or the stock market tanks. When you hear people casting blame, take a close look at their facts.

“Glittering Generalities” is the sixth technique. These are attractive sounding, but vague terms. The words “middle class” are just such words, and you are unlikely to find a candidate who isn’t for the middle class. Why? Because, in America, so few people think of themselves as lower-class or upper-class. One candidate will proclaim that he or she will “fight for America’s middle class,” while another will promise to “target tax cuts to the middle class.” Think about it: how does a candidate define “middle class”? Other glittering generalities—and there are many—include “affordable housing,” a “right to privacy,” “family values,” or “dignity,” “honor,” “freedom,” “integrity,” and “justice.” When you hear them, ask what is meant.

The list of deceptive techniques, of course, could go on and on, but these are some common ones. Rather than just finding examples of the techniques in use, which shouldn’t take long, it is more important to listen closely to what is being said, be skeptical of what you hear, and be critical and evaluative whether the candidate is your own or an opponent. Spin or no spin, this is politics!

back to page top
> Random thoughts on the presidential election of 2008
> What qualities make a good president?
> If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion
> Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
> Make a Choice

Make a Choice...
by Anonymous

THIS IS A  NONPARTISAN JOKE THAT CAN BE ENJOYED BY BOTH PARTIES!
NOT ONLY THAT, it is  POLITICALLY  CORRECT!!.......and so timely!

While walking  down the street one day a US Senator is tragically hit by a  truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter  at the entrance.

'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter. 'Before you  settle in, it seems there is a problem.
We seldom see a high official  around these parts, you see, so we're notsure what to do with you.'  

'No problem, just let me in,' says the senator.  

'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is  have you spend one day in hell
and one in heaven. Then you can  choose where to spend eternity.'

'Really, I've made up my  mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the senator.

'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'  

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he  goes down, down, down to hell.
The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf  course.
In the distance is a clubhouse and standing  in front of it
are all his friends and other politicians who had worked  with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him,shake  his hand,
and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They  play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes.
They are  having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.  

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the  elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St.Peter is waiting for him.

'Now  it's time to visit heaven.'

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing
the  harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

'Well, then, you've  spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'  

The senator reflects for a minute, then answers: 'Well, I  would never have said it before,
I mean heaven has been delightful, but I  think I would be better off in hell.'

So St. Peter escorts  him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now  the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land  covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above...
The devil comes over to him and puts  his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the senator.  
'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar,drank champagne,
and danced and had a great time.  Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?'

The devil looks at him, smiles and  says.......

'Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted.'

back to page top
> Random thoughts on the presidential election of 2008
> What qualities make a good president?
> If truth is to prevail, image consumption must be replaced by word devotion
> Making sense of political rhetoric: What are the keys?
> Make a Choice