MOQ Rhetoricians:
I've enjoyed the discussion about rhetoric quite a bit. James' lessons
have provided me with clear ideas and an expanded vocabulary. Until then
I only had fuzzy ideas and intuitive notions. James, you can "straighten
me out" all day long, if you like. I suffer from a rather dis-jointed
public education and never properly learned grammer or rhetoric. (14
different schools.)
On the other it seems to me that Mary might feel a little cheated,
because there is certainly such a thing as emotional manipulation.
Hitler springs to mind. He could whip the crowds into a frenzy. He
persuaded millions to die for his cause. He was a master of emotional
manipulation. Maybe that's not a great example because any failure to be
persuaded might be fatal. Thank god there's no chance of that happening
here. (Accept my point of view or I'll hunt you down and kill you!) And
then there are the televison evangelists....
It seems to me that its harder to manipulate people with logic.
Rationality is usually cleaner, clearer and subject to independent
varification. Two plus two equals four and its simply NOT a matter of
opinion or taste. However, one is the loneliest number, it takes two to
tango and three's crowd. Blah blah blah.
Rush Limbaugh, the most popular talk radio personality in the USA, seems
like an apt example. He uses pathos very effectively. He flatters his
audience at every opportunity, telling them that they right, good, and
decent Americans. Their enemies, the liberals, are wrong, bad, corrupt
and UnAmerican. I'm sure its very charming for a conservatives to
believe this.
He uses ethos very effectively too. Although his self-proclaimed
authority must seem pathetic to those with real credentials, the
audience is quite willing to believe that Rush's talent is "on loan from
God", as he puts it. He refers to his radio network (EBI) as the
"excellence in broadcasting" network. And the show itself is called the
"Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies". This
moniker is obviously meant to imply that the host is a great teacher and
the audience members are flattered to think that they are like grad
students. Its pathos and ethos.
But when it comes to logos, there's no there there. Zip. Zero. Nada.
The truth is that talk radio is aimed at the least educated of the
political class. Rush certainly has no advanced degrees of any kind. I'm
not sure if he ever went past high school. In any case, he is mostly
ignorant and irrational, even if he is a very cleaver speaker. This is
not just my liberal opinion. Entire books have been written about his
ignorance and irrationality.
There a numerous book that point out where Rush has presented facts that
are simply not true or failed to present relevant and crucial facts that
he failed to mention. That sort of task is relatively easy because facts
can be independently verified. But its interesting that a Philosophy
professor, whose name escapes me, wrote a book about Rush's logical
errors. This approch avoided the disputation of facts and aimed instead
at his inability to think clearly and logically. The professor showed
how the host's conclusions just didn't follow from the facts. He showed
how his thought simply didn't add up or make rational sense. His
analogies held no water. Very often Rush would spend a great deal of
time defeating positions held by no one. He'd invent straw men and then
knock them down, rather than debate an actual person. In fact, he is
credited with inventing a whole new talk-radio format and its been
imitated by nearly everyone in the business. Its called "non-guested
confrontation". This is where the host confronts a guest who does not
exist.
I worked as a talk-radio producer and host between 1993 and last summer.
In that time all the liberal hosts were fired and replaced with folks
who are as uneduacted and irrational as Rush. A civil rights attorney
was replaced by a cop. A classcial music conductor was replaced by a
guardian angel. A veteran journalist was replaced by a pro football
player. A feminist was replaced by Dr. Laura. The list goes on. You can
probably see why I quit talk-raido and went to public broadcasting, eh?
I mention all this for a reason; It's a prime example of dishonest and
manipulative rhetoric and our nation is drowning in it. It would be
pretty easy to make a case that Rush and his imitators had a lot to do
with the conservative take over of the US House of Representatives. The
dishonest manipulation in talk radio was very effective.
The folks at the radio station know what they're doing, but don't see
anything wrong with it. They know that commercial radio is not an
intellectual medium, its a social medium. I was criticized repeatedly
for being a "wonk". (A person who is familiar with political policy
issues.) I was told, more than once, to stop using fancy vocabulary
words like "manifesto". (The unabomber's manifesto was a topic in the
news at the time.) And several times I was asked, "What do you think
this is, public broadcasting?"
Management told me to stop being such a brainiac and just "feel the
issues with your gut". "You gotta go for the visceral reactions", they
said. And the audience essentailly reacted in the same way. I got tons
of hate-mail and even a couple of death threats. (Which have to be taken
seriously these days. Alan Berg worked at the same station before he was
gunned down by some militia guys.) One of the listeners even tried to
organize a boycott of the station in order to get me off the air. The
whole scene produced a very strange mix of feelings. I was flattered,
proud, disgusted and terrified.
I'm aware of Marshall McLuan's "THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE", but still
can't believe that what's happened in talk-radio is "normal" of
"natural". It sure felt like a concerted effort to me. It seems to me
that the mass media managers and owners are threatened by intellectuals.
Corporate media, and that even includes public broadcasting to some
extent, is much more interested in the bottom line than they are in the
value of ideas. But I don't understand why this should be so totally
dominant. There are forty-something radio stations in this market and
there is not a single liberal or intellectual voice among them. Not even
one. It feels like a conspiracy, even if it isn't. It feels like the
Giant wants to kick my ass.
Why can't talk-radio make a little room for real confrontation with
actual living guests, rather than just straw men. Conversation is an
art, among other things. Those who read and write make good talkers, no?
I don't know why televison and movies can't be intellectual and artful.
It seems that these forms have been appropriated by commercial interests
and that has a degenerative effect, draging the intellectual level down
into the realm of social values. It feels like some kind of corruption
to me. Its emotional and manipulative because that's the easiest way to
get attention and keep the ratings high, but it does a dis-service to
democracy insofar as democracy depends on a well informed citizenry. I
mean its not just that my views are under-represented. It actually harms
the larger society and sometimes even gets people killed. (Like Alan
Berg)
"Thinking with the gut" and "going for that visceral reaction" must be
one way of describing the way AROUND the intellect. If one is trying to
persuade a person to adopt an irrational position, then one has to find
a way to circumvent the intellect. The main thrust of the idea is that
we ignore the mind and try to effect to emotions and the body directly.
TV ads seem like an apt example here. Do you really want whiter teeth
and fresher breath, or are the advertisers just tapping into feelings of
inferiority and insecurtiy? Do you go to McDonalds because its wholesome
food, or because you think "you deserve a break today"? Is it the best
hair color on the market according to Consumer Reports, or is it just
"because you're worth it"?
Can smell the obsession? Yea, Tricks are for kids, but the trick is
there's hardly any food in that box of colorful sugar. See what I'm
getting at?
Even the most rational over-educated philosophy professor in the world
will react to images of sex and death. The most Stoic of Stoics can't
stop themselves from being aroused by sexual images. The most saintly
sage can't prevent the feeling of horror and disgust engendered by the
sight of a mutilated body. Those images appeal directly to the gut. They
go into the eye, run right past the intellect, and effect the organism
itself. That's why sex sells everything from cigarettes to automobiles.
It doesn't matter what the content is because the rational mind has been
excluded from the process. As long they associate their product with
getting laid, people will buy it. (Are you as turned on as I am right
now? Pant pant pant) This kind of manipulation seems even lower that
using sentiments and emotion. Here the advertisers are using involuntary
physiological responses to their advantage. Its not even social, its
just biological. Now that's degenerate !
Letterman did a brilliant parody of this last night. The show was
allegedly sponsored by America Online, which promised that computer
nerds can date supermodels, if they subscribe to the service. It was
very funny.
Even when ads in the mass media appeal to the intellect it is usually a
degenerate form and really comes down to dazzling the audience with
words that sound scientific. Visine get the red out because it has
"tetrahydrozoline"? Certs freshen your breath because of the "retsin"?
Only a stinky, blearly-eyed chemist knows what these things are. To most
of us the psuedo-scientific words are just ethos, they lend an air of
authority like the guy who is not a doctor, but plays one on TV.
The advertiser probably doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. We know
the motive is money, not truth or clarity. Nor should we expect
scientific accuracy among political partisans, but this forum is neither
commercial nor political. But having said all that about emotional
manipulation, I want to point out that no one here has anything to sell.
As far as I can tell there are no political activists here. We can be
suspicious of the motives of others only to a certain point.
Personally, I would like to persuade others. But its not about money or
power. Its about Pirsig's ideas. I am also happy to be persuaded by
others. And I don't think its possible to participate and take it
seriously without risking some hurt feelings and bruised egos. Anything
less would be a dry, boring, strictly academic exercise. This ain't no
tea party, this is philosophy.
David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST