...you pick up the phone!
The call waiting on my home phone yesterday showed "National Rifle Association." Anna was a little surprised when I picked up and said "hello." The very pleasant female voice on the other end, after establishing that I was the man of the house, or close enough, asked whether I would be willing to listen to a message from the NRA Executive Vice President, Wayne Lapierre, then take a "one-word survey." I agreed that I would.
I was fully expecting rhetoric. I would expect it of left-leaning political groups and I expected it of this right-leaning one. But even so prepared, the recorded message that the nice woman from the NRA played for me was surprising, because it was a characature of the kind of messaging that we're going to be analyzing and playing with in this course.
I think the basic logic of the message was this: "The United Nations is considering a series of actions that will likely lead to enhanced gun control in this country, therefore don't let Hilary Clinton and the third-world dictators decide your gun rights." But I could be wrong.
I'm not entirely clear on the logic because of two things. ONE: the 3-minute long message was so full of emotionally-charged word choices that I got happily distracted just listening to the flow of language ("scheme," "liberal," "plot...") And TWO: the conclusion to the "argument" seemed to equate the U.N. with Hilary Clinton. Hilary Clinton + 3rd World Dictators = UN. Seriously. I was distracted because "she who must not be named" had not been named up until that point. There was no mention of HC before the conclusion.
As for the "one-word survey?" The one question was this (no kidding): "Do you want to let Hilary Clinton and third-world dictators decide your gun rights?" Of course I said, "yes."
You know the phrase "when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?" Well maybe I'm guilty of that, but the recorded message that the nice lady played for me looked an awful lot like an example of the kind of rhetoric we're studying in Environmental Communication.
Now, I'd like to find a comparable left-leaning message on which to analyze and report. Any help?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I don't have a comparable left-leaning message to aid you. However, I would like to note that I found the above to be an interesting look into the political spectrum and the power of surveys. It reminded me of something discussed in my sociology course this morning. Chris Marshall passed us print-outs of a survey he received in the mail about immigration. It was heavily biased, illustrated with harsh, emotionally-charged words. I cannot remember the questions, but one was along the lines of the English language becoming "ebbed" by Spanish, rather than Spanish adding new flavor to our society.
ReplyDeleteNot rambling -- I have a point. We must be careful in answering surveys, as they often (intentionally or unintentionally) are marked with bias. It seems to me that finding a truly neutral survey is of great difficulty, having answered plenty throughout my life.
Likewise, surveys are narrow. One-answer is only quantitative, not qualitative. It throws the individual in a pools with others -- either the "yes people" or the "no people". I feel the people should be able to emphasize their point, for in reality they may be more neutral than anything.
I must admit that I found the mentioning of Hilary Clinton in your post to be amusing. I suppose HC must be the equivalent to Voldemort in Wayne Lapierre's eyes!