ON CHAPTER 4 IN PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:
I’d like to raise an important point I don’t feel is discussed and then ask a question based on that discussion. On page 90, the differences between factual and judgmental claims are discussed. Woodward and Denton define facts as not being able to be proven true or false. My understanding is that facts are facts and can’t be argued one way or another. Judgments are said to “…express priorities, preferences, or values that may justifiably differ from individual to individual” (Woodward & Denton 90). My question is: do you believe there are judgmental facts?
First I think it’s important to distinguish between different kinds of facts. There are facts such as scientific facts. Statements such as the sky is blue, humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes and various laws of physics as understood remain constant throughout time and within different cultures. Then there are facts as offered in the book on page 90. These facts include the boiling point of water at sea level, the New York Yankees having the most expensive roster in baseball and North Korea as capable of launching missiles with nuclear weapons. Each of the facts offered on page 90 (at least to me) imply a sense of judgmental claims and yet they are given as examples that can be true “regardless of your own beliefs” (Woodward & Denton 90).
For example, the boiling point of salt water and fresh water are different at sea level, the New York Yankees may not have the more expensive starting roster next year and North Korea may eliminate its nuclear missile program preventing them from having nuclear missile capabilities. These might seem a bit far fetched as North Korea is probably not going to do away with their nuclear missile program but it’s still an example of how these so called, iron clad facts can be changed. I guess my point is: there are different kinds of facts that can change over time and there are other facts that don’t change over time. In each and every culture around the world, the laws of physics, color of the sky and understanding of the number of chromosomes present in humans are universally understood. Do you think this distinction and difference is important when considering judgmental and factual claims? Explain your answer.
ON CHAPTER 9 IN PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:
Chapter 9 discusses how rhetoric is used as a form of mass media persuasion in campaigns. The idea of situation analysis is discussed as being critically important for social movements to have successful campaigns. The point of doing a situational analysis is to “…gather needed information that will become the basis for designing the persuasive message, strategies to make the message public and the execution of the desired action” (Woodward & Denton 257). This is supposed to be the first step in understanding your audience that will allow a campaign to produce a persuasive message. I would generally agree however, I would add that it’s also critically important to do continuous situation analysis when planning a campaign. For me situational analysis is a process that is continuously done. From the statement made in the book it sounds like campaign analysis is only done once to get the campaign going. However, audiences, environments and the impact your campaign has can change how you need to construct messages in their role of continuing to be persuasive. How important do you think situational analysis is in determining the success of a campaign? Do you consider it a process? Do you think factual or judgmental claims have more importance?
ON CHAPTER 11 IN PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE:
Chapter 11 talks about political campaigns and describes all political campaign as having 4 elements. Those elements include: short-term orientation, specific objectives, they are primarily mediated and audience centered (Woodward & Denton 315). My first question is what you consider to be short-term orientation? In this last presidential election with Barack Obama running again John McCain for president I would consider it to be anything BUT short-term orientation. I would agree that candidates do have certain objectives they are trying to accomplish within certain time frames where public discussion of the messages they present are discussed. However, the audiences, topics and objectives of the politicians seem to change almost daily and it’s an ongoing process that seems hardly short-term. What are you views on this and what would you consider to be a short-term time frame for political campaigns?
Another aspect I find interesting is the idea of evaluating how persuasive political candidates messages are within a given audience. This also ties into the idea of judgmental and factual claims as discussed in question 1. Chapter 11 claims that, “Messages are typically planned, prepared, and delivered with an eye to immediate outcomes” (Woodward & Denton 315). I guess my question is: how can candidates find out their immediate impact on a political message delivered to a public audience?
The debates are a great example that have recently played into this theme. It’s extremely important in politics to know where you stand with the public. That way you can continuously adjust your campaign to try and gain public popularity. It’s part of the rhetorical process. In the recent debates one of the new ways that the media has tried to determine the effectiveness of messages delivered by political candidates is to show ratings of how men and women viewed the messages during the debate as being persuasive. Another recent way to find out the effectiveness of arguments delivered by candidates is to ask viewers to text message their votes about who was more persuasive in the debate. Then, based on this data, the media gives a projected percentage of each candidate and shows whether they are leading polls.
I find this to be extremely entertaining as the polls and views of candidates being ahead or behind can differ by different news media. My last question is: do you think these polls accurately represent how people received a persuasive message delivered by a presidential candidate? Why or why not and explain your answer. So far do you think the Obama or McCain Campaign has met the criteria of a political campaign as answering specific objectives and being audience centered? If so why or why not? Do you think this attributes to the current success of the campaign? Would you consider the campaign process or be well mediated? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment