I was watching the news in order to figure out if it seemed that the true purpose of the program was to entertain or to convey information. In addition to realizing that ratings really seem to be the first thing on the reporter's minds I made several other observations about language.
First of all, I realized that who the speaker is often matters more than what they are saying. In a way, the credentials of the speaker is another element of affective connotation.Why is it that we can not only be more easily swayed by some people simply because of who they are, without checking the verifiability of their information? Just as many people only trust reporters who don't cite their sources simply because of their position, many people can get away with saying things that others couldn't because of their status. In a lot of rap music African American singers repeatedly refer to themselves and others by the the N word, something that is accepted as normal under those circumstances. Even in a similar situation, with the only change being the rapper's race, this could be seen as extremely inappropriate and many member's of the audience would probably become angry.
Another thing I observed was the enormous role that the media plays in the campains of the presidential hopefuls by repeatedly using certain snarl-words to describe them or their policies. For example, many journalists and reporters have continually referred to Obama and Lieberman as "elitists", implying that they couldn't possibly appeal to the everyday person, only upper-class intellectuals. The fact that this word actually conveys no information about either canidate is irrelevant , the word itself has negativly affected the entire campain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First, I don't really think that the credentials of the speaker should be described as an 'affective connotation.' It is not as if these credentials give a sort of emotion when mentioned, but rather something that catches the audience's attention. For example, if the speaker had credentials of winning such and such rewards, most people would probably be more interested in what the speaker would have to say.
Also, I do agree that many people can get away with things do to their status. For example, in AP US history (I'm sure this is a wonderful memory for those of you who took the class), the teacher was allowed to make us all come back to school at night in order to write an essay that counted for our midterm exam. It was certainly not something that most teachers would be able to do, but because he had such an important position in the school, nothing could really be done. With this in mind, I don't think that the example of the rappers and the N word doesn't exactly work. It is not really the status that the rapper would get in trouble, but rather something that would fall under the category of social taboos. It's not that the African American rappers are more important than the rapper of the difference race. It's just that society views it that that word shouldn't really be used other than people of that race. If I'm not making sense please let me know.
I agree with your comment that credentials tend to take precedent in debate/argumentation, especially when two opposing claims are presented. In said scenario, the claim/opinion/fact of the "expert" with the higher/better credentials is considered more valid that the other. (You would be more likely to buy an AP US History review book written by several Ivy League college professors than one by a middle school teacher, regardless of whether the second book is the better one.)I think this (sort of) relates to "judging a book by its cover." We are not supposed to do it, but we do it anyways. Like many people have brought up before, the world around you is constructed from what you decide to include.
Perhaps we should question our own preconceptions/methods of judgement when it comes to evaluating things fed to us by various media outlets etc. Hayakawa mentions the fact that we are "spoon-fed" (31) by the media. Is it their fault only because we refuse to do our part to correct the formation of our biases?
Meanwhile, your example of rappers seems to imply something else. It seems to me that this has more to do with societal values/what society overlooks and less to do with credentials and the ratings/personal opinion over facts thingy.
Grace Yuan
I agree with Grace that people do something they shouldn't when they start to believe in the reporters who do not cite any sources. Some people do not realize that the reports do not include any bibliography until someone else tells them. For example, I didn't realize that until Mr.Laz pointed it out in class. People, including myself, just assume that people on the news say the truth because, after all, those guys are on TV with millions of people watching them. The viewers credulously believe that those people, especially professionals or witnesses during interviews, on national TV are being honest.
Your mention of the repetition of N words by African American rappers reminded me of my own experiences. I do not intend to offend anyone, but when my Asian friends call me C****(usually when we are joking around), I do not get offended. However, when people of other races use that word to me, I become very furious. I think the reason why I don't get angry in the first situation is that I know my friends do not mean the same way that the people in the second situation used the word. Thus use of N word by the Black rappers do not have any connection to their credentials; however, it's about how the listeners understand the way in which the word was directed by the speaker.
Once again, the interpretation is all that counts, not the 'definition'.
(Jennifer Park)
p.s. BTW who are you?
Don't we regard the media as a sort of quasi-authority? Many of us probably never regarded the media as a purely for-profit venture, though we've probably all been aware of the biases each publication and newscast tends towards. Now, we know from the Toulmin Model that an argument based on authority/ethos usually works in conjunction with the other GASCAP strategies. It seems, however, that the media fails in this respect and the reports they present their audience with is merely accepted because it comes from "authority". There is no bibliography, nor is there much evidence that might lead one to believe that the newscaster/journalist is even a credible authority.
Also, in mentioning the usage of racially offensive terms brings us to contexts. Yes, the word in itself does not change, but the context in which it is found alters people's perception of its use. "Any word in a sentence - any sentence in a paragraph, any paragraph in a larger unit - whose meaning is revealed by its context is part of the context of the rest of the test...All words within a given context interact upon one another." (Hayakawa 41)In this particular case, the speaker is, in some ways, a crucial part of the context. This also links to modern values - one is allowed to degrade those of their own race to a certain point, but never those of another.
I think that we've seen that politicians and those around them are found of misusing language for their own purposes. Just as politicians favor the Chaunticleer fallacy, the media seems to fall victim to the usage of snarl and purr words. Neither instances demonstrates an actual transfer of knowledge, but nonetheless, people are still influenced for/against candidates and the media continues to maintain a large audience.
I have to slightly disagree with Mary:
"It is not as if these credentials give a sort of emotion when mentioned, but rather something that catches the audience's attention."
I agree with her in that the term "affective connotation" is certainly not the most accurate when describing one's credentials, yet they do around some sort of internal feeling, or bias. A soldier with many honors/titles is received more warmly than one with few badges. Am I generalizing when I say this?
In fact, speaking of generalizations, this ironically ties in with GASCAP of the Toulmin Method of Argumentation. One type of warrant is the "authority" example. It develops the ethos of a speaker, whether he/she be a politician or any other ranking member of society. Citing Albert Einstein, as Eric suggesting in class, is evidently more trustworthy than quoting your associate in the office by your own. Thus, I can deduce that one's persona greatly exemplifies how their words/utterances are received by the public.
I believe that the point of this year's class is to assist us in modifying language so that we see it clearly, from our own perspective. By the end of the year, I dare make a prediction that we will not be trusting of sources due to their well-known title, but rather due to their professional bibliography. But then again, as Hayakawa reminds the reader, nothing in the future is set in stone; it may only be referenced by directive uses of language.
I fear that I branch out with too many tangents, I apologize.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment