I was watching The Colbert Report and happened to come in on a part where Steven Colbert was mocking the presidential debate. He basically pretended to be a presidential candidate and answer questions from the audience. This one lady asked a question concerning home mortgages and what he was going to do about it. Colbert said that he was going to answer her question directly, but then went off to talk about something completely different.
There was also this other guy who asked (I'm paraphrasing a bit), "Why is religion being made such a big deal? Who decides whose reverend is right?"
Colbert answered, "You said the word reverend, right?"
"Right, reverend,"
"Reverend, right?"
This conversation went on for a while, only to end in Colbert saying, "This topic is completely out of the question."
This is my question now: If there are people who are able to see the flaws in these candidates speeches, like Colbert, why do they continue to talk like that? Why do these candidates insist on avoiding questions if viewers can see that they do and look down on them for that?
(Mary Quien)
3 comments:
I suppose it might have to do with the potential costs outweighing benefits. For example, when McCain attempted to directly address an issue ("Bomb, bomb, bomb (or was it bam?) North Korea," anyone?) he was later called out on it.
Politicians learn to divert questions on more "hot button" issues in which their replies might a)come back to haunt them or b)be taken out of context by the opponent. Instead, they give us the usual laundry list of what the people want to hear.
Politicians strive to utilize the methods of language analyzed by Hayakawa in LITAA. They prove to be most affective. People like Steven Colbert, whose vocation is based around the analysis and critique of politicians, are trained in recognizing out-of-the-oridinary semantics. Yet on average people (who have not read Hayakawa's works), slurr, purr, directive, presymbolic, ritualistic, etc..uses of language prove quite effective.
(Sam Maliha)
Political debates are less about what (italics) the candidates are saying, and more about how (italics) they are saying it. Politicians want to list all of the things people want to hear, using affective connotation.
It was interesting last night how McCain multiple times called Obama out on his use of "soothing" language and said something like "rhetoric or record", implying that the only thing Obama has going for him is his smooth talk, but that he (McCain) has more substance to his campaign (a good record). I'm sure McCain calling Obama out like that didn't please Obama at all, because I think Obama certainly wants to use his public-speaking skills without people noticing their "soothing" affect, and McCain was smart to remind the audience a couple of times about Obama's ploy (although, I'm not sure how much it will help in the long run).
(Emily T.)
Post a Comment