I was reading a Newsweek article yesterday that reminded me multiple times of things that we have discussed in class. The title of the article is "Don't Get Depressed, It's Not 1929", by Daniel Gross, I thought it would be interesting to bring up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/170340. The point of this article was to assure people that the recession we are in right now is not a replay of the Great Depression, and most likely won't end up being as bad.
One of the first things I noted as I read the article was this quote: "Financial executives invoke distant history in part to make up for their own recent shortcomings." Great move on the part of the politicians! The easiest way to remove blame is to direct attention as far away as possible. The way politicians have done this recently is to distract the American public and have them dwell on thoughts about the Great Depression, which was how many years ago? How many of us were around when it happened? There are very few people who would remember the Great Depression, therefore making us dependent on what politicians and the media tell us/want us to believe. "The farther away we are, the greater (and less accurate) the generalizations we make." Abstractions-- another tactic that politicians use-- they can be very effective.
Another quote that caught my attention was "Analogies help us place things in context." Accounting for this, it makes sense that politicians would want to compare our current recession with something, so that we understand it better. But, by trying to express the gravity of the situation to us by comparing it to the Great Depression, is the impression that we are getting incorrect? Another thing that Daniel Gross mentions is that "The specter of the 1930s has also been deployed by political leaders to create a sense of urgency." But have they gone too far?
Two other things that caught my attention, that I mention just as side notes-- one was the reference to Studs Terkel, "the great chronicler of the voices of the Depression." The other was a reference to Russia in terms of the economic crisis. It is mentioned briefly that Russia is not really working with the U.S. to cope with the economic situation... this reminded me of the article Jenn brought up.
It's amazing how the media (in this case, Newsweek) works against itself in some ways, as in, Daniel Gross pointing out some of the tactics that politicians use to get us to believe what they want us to believe. In some ways, the media sort of cancels itself out-- I guess that's why it's important to get information from multiple sources...
Emily T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is really interesting. Since, as you said, not many of us have were around during the Great Depression, we lack any extensional basis on the matter. We've compiled our information from reports which, according to Hayakawa, are our main targets of accurate information. What the audience also fails to do is to take into consideration the context within which the politician is describing teh Great Depression. True masters of language have the ability to manipulate the subject matter using snarl words, purr words, loaded words, and even anecdotes if possible (in order to establisha warrant with the audience!).
The article's description of analogies is rather intriguing. Weren't they removed from the SAT Reasoning Test because they are subjective rather than objective tools of thought? If they're easily interpreted differently by different parties, then exactly how accurate is their usage? We look to politicians and figure heads hoping to receive bits of truth (whatever that may be), yet it's alarming when we learn that we deceive OURSELVES with the words that we hear or see. This is the part that I find most disturbing.
"Have they gone too far?"
Maybe so, maybe not. It's difficult to speculate since each individual receives information differently. Comparing our current economic state to the Great Depression will trigger excitement. Whether people should use this energy to worry about the situation or not remains a mystery to me.
I don't necessarily think that the media cancels itself out. If this were so, wouldn't we be totally unaffected by propaganda, politicians, etc..? I'm a bit confused.
(Sam Maliha)
I don't think that they have gone too far. These politicians want to get across their feelings to other people. They want people to feel a certain way and will use words in order to achieve that goal. It is possible to be used, and is used, by many people. If anything, it is in the fault of the people who truly believe these words just because it is coming out of the mouth of a politician. Because of course politicians are ALWAYS right when it comes to the economy. >_>
In terms of analogies, I think that they can be useful. It helps us understand something by referring to something in our semantic environment. However, I do see how sometimes analogies can be misleading, like in this case. I think that an analogy loses its purpose if it is made to something outside our semantic environment.
Also, I see what Emily means by the media canceling itself out, but I don't think that really matters. People may now be informed of this, but it doesn't mean that they will necessary change their ways. For example, we have read Hayakawa, but we still mistake the symbol for the thing symbolized, do we not? I think that it's just another way that the media tries to mess with us. While we think that we are learning how to point out the lies of these politicians, the article itself is altering our thoughts with its words.
I, too, find these quotes to be quite interesting. I agree that many politicians are indeed "true masters" of language because they are capable of affecting our thoughts on national matters such as the current recession.
Clearly, politics involves much persuasion, and what better tool of persuasion exists than abstraction! Despite a resultant loss of accuracy, politicians love to abstract because it allows more agreement between people, since there is less room for argument. Also, as Emily points out, politicians wish to keep their listeners' attentions as far away from their specific words or actions as possible - they want the focus to be, not on them, but on some abstract idea or generalization that can easily be agreed with.
The article at hand also contains examples of how politicians draw comparisons. The point here is that, while such comparisons or analogies are not necessarily accurate, the only thing that matters is the effect that the politicians' words have on the public.
Of course, the problem arises when people such as Daniel Gross notice that such comparisons are actually faulty. Then new interpretations are circulated through media that challenge the politician(s). Thus, I agree with Emily's view of the media working against itself in certain cases.
Sam, to clarify Emily's last point, I think that she merely wanted to explain how the media is not limited to one idea; it often encompasses opposing ideas (e.g. the ideas of certain politicians versus the ideas of Daniel Gross) that almost "cancel each other out." However, I don't think that this "cancelling out" implies that we are unaffected by politicians, propaganda, etc, because the different views expressed through media remain, so they may still affect us. Perhaps cancelling out is too literal/extreme to be used here.
(Janet Lee)
As humans, we are inevitably drawn to comparisons. We cannot wonder how good or how bad something is without comparing it to something we have previously experienced. However, with an event of such magnitude as the recession, few of us have any appropriate experiences with which we can compare the recession. We're living through an event that's going to be in the history books, and already we are attempting to determine its placement regarding its severity and importance.
But because most of us do not have any equivalent experiences from the extensional world to compare the recession with (no apples to apples), we rely upon our knowledge gathered from the intensional world. As Gross wrote, we generalize more and come onto higher levels of abstraction as time progresses. The nuances and details fade, and then sometimes historical situations become stereotypes.
We need only look at the Iraq situation for an example of attempting to apply overly broad generalizations of the past onto the present.
For example, we have been told that Iraq is another "Vietnam," and that "staying the course" will only lead us further on the road to ruin. From the opposite point of view, we have been told that "cutting and running" from Iraq at this crucial time and talking with the Iranian president would be similar to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII. Of course, neither stereotype is correct. History may have recurring trends, but the context and situation always differ.
That being said, however, I do feel that some comparisons can be drawn, and there are always some lessons to be learned from the past. We simply must be careful not to oversimplify the past and draw inaccurate generalizations.
Finally, regarding the media's "cancelling-out effect", as you guys were calling it:
Well, that's the beauty of the free press: it offers you a whole spectrum of opinions and analysis.
PS: In case you're interested, here's an article from Time that looks at the historical parallels between the Depression and today.
www.doiop.com/depression
In response to Sam's thought in the first comment, I stand by my statement that media cancels itself out (for the most part), but I guess I should define it more clearly. In my nat'l gov't class we have talked about how people watch selected shows and listen to selected radio broadcasts because they know what they want to hear. In addition, if people hear something they don't agree with, they are less likely to change their opinion than to become frustrated or angered. Propaganda, etc., including negative ads, does more to get out the vote than to change political opinions.
One exception I would make, though, is for the undecided voter. The undecided voter has to make a choice based on something, and where else to get ones information than the media? If a person does not have a set ideology, they have to hear viewpoints and opinions from somewhere. I would say that this is where the media plays the largest role in politics.
People must be careful, though, that they are getting the complete story, as best as they can, by getting information from multiple sources. As long as the media includes many perspectives to the same story (whether from the same source or not), people can be well-informed. It is the responsibility of each person, though, to seek out various perspectives.
The media does affect us, in the sense that it defines what the "issues" are. But even in that regard, there are always two (or more) sides to every argument, it's just a matter of exposing oneself to each side.
Regarding how the media "cancels itself out", I hope this is at least a little bit of a better explanation of where my thoughts are coming from...
Emily T.
Post a Comment