[shooz]

If you still think the words chosen don't matter.
Read this.

This stuff is part and parcel to multi-pronged marketing/PR.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

I see our local right wingers use this stuff constantly.
They have become such tool to it.

[shooz]

Here's an example of how it's being used today.
I've seen this happening right on the forum.
It is often spread by astroturfing, prior to the message going to the speaking circuit, to build support.

Religious Right Lipstick on a Reaganomics Pig

[mikemike]

So despite a generally left leaning bias in most media outlets, the right has managed to out communicate the left? Ironic, huh.

Excluding some of the obvious conclusions like the smart folks on the right either way outnumber or are head and shoulders above the smart people on the left, let me offer two insights...

1. The message of liberalism is a hard sell and the sales job for the agenda must continue forever because the democratic parties approach to legislation is to make it temporary so that a co-dependency exists between the people it helps and the democratic party.

2. The right's communicators come up through the ranks of talk radio while the left's communicators come from central casting. Its really evident in their comfort, spontaneity, ability to roll with the punches, and overall effectiveness.

[shooz]

left's communicators come from central casting

a co-dependency exists

agenda must continue forever

liberalism is a hard sell

Thanks for providing even more examples mike.
I knew you could do it.

[mikemike]

Thanks for providing even more examples mike.
I knew you could do it.

So any coherent and educated person who is not a liberal is an astroturfer?

So is if the term "progressive" isn't an attempt at framing things in a positive light, I don't know what is.

It looks like this guys rockridge institute went under in 2008, during the height of liberalism in the modern times.

I am just pointing out the obvious and its the truth, liberal policies require constant maintenance, funding, and patronage hence the co-dependence and continued need to sell the agenda just to maintain position.

The central casting comes from the left's obsession with identity politics and the thought that a dull but familiar messenger will be more effective than an unfamiliar but effective messenger.

[jeffkrol]

EVERYTHING needs "maintenance"......... Law of Entropy.............

CHAOS is not a society.............nor is every man for himself.........might as well be Amoebas....

[Wheatfield]

I am just pointing out the obvious and its the truth, liberal policies require constant maintenance, funding, and patronage hence the co-dependence and continued need to sell the agenda just to maintain position.

Conservative policies just require a mean spirit and a willingness to let your fellow countrymen suffer.
The right seems to be the agents of doing nothing (other than their penchant for blowing up people in foreign countries).
At least Liberals try to improve things for people.

[redrockcoulee]

So despite a generally left leaning bias in most media outlets, the right has managed to out communicate the left? Ironic, huh.

Excluding some of the obvious conclusions like the smart folks on the right either way outnumber or are head and shoulders above the smart people on the left, let me offer two insights...

1. The message of liberalism is a hard sell and the sales job for the agenda must continue forever because the democratic parties approach to legislation is to make it temporary so that a co-dependency exists between the people it helps and the democratic party.

2. The right's communicators come up through the ranks of talk radio while the left's communicators come from central casting. Its really evident in their comfort, spontaneity, ability to roll with the punches, and overall effectiveness.

Pretty big generalizations without any supporting evidence I think. Do the journalists for NY Times have acting experience? Is Beck truly smarter than Madlow or is just you might agree more with him.

One can be very smart, very bias and still fairly honest on either side of the political spectrum. However too many, especially from the talk radio are blantantly dishonest in that their statements have been proven to be either false or having no subsidence to back them in addition many of those same promote hatred of a group based on various commonaity such as gays or immigrants, academics or atheists. One can be very effective if the reason is not to report or explain but to inflame. It is not the way it has to be or the way it always has been. Even in CAnada which actually has political parties that are to the left of centre (Democrats are conservatives for the most part like it or not) has had some of those types like Ted Byfield or Peter Warrington but most meida people can be decent and civil and still show their bias (being neutral is not the same as being left leaning by the way).

Causing harm or distress for others is not the way to progress. What you call liberal agenda by the Democrats is more like traditional toryism (read conservatisim) and what you take as rolling with the punches is yellow journalism.

You seem to find glee with the fact that taking heads on the right flame hatred and mistruths. There was a study done after the Iraq war that showed that about 75% of Fox News viewers and less than 1% of PBS viewers beleived that Iraq had used WMD on the invading American troops and also a majority of Fox viewers beleived that the 911 terrorists came into the STates illegally from CAnada. A poplulation beleiving some this type of propogada ends up selecting its policies falsely and people end up suffering or dieing. However they may end up feeling that they saved a few dollars in taxes so all ends for the good. Rigth and left have their place in both politics and talk shows (not the news though) but both can and should be truthful and that is better than being sucessful (making money)

[Parallax]

The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for the various groups of animals.
We are all familiar with a herd of cows, a flock of chickens, a school of fish and a gaggle of geese.
However, less widely known is a pride of lions, a murder of crows (as well as their cousins the rooks and ravens), an exaltation of doves and, presumably because they look so wise, a parliament of owls.
Now consider a group of Baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates. What is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?
Believe it or not ....... a congress!
I guess that pretty much explains the things that come out of Washington!

[shooz]

But Parallax, that's reality not spin.............
Besides ask mike, it was named by some liberal scientist.

generally left leaning bias in most media outlets

You did it there too. It used to be plain old liberal news.
Now it's left leaning bias. Yeah , everywhere but FLAKESnews.
We tried to tell you the truth is what has the bias. You just don't want to believe it.
That started off with McCarthy calling them commies.
See how the message changes, yet stays the same.

There is no evidence of this bias. NONE. Yet you keep repeating it. Why?

This whole thing got worse with the republican repeal of the Fairness Act,
They probably didn't like the name.

As for progressives?
They've been around since the late 19th century.
Teddy Roosevelt spoke highly of them and their actions to get greed in corporations under control.
Seems we could use both a Fairness Act and some Progressive greed control about now, don't you agree?
Or would you prefer to spin it?

[Parallax]

But Parallax, that's reality not spin.............

Forgive me. I should know better. Reality has no place in any discourse on politics and the media.

[wildman]

Lakoff:
"Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully
choosing the language with which to present them, and building an
infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. "

Nothing wrong with that. Anyone presenting their "vison" of how the
world works or should work would do well to do the same.

Lakoff:
"They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to
talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how
best to express their ideas. "

See above

Lakoff:
"Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as
its highest value helping individuals who need help."

I am more or less a "Liberal" and I don't see it that way at all.

Lakoff:
"It's a matter of asking 'What are the central ideas of progressive
thought from a moral perspective?' "

The best point he made - what are the underlying basic moral principles
that inform your political views?

We often go on and on about the minutiae of policy complete with data,
graphs and charts but never seem to express where we are coming from
morally in the first place.

Left or Right - what is the basic moral foundation that you believe
makes you a Liberal or a Conservative?

There is no correct answer just your answer.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[shooz]

If you can't destroy the messenger, destroy the message?

[wildman]

If you can't destroy the messenger, destroy the message?

???????????

[Wheatfield]

Lakoff:
"Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully
choosing the language with which to present them, and building an
infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. "

Nothing wrong with that. Anyone presenting their "vison" of how the
world works or should work would do well to do the same.

I think it's not so much the framing as what they are framing.
The Right sells fear. Nothing else.
Their concepts are framed in such a way as to make receptive minds afraid.
Then they set themselves up as the protectors, thereby drawing said receptive people to them.
It's sad though, how many people the right has, and continues to, hurt by needlessly selling fear to people as a means to an end.
All the Right cares about is being in authority, being in power, so that they can continue to sell their message of fear and continue to build a power base of people who are easily led.
Historically, it's what any of the many evil dictatorships we've seen throughout the years have done.
The right has more in common with Fascism and Naziism than with democracy.