-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Frank Luntz Playbook: Republican Talking Points in Canonical Form
- Thread starter Drinky Crow
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
LOL! Like there's a question about the existence of these talking points. Daily Show has had some great fun with them over the past years. It's easier to pick up when you run about a dozen different people back to back saying the same thing verbatim. Apparently, you can't change the wording of talking points too much, or they lose their effectiveness. It's the number one rule of marketing, repetition, repetition, repetition. By being as samey as possible, they've really developed an effective propoganda machine.
Yes, democrats do similar things, but the party is so diverse to begin with that it's really not that effective. You can't get all Dem congressman parroting each other quite like how you can get the whole GOP and their affiliated networks to read back to you the same bs, word for word.
If you can't see the problem with talking points, then you're probably one of the suckers. Talking points reduce free thought. Like religion and the military, by pre-packaging everything into a nice, digestible format, it allows the target audience to shut their brains off and absorb the message, regardless of merit. And the repetition reinforces these ideas. Free thought is essential to good government. If everyone is saying the same thing, where are the checks and balances? There is no balancing force in the Republican party. Their voices have been muted quite effectively. It's a double-edged sword. The party is inevitable dumbed down (no point mincing words about what a lot of us feel), but the upside is incredible unity and loyalty to the cause. The Democratic party has a more diverse base, but that leads to a fragmented message and a lack of cohesion. Not the best for combating the Pubs at this time. Oh well, not much you can do but shake your head and laugh. PEACE.
Yes, democrats do similar things, but the party is so diverse to begin with that it's really not that effective. You can't get all Dem congressman parroting each other quite like how you can get the whole GOP and their affiliated networks to read back to you the same bs, word for word.
If you can't see the problem with talking points, then you're probably one of the suckers. Talking points reduce free thought. Like religion and the military, by pre-packaging everything into a nice, digestible format, it allows the target audience to shut their brains off and absorb the message, regardless of merit. And the repetition reinforces these ideas. Free thought is essential to good government. If everyone is saying the same thing, where are the checks and balances? There is no balancing force in the Republican party. Their voices have been muted quite effectively. It's a double-edged sword. The party is inevitable dumbed down (no point mincing words about what a lot of us feel), but the upside is incredible unity and loyalty to the cause. The Democratic party has a more diverse base, but that leads to a fragmented message and a lack of cohesion. Not the best for combating the Pubs at this time. Oh well, not much you can do but shake your head and laugh. PEACE.
Fragamemnon
Member
Talking points aren't inherently bad, though. We, as a society that is overhwelmed with
information, need some kind of conveninet distillation of political positions that we can comprehend, analyze quickly, and make a judgement on. We're a busy society and many of us can't be fussed with the complexities of H.R. 0953 or what not.
The problem is when talking points are disingenuous to the point of not accurately representing the position they are trying to describe. This is what both sides of the aisle do, but Frank Luntz and the GOP do much, much better and to a much worse degree than the Democratic Party does. Note that all words have contexts to them-it's not just the words, but in the context they are delievered.
Talking points are made worse when they are attached to emotional responses. Like the notion of not talking about the deficit without mentioning 9/11, for example. You distort by making a emotional reference that may very well have no relevance to the position your talking point is trying to describe.
The bottom of the barrel-where we are now, I might mention-is when the media does not properly correct these talking points for factual accuracy. This is happening more and more often and we're doomed as a free nation if we lose the ability for the media to properly expose the lies of the ruling members of the country.
I'm not going to go into why the media is failing in its role in partipatory government-that's another thread entirely.
information, need some kind of conveninet distillation of political positions that we can comprehend, analyze quickly, and make a judgement on. We're a busy society and many of us can't be fussed with the complexities of H.R. 0953 or what not.
The problem is when talking points are disingenuous to the point of not accurately representing the position they are trying to describe. This is what both sides of the aisle do, but Frank Luntz and the GOP do much, much better and to a much worse degree than the Democratic Party does. Note that all words have contexts to them-it's not just the words, but in the context they are delievered.
Talking points are made worse when they are attached to emotional responses. Like the notion of not talking about the deficit without mentioning 9/11, for example. You distort by making a emotional reference that may very well have no relevance to the position your talking point is trying to describe.
The bottom of the barrel-where we are now, I might mention-is when the media does not properly correct these talking points for factual accuracy. This is happening more and more often and we're doomed as a free nation if we lose the ability for the media to properly expose the lies of the ruling members of the country.
I'm not going to go into why the media is failing in its role in partipatory government-that's another thread entirely.
Yes, but that's part of the problem too.Fragamemnon said:Talking points aren't inherently bad, though. We, as a society that is overhwelmed with
information, need some kind of conveninet distillation of political positions that we can comprehend, analyze quickly, and make a judgement on. We're a busy society and many of us can't be fussed with the complexities of H.R. 0953 or what not.
The fact that the average citizen CAN'T understand what is being proposed for legislation is a bad thing. Don't you think that intentional complexity is also used to execute agendas unwatched?
Fragamemnon
Member
The fact that the average citizen CAN'T understand what is being proposed for legislation is a bad thing. Don't you think that intentional complexity is also used to execute agendas unwatched?
I read Senate bills and House Resolutions all the time-they are cryptic, but NOT written solely for the sake of being hard to understand. Most of them modify, amend, or supplement existing titles and sections of the United States Code, and they *must* be written with precision in order for the law to be as unambiguous as possble (else you might get legal challenges if it conflicts with other sections of the Code or the US Constitution).
It is the job of the proponents/detractors of the bill and the media at large to accurately and concisely convey the bill's intent to the public. The failure is with that accuracy and honesty of explanation, not with the way the bills are written themselves.
I don't know if that's what you were getting at, or if I missed the boat entirely.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.