Frank Luntz spotting
Jan. 12th, 2007 12:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yesthattomHe was on NPR and I missed it. I’m gonna have to listen to it on line when I have time, hopefully this weekend.
Remember that he is the guy that figures out how to make Republican lies sound believable. This is the man that doesn’t sell cigarettes to children, he figures out how to get parents to buy cigarettes for their own kids.
One of his premises is that people remember rhyming words and alliteration (first letter the same) more than anything else. Every time Bush spoke while on his campaign the words behind him were always in those categories: “Safer Schools”, etc. Every time I hear a new Republican term that is an alliteration I think, “hey! frank must have made some consulting $ on that one!”
His new book is called “Words that Work”. Or, I should say.... WWWWWWords that WWWWWWork.”
See?
Update: Frameshop discusses the 45-minute interview in a few short paragraphs.
Remember that he is the guy that figures out how to make Republican lies sound believable. This is the man that doesn’t sell cigarettes to children, he figures out how to get parents to buy cigarettes for their own kids.
One of his premises is that people remember rhyming words and alliteration (first letter the same) more than anything else. Every time Bush spoke while on his campaign the words behind him were always in those categories: “Safer Schools”, etc. Every time I hear a new Republican term that is an alliteration I think, “hey! frank must have made some consulting $ on that one!”
His new book is called “Words that Work”. Or, I should say.... WWWWWWords that WWWWWWork.”
See?
Update: Frameshop discusses the 45-minute interview in a few short paragraphs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 06:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 12:56 pm (UTC)Nuh-uh. He's absolutely deadly, not to be underestimated - and he got you good. That's exactly what he wanted to come off as. See my reply to Tom as to why and how.
Not that you should be ashamed. He's really scary - and he follows the money. This amount of power in the hands of a clearly immoral/amoral person is truly frightening.
We need more people like this on the right side. He is one of the main reasons that over half this country still believes that the psycho in the White House is not lying to them. He even has the utter audacity to mention Orwell.
I have to give Terry credit. She held out against him rather well, and it is likely that she was referring to a prepared list of questions rather than asking them spontaneously. If she hadn't done it that way, he would have turned her into scrambled eggs in about 15-20 minutes.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 02:31 pm (UTC)Uh-HUH! I'm talking about this one interview and how he came off in it. No need to be condescending.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 02:44 pm (UTC)You used the word "stilted", referring to the halting way he was speaking. Why? Because you didn't realize that his perceived inability to phrase things verbally was intentional.
As I said before, there's no shame in this. One of the reasons people like this are so dangerous is because the general public doesn't factor in the potential use of a voice roll on them in situations where they're not expecting it.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 03:19 pm (UTC)As I said before, there's no shame in this.
I'll take your statement that you didn't mean to be condescending at its face, but please note that telling someone what they did and didn't realize or perceive based on a couple of lines saying nothing about their beliefs, then consoling them for their inability to realize what happened to them is pretty much the definition of condescension.
I said how he painted himself, how he comes across as a micro-review of the interview for Tom, not what I believe. The interview was a dud, really if you want my opinion. Terry tried valiantly to catch him out on several points, going all the way to Orwell, but he sidestepped, turned the points, and kept his boring and transparent message coming through. He was not very cynical in his wording in the interview, and less hostile than many interviewees; yet the interview was unsurprisingly 0 in terms of revelation - he fenced Terry to a standstill.
Hearing Luntz certainly would not change my personal beliefs about calculated metaphor use (my profs included several Lakoff advisees; even my thesis examined attorneys' use of language to manipulate jury opinion of witnesses). That said, I also meant he came off as stilted in his self-justifications and approach to question answering, not his speech pattern. I don't think too many people could have heard the interview and thought, "Oh what a reasonable guy who's been painted so badly by his opponents; he's just a scientific actor!" His words were not cynical, but it was pretty clear that he's plainly a gun for hire holding beliefs similar to those he's helping, not to mention his "defense" boiled down to taking work when the money is right.
He's good at what he does, which tasks are indeed cynical ones that he tried over and over to describe as merely being about accuracy. Stilted scientists, I mean, are those who see (or at least express, 'cause I don't know what the guy thinks) themselves as merely "doing the work" divorced from its consequences. If coming across as a person no more moral (and no more cynical) than one of the "willing assistants" in Kelman's Crimes of Obedience is the best he could do with all his ability, he's not going to convert too many people to thinking he's just a nice guy doing the work for the sake of accuracy.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 04:49 pm (UTC)I also meant he came off as stilted in his self-justifications and approach to question answering, not his speech pattern.
It's clear that you didn't consider his speech pattern at all. Nonetheless, it is inexorably attached to "his self-justifications and approach to question answering". Your anger at his position ensured that you had some resistance. You knew something was wrong, but you did not know what, so you focused on a known variable - what you disagree with in what he says. That you would assign the stiltedness to his position rather than to his expression is actually scarier. It shows just how unaware you were of the voice roll.
Now, about maybe 5% of the population are going to see a voice roll coming from this guy - perhaps maybe 10% actually know what one is. That's just a fact, and if you weren't in that small percentage then it's not an insult. People don't fall out of the womb knowing what voice rolls are any more than they fall out of the womb knowing what an inode is.
However, you insist on shooting the messenger. This messenger CAN shoot back. Gods know I've been treated in a condescending manner enough over the years to the point where I know how it's done. I consider such behavior childish and counterproductive, but sure, if you insist I too can play the "Wild West Sixgun Shootout At t3h 1337 Int4rdn3t Corral" game. I'd rather not because there are a whole lot of people out there who deserve the lead far more, but if you insist: Yes, it is obvious that you are not one of the tiny percentage of people who would have seen a voice roll coming from this guy, and it worked on you far better than you would have liked. It's obvious because no matter what you say, your inappropriate hostility speaks for itself. You got owned (http://docstrange.justgotowned.com), deal with it. There, now THAT'S condescension. Feel better now, or should I also jump up and down and say "Neener Neener" for a while? *rolls eyes*
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 05:23 pm (UTC)I've repeatedly said that I don't include insult in my observations.
You said something to that effect once here: "I'm not being condescending at all." And I acknowledged it by saying I would take that at its face, but asked that you realize your words were indeed painting a condescending attitude. Is that so hostile of me?
your inappropriate hostility speaks for itself.
Please point out where I was hostile? I am certainly not intending hostility.
I'm sorry if you're reading me that way. Or rather that one sentence. You haven't responded to anything else, and I would rather like to hear your take on those comments, rather than your insistence that since I missed a voice roll, I missed everything. Surely that voice roll isn't the be-all-end-all of the whole interview?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 06:38 pm (UTC)If a person says they are not trying to insult you repeatedly and you insist that they are, that's what I'd call looking for a fight.
I decided to give you one so that hopefully you'd be able to tell the difference between that and what I actually said prior. I'm not sure whether it's that you're annoyed that you got caught by the voice roll or you have some other issue with me, but if you continue to insist that I'm talking down to you when I'm not, obviously you have an issue of some sort. I have no desire to conduct an attempt to communicate when there are unnecessary issues or misinterpretations in play, or as you might put it, "that's probably far enough", so will work to eliminate them before proceeding with the rest of the discussion.
Certainly Luntz is using other techniques than a voice roll in this interview. He even talks about some of them. However, not once does he mention that the WAY he is speaking is just as important or more than WHAT he says. Why do you think that is?
Because when you have command of something like a hypnotic voice roll, what you actually say doesn't matter at all. You can spew out absolute GARBAGE, "war is peace", et. al. and have people buying into it after enough time and skill has been expended. Even if you don't buy into it, the second worst thing that can happen during something like this is that you become bored. A voice roll is an assault on a part of the brain where there is very little error checking. It's very hard to fight against. If your attention wanders, guess what - it's wandering right into the trap of that speech rhythm.
Luntz went into this interview with the arrogant thought that he could twist the truth about how he manipulates people the same way he twists the truth about everything else, opportunistically bombard them with a few of his political agendas at the same time, and have many of them not even know that he was doing it - because he was speaking instead of writing, and no one (at least no one who wasn't in on it) would necessarily expect a voice roll from a political writer even if they knew what one was.
From looking at the way he spins other things, it's rather clear that what he doesn't say is often more important than what he does say. So while the voice roll certainly wasn't everything to YOU, it certainly was to HIM. It was his best kept secret. And I'm blowing it wide open, because I know how it's done and have built up a certain amount of resistance to that particular "iocane powder". I'm talking about it here not so I can waste time in immature "neener neener" sessions, but because I feel that it's important to be able to fight the people who are trying to control and take advantage of our nation with their own weapons.
Frankly, if I wanted to be condescending I'd have done exactly what Luntz did - I wouldn't have mentioned the voice roll at all. It's an arcane, handy tool I could use myself against someone I didn't think much of. If you're looking for condescension, look at Luntz himself. Orwell is innocuous, he's "just some guy"? Riiiiiiiiiight.
The other techniques that he's using can be dissected at length (and tearing that apart would be a great deal of fun), but it would be easier to do so with a written transcript of the interview. For that matter, it would be amusing to see how much of his voice roll translates to written expression.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 07:18 pm (UTC)Now, I agree Luntz's command of the parole is remarkable and that such command can be used to extremely potent effect - but I don't agree with your focus on the voice roll as ne-plus-ultra. We can agree to disagree there without further commenting on each other's intellect, ok?
The Daily Show send-up on Luntz is fantastic, and I think they get to the core of what's scary about his work for the GOP, which isn't actually DOING any talking, but scripting, stage-directing, and writing what others will say and do. That work is where he calculates, tests, and adjusts terminology until it evokes what he wants it to evoke, no matter that it no longer even resembles the actual subject matter. I believe that to be the most dangerous stuff, not his slick and slyly convincing self-justifications, though I do agree that his personal appearances, now that he's been more or less exposed as the man behind the curtain, are made to bolster the listener's belief in the alleged neutrality of his work.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 08:23 pm (UTC)I also did not bring intellect into this - either yours or mine. That you feel the need to is interesting, and provides a bit of verification.
Yes, the calculating stuff that he does is scary. It's a form of information warfare. Using these techniques to put a message across works a whole lot better when there's actual truth behind it, though. To quote a phrase: "Gossip is swift, but truth endures." Luntz's stuff works for a while on a certain large percentage of the populace, but it does have an expiration date - as does any such product that is fundamentally based on lies.
I like what I write to be robust. You might recall I said that to someone else here, too. Nothing is more robust than the truth. I walk softly but I carry that big gun.
A late-comer
Date: 2007-01-12 08:49 pm (UTC)And just so we're clear, I am being disparaging towards your grasp of rhetoric and authorial responsibility; any hostility nor condescension you perceive is merely a bonus.
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "DON'T DO THIS!"
Date: 2007-01-12 09:48 pm (UTC)It would be rather clear to someone who doesn't already have a chip on their shoulder that when I say that a person should NOT feel inferior for not noticing a particular thing because the statistical percentage of people who would is rather small, that is exactly what I mean. Since I am aware that (in general) I am talking to people, not machines, the purpose of that sentence is to ensure that they are aware that I am NOT trying to insult them by bringing the fact that they missed something to their attention.
I threw the shoe out there (or in your case, the hat), but clearly said "This is not what I mean, don't wear this, it's not you". Pretty straightforward, I thought. You're the ones who put it on anyway. Apparently it fits, and goes well with your other... baggage. Now you're trying to blame me for what YOU chose to do, as if my word choice was the equivalent of leaving the child proof cap off some Drano in a house full of three year olds.
No one forced you to take insult with the choice of a word. That you chose to do so is not my fault, and not my problem.
You do flatter me with my apparent ability to insult you without even trying, though. I don't NEED to have the "authority to assign or absolve shame". You do it for me. My mystic language POWAHS amaze even myself. ;-7
Bonus? Bring it. What you think of me matters very little. You have a chip on your shoulder coming in, and I am not impressed. People like you are easy to manipulate. You don't even know me and you've already made up your mind about me. If it's that easy to shape your opinion of a person, I don't need the favorable version either.
Re: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "DON'T DO THIS!"
Date: 2007-01-13 12:27 am (UTC)Please point to where I said I took insult with yoru chosen wording. Take your time; I'll wait.
Re: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "DON'T DO THIS!"
Date: 2007-01-13 12:47 am (UTC)So it's a bonus, eh? Now you're going to tell me you weren't looking for it? Please. Take your BS elsewhere.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-13 02:35 am (UTC)Might I suggest the next time you want words to issue forth from your forehead, you simply bang the keyboard against your skull?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-13 03:31 am (UTC)Incidentally, while you're accusing me of meglomania, you also might want to pause before you speak in your own grandiose and stentorian tones for the rest of all the "poor, benighted mortals". While I don't pretend to speak for Everyone(tm), I am quite sure that the wilful stupidity you are exhibiting is not necessarily the status quo just because you say it is.
You've pretty much outed yourself as a troll at this point. Bored now. Next.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 09:27 pm (UTC)As
As <ljuser="docstrange"> and <lj uer="rmjwell"> point out, the natural effect of your choice of words in your initial response was one of condescension. If the your intent and effect matched, then you were being condescending. If your intent and effect were mismatched, you were merely being inept. Either way, as you said earlier, deal with it.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 09:50 pm (UTC)The calculating stuff he does has a limit to how long until the truth pushes out the word-dressing he uses, true. The elections he wins, the changes to the law, and the impact on society last a little longer, however. That's why I call it deeply dangerous. The fall of liberal democracies hasn't been the result of hypnotic forms of parole alone, but rather through the use of extremely cynical law-making and agenda-labeling to gain just a toehold for a party to then sweep into totalitarianism. And it's not always the ones who do the cynical law-making who do the sweeping into power; sometimes they are hoist by their own petard.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 10:10 pm (UTC)That very much depends on the "others".
My right to throw a punch certainly may end when it reaches your nose. On the other hand, if what you see as a punch is actually an interpretive dance movement that comes nowhere near your nose, and you run madly about saying "Ow ow ow" anyway, I think it's clear who's got the problem.
You're assuming that because you see condescension and insult, everyone will. Frankly, whether they do or not is an individual choice that I wouldn't push on them, even if you would.
"...hoist by their own petard"? You betcha! ;-7
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 10:50 pm (UTC)So, in a neat parallel to Luntz, you were just conducting linguistic exploration, rather than personality drilling?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 11:46 pm (UTC)You chose to interpret that as condescension. That was your choice. Not my fault, not my problem.
No facts were harmed (or changed) in the presentation of my metaphor. Nice try on your behalf, though.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-13 02:48 pm (UTC)At least four people are now telling you that you came off as condescending. We must all be deluded and projecting things you never intended on your words!
Seriously, you come off worse every time you explain how it's entirely the readers' fault if they see it that way. "It's not my problem that no one understands what I'm saying" is a favorite cry of someone who refuses to admit they're, well, wrong.
What's more (going back up a few levels of reply), it's not 'hostile' to ask you to consider how your word choice might come off a certain way. There's no accusation in that -- quite the opposite, as that more or less says "I get that you didn't mean it that way, but it could easily be read that way". The fact that you persisted in seeing hostility and accusation honestly doesn't do a lot to make me believe any perceived condescension was unintentional.
On the other hand, I could just dismiss it with "There wasn't any hostility there. If you chose to interpret it as hostility, that's your choice. Not the writer's fault, not his problem."
no subject
Date: 2007-01-13 04:34 pm (UTC)Four people are not "everyone", any more than a kangaroo court or "dogpile on da wabbit" or "lord of the flies" equals justice. The simultaneously sad and hilarious truth is that you're busting on Luntz for advancing a totalitarian state using manipulative tactics, and in this little microcosm of a blog some of you are exhibiting the same behavior - claiming a majority that simply isn't proven to be there and pushing a premise based on personal insecurity (at best).
For all that I have been accused of various things throughout this thread, who can say that I was so presumptuous as to pretend to speak for EVERYONE(tm)? The very premise at the heart of the argument is that I insist that the decision to interpret a word or phrasing is ultimately the responsibility of the interpreter, that it is very much an individual choice, and that not everyone will interpret such the same way. Frankly, if someone wants to figure out who is really trying to manipulate a social situation, statements like "EVERYONE(tm) agrees with me" glow like a neon sign.
It was not hostile to ask me to consider how my word choice might have come off a certain way, but to do so repeatedly in spite of my unchanging statements that that was not what I meant. At least two of the people in question were obviously looking for a fight - bringing in ad hominems about "intellect" and all but asking me to get hostile in return, saying it would be a "bonus".
If you try to dismiss the idea that I'm being targeted by a bunch of trolls as my own misinterpretation, you'd have a hard time of it. The "dogpile on da wabbit" is growing too difficult to ignore, the hostility obvious, and the time and effort expended to engage me in argument far beyond a level of mere "dismissal". It's not enough to dismiss, you've also got to dis. That's what tells me the hostility was already there.
When there is anger, there is fear. Fear is also why people lie. Here we have four people DESPERATELY trying to propagate a lie. As with Luntz, it's usually around this time that I start asking myself what the Four Horsemen Of EVERYONE(tm) are so afraid of.
I rely solidly on facts. As such, it's easy for me to deconstruct what Luntz or anyone like him does, and it also lends power to my own ability to counter it.
See, the problem isn't that I *am* talking down to you. The problem is that you insist on trying to put me in a position where I *look* like I'm doing so. But that means that you actually do have to put me in a superior position - at least temporarily in your own minds. Sucks, doesn't it? Makes it hard to keep the hate in...
Now this is the part where the Four Horsemen of EVERYONE(tm) tell me they don't hate me, they just don't care, preferably in as rude a way as possible. Right. 32 posts of "I don't care". People not even on the guy's friends list coming in just to "not care". If I got paid for how trolls "didn't care" by the word I'd be a millionairess.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 01:32 pm (UTC)Words that work... indeed, FOR WHOM? This guy isn't giving anything away.
He spent an hour talking to Terry about what he does. All the while, he was USING what he does on Terry and the listener, and not once did he actually explain what he was really doing. He's not giving any of his little secrets away, but I will.
Listen to his reply to Terry when she asks him the first question. His reply is made in one of the most frighteningly perfect voice rolls (http://www.whale.to/w/mind.html#Voice_Roll_Technique__) you will ever hear. He uses it throughout the interview. Notice when you start to lose interest a bit in listening, when your attention wanders. Notice it right away, because that's when he's got you. He even got Terry herself. If she didn't have to refer to a list of questions she would have been toast. He's a hypnotist. That is one of the main weapons in his arsenal - and one that he never mentions. The minute I heard his first reply I knew how dangerous this guy was.
He ends by stating that there needs to be dialogue between the two camps of people in America. He completely ignores that this is already happening because it's not happening on his terms. He makes it sound like he espouses reasonable dialogue between the two camps, but the real issue is that he wants to negate the anger that's already there. He fears the anger that he sees in the blogs because he knows that strong emotion against his position can override his ability to lull people into the complacency required to manipulate them further.
His work can be reverse engineered. He's not infallable - but he's good, and should not be underestimated.
And mentioning Orwell... what arrogance. He might as well have come out and said, "By the time this hour is up I am going to have at least a few of you thinking that war is peace, hate is love and slavery is freedom - BECAUSE I CAN."
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 03:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-13 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 03:30 pm (UTC)http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/04/19.html
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 03:46 pm (UTC)Listen really carefully to the sections where they talk about "drilling vs. exploration" and "gaming vs. gambling". He uses this amazing form of logic that is...not. Very, very scary and crazy-making.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 09:58 pm (UTC)I felt like I needed a shower after listening to that interview.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 10:25 pm (UTC)And the gaming/gambling thing was total crazy-making stuff. "In Las Vegas, you go to hotels, shows, restaurants, so gambling isn't the right word." "Uh, dude, all those things you talk about don't have anything to do with EITHER gaming OR gambling."
The best part of all was listening to Terry Gross constantly working to control the utter anger and disbelief in her voice.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 11:35 pm (UTC)Words are also selected to fit into the rhythm of the voice roll, as well as to appeal to a target audience with a limited vocabulary. To make a catchphrase sound non-threatening and applicable to everyone, select a word with fewer syllables ("death tax"). To make it sound authoritative and scientific, pick one with more syllables ("exploration" vs "drilling").
The "crazy-making" part is because of the voice roll. You're processing the message at a certain rhythm - it's being (literally) drummed into you. Even though you know there's something very wrong with the input, you're still accepting some of it because it's at a rhythm designed to put you into a suggestible state of consciousness. A voice roll is like a denial of service attack that comes in through your ears. The service being denied is the opportunity to process the message on your own terms.
One of the scariest parts of the interview was where he made everyone laugh by saying Bush was stupid. Bush is stupid like a fox - and so is Luntz. He told them what they wanted to hear. It's an outright lie that they believed, because they very badly NEED to believe that Bush is not a threat to that degree. The "Bush is a stupid good ol' boy" BS has been one of the most stunning successes this administration ever pulled off, and I have no doubts that this guy Luntz was 100% behind that.
Terry Gross was affected by his voice roll too. Only the fact that she was reading prepared questions saved her. I could hear it. She recovered nicely toward the end.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 08:28 pm (UTC)Thanks for the links! This reminds me so much of "Thank you for Smoking".
no subject
Date: 2007-01-14 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-14 01:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-14 03:02 pm (UTC)