Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print
Dog Whistle Journalism (Read 3185 times)
Honky
Gold Member
*****
Online


Arbiter of crazy

Posts: 17372
WA
Gender: female
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #30 - May 16th, 2012 at 4:10pm
 
"come on"

That's your argument????

c'mon.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #31 - May 16th, 2012 at 4:21pm
 
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:56pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:51pm:
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:40pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 12:36pm:
Postmodern Trendoid II wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:49am:
Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:31am:
darkhall67 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 10:19pm:
Looks like some people dont understand the concept of "dog whistle".


Quite clearly they don't understand it. Dog whistle is NOT name calling. It is a subtle technique for sending messages to certain elements of the electorate using phrases which seem innocent enough but press the anger buttons of some people.

Like the use of the term "hand outs" for example. This sets off those who believe the poor are lazy, idle bludgers who always have their hands out for support from hardworking, industrious taxpayers. It is a subliminal message which is heard only by some voters, just as dogs hear a dog whistle that other animals cannot discern.




I understand it perfectly thank you very much.
The terms used by non-Liberals works in the exact same manner.




And yet you are unable to provide examples.




And yet, there are a dozen or so examples contained within post 12.




None of which are examples of "dog whistling".



Some are, but no, not all.

How often do you see a headline or artciel "such and such in racist outrage" The comment that leads to this "racist outrage" is usually something completely innocuous, but as soon as that racist "dog whistle" has been seen/heard, it turns the lachrimists sensitivity meter up to 11.†

left-leaners also invariably frame their story in terms of "equality, progress" and by extension anyone deviating even slightly from the script is immediately associated with the opposite - inequality and regression.† Any article on homosexual unions is a prime example of this.


How is that dog whistling? How would you prefer it was said?

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a†
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1929
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #32 - May 16th, 2012 at 4:45pm
 
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:10pm:
"come on"

That's your argument????

c'mon.




"Come on" wasnt the argument.

It was an exclamation of frustration.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Honky
Gold Member
*****
Online


Arbiter of crazy

Posts: 17372
WA
Gender: female
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #33 - May 16th, 2012 at 4:53pm
 
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:45pm:
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:10pm:
"come on"

That's your argument????

c'mon.




"Come on" wasnt the argument.

It was an exclamation of frustration.


Hmm. so much the same feeling of exasperation I had at your claim that 'the right are champions of framing issues" then.

Like, what year are you living in?  What planet are you on?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #34 - May 16th, 2012 at 5:33pm
 
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:38pm:
Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:28pm:
Paul Murray's blatherings about the "entitlement society" are bizarre.

The welfare system is enshrined in law, if you meet the criteria then you have a legal entitlement, because the law says so.

What would Murray prefer?

In the Depression of the 1930s, any worker in NZ could apply for a niggardly dole payment, but only if he was considered to be "of good character". This decision was made by some worthy establishment figure such as a magistrate or JP and there was no right of appeal.

So socialists, unionists and political agitators need not apply. And if you were known to have a drink occasionally you had no show.




He was quite clear in his meaning - money for doing nothing is stupid.† It breeds a blase attitude towards self-reliance, in favour of a hapless dependency on the government.† I'd rather people be responsible for their own lives, rather than throw up their hands and cry "oh why won't the government bail me out of the mess I've made of my life".


Your reaction is exactly what Murray was seeking. You've heard the whistle loud and clear.

At no stage did he speak about people doing nothing. But that is your inference and demonstrates your attitude towards those who need state support.

The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty.

Murray would love you, you are his target audience.
Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
Honky
Gold Member
*****
Online


Arbiter of crazy

Posts: 17372
WA
Gender: female
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #35 - May 16th, 2012 at 5:37pm
 
Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 5:33pm:
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:38pm:
Peter Freedman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 3:28pm:
Paul Murray's blatherings about the "entitlement society" are bizarre.

The welfare system is enshrined in law, if you meet the criteria then you have a legal entitlement, because the law says so.

What would Murray prefer?

In the Depression of the 1930s, any worker in NZ could apply for a niggardly dole payment, but only if he was considered to be "of good character". This decision was made by some worthy establishment figure such as a magistrate or JP and there was no right of appeal.

So socialists, unionists and political agitators need not apply. And if you were known to have a drink occasionally you had no show.




He was quite clear in his meaning - money for doing nothing is stupid.† It breeds a blase attitude towards self-reliance, in favour of a hapless dependency on the government.† I'd rather people be responsible for their own lives, rather than throw up their hands and cry "oh why won't the government bail me out of the mess I've made of my life".


Your reaction is exactly what Murray was seeking. You've heard the whistle loud and clear.

At no stage did he speak about people doing nothing. But that is your inference and demonstrates your attitude towards those who need state support.

The rest is just a sweeping generalisation and an assumption that the poor are to blame for their poverty.

Murray would love you, you are his target audience.



Hmm. Funny.  The title of the piece was:

Money for doing nothing simply wrong.

Or did you stop reading at the word "money"?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1929
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #36 - May 16th, 2012 at 6:25pm
 
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:53pm:
darkhall67 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:45pm:
Honky wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 4:10pm:
"come on"

That's your argument????

c'mon.




"Come on" wasnt the argument.

It was an exclamation of frustration.


Hmm. so much the same feeling of exasperation I had at your claim that 'the right are champions of framing issues" then.

Like, what year are you living in?† What planet are you on?




Seriously?



"Because framing has the ability to alter the publicís perception, politicians engage in battles to determine how issues are framed. Hence, the way the issues are framed in the media reflects who is winning the battle. For instance, according to Robert Entman, professor of Communication at George Washington University, in the build-up to the Gulf War the conservatives were successful in making the debate whether to attack sooner or later, with no mention of the possibility of not attacking. Since the media picked up on this and also framed the debate in this fashion, the conservatives won.[5]
George Lakoff, a Berkeley professor of cognitive linguistics, has been a prominent[citation needed] voice in discussing the effects of framing on politics.
One particular example of Lakoff's work that attained some degree of fame was his advice to rename [42] trial lawyers (unpopular in the United States) as "public protection attorneys". Though Americans have not generally adopted this suggestion, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America did rename themselves the "American Association of Justice", in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.[43]
The New York Times depicted similar intensity among Republicans:
In one recent memo, titled 'The 14 Words Never to Use,' [Frank] Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls ... the 'New American Lexicon.' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates 'drilling for oil'; he prefers 'exploring for energy.' He should never criticize the 'government,' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack 'Washington,' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. 'We should never use the word outsourcing,' Luntz wrote, 'because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'
ó[41ô

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1929
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #37 - May 16th, 2012 at 6:26pm
 
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, [Supreme Court Justice] Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. [There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s.]

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. 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.



Why haven't progressives done the same thing?

There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1929
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #38 - May 16th, 2012 at 6:31pm
 
I'm amazed that you think progressives (used to be called "liberals" until conservatives in the US made it a dirty word) are better at framing than conservatives.


I WISH we were as good as the right in framing the debate.

But we are learning;

"Don't Think of an Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
Author George Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.
Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests."



Great book.
A real eye opener.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #39 - May 16th, 2012 at 6:42pm
 
The reason they are better @ it is because they dont have a real argument and so have to throw off and manipulate. Just look @ tolerator and that other one - they dont have an argument so they try to insult you. Politicians do that too but in different words. Their policies are unpalatable (if they have policies @ all) and they know it. They have to manipulate ppl to get them to accept them.

Also it helps to have all the advertising resources of the media @ your disposal.

Ever watch QT when gillard pulls out some papers and reads out some facts then abbott spends 20 mins insulting her and everyone in her party and everything else he can think of instead of countering it? then the media picks up abbotts tirade instead of gillards calm proposal.

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a†
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid II
Gold Member
*****
Offline


International Socialist

Posts: 6158
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #40 - May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm
 
Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers.

It's the same process as marketing.

It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #41 - May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm
 
Postmodern Trendoid II wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm:
Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers.

It's the same process as marketing.

It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.





While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up.

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a†
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
The Stunt-free Horse
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Did you vote for copper
internet?

Posts: 18934
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #42 - May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:30am:
Peter Freedman wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 5:04pm:
You're confusing dog whistling with name calling. DW is much more subtle than that.


you mean because the right is so much cleverer than your beloved lefties?

The right suck Daddie for more crack: if you want to call that clever then go ahead!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  Wink
Back to top
 

...... -----=>>the copper internet christmas present is an insult!! <..seriously, like wtf!??!>
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid II
Gold Member
*****
Offline


International Socialist

Posts: 6158
Gender: male
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #43 - May 16th, 2012 at 7:46pm
 
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:37pm:
Postmodern Trendoid II wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm:
Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers.

It's the same process as marketing.

It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.





While that is true - one political group does have the resources of the media behind them. The media are very good @ advertising (duh). The marketing is done for them (the libs in this country) by the media and the advertising is easy with those dog whistle words. Its all set up.

SOB


It isn't true that it's completely bias toward the Liberals. I remember back in the 1990s when the Liberals were in opposition and the media gave them a hell of a time. Also, who can forget Phillip Adams in The Australian launching tirade after tirade on Howard. Don't get me started on the ABC.

Regardless of all that. People choose to buy newspapers, choose to watch tv, and choose to surf the internet. There's no gun to their heads.

People currently dislike Labor because they've stuffed up too many times. Personally, I will never vote Labor because my views are at complete odds with the left-wing of that party. I don't need some journalist to tell me about that.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
darkhall67
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1929
Re: Dog Whistle Journalism
Reply #44 - May 16th, 2012 at 9:30pm
 
Postmodern Trendoid II wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 7:33pm:
Every political party tries to "frame the debate." Every party uses catch-phrases, attempts to influence thinking, demonizes opponents, in fact, they will try and use every trick in the book to gain followers.

It's the same process as marketing.

It's intellectually dishonest to think one political group exists outside this paradigm.







Never said it was exclusive to one side.

What I am saying is that one side is expert, the other side pathetic at it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print