Archive for September 2012

Critical Voter - Podcast 7 - Media Literacy

September 16, 2012 Blog, Media Literacy, Podcast No comments

Old fashioned journalist

There’s one actor that tends to play a role in each US election that can sometimes seem bigger than the ones played by the candidates, the parties or even the voters: the media.

But what do we mean when we talk about either “The Liberal Media,” “The Corporate Media,” or simply “The Media,” (beyond the use of this catch-all term to refer to everything from newspapers, radio stations and television networks that have been delivering the news for decades, or the more modern Internet media that is in the process of absorbing or replacing those traditional news sources)?

To understand the role the media plays in our thinking process, we need to understand the importance of background knowledge to any critical thinking exercise. For no amount of logical or rhetorical skill can make up for not having the slightest idea of what we’re talking about. And, for better or worse, the bulk of our background knowledge of not just the election, but of anything going on in the world, comes to us via media sources.

This week’s podcast takes a look at the fundamentals of media and media literacy, and takes a close look at how the Internet is changing not just media and politics, but us (or more specifically, our brains).

This week’s resources include:

Critical Voter - Media Literacy - Quiz

Critical Voter - Media Literacy - Lesson Plan

Critical Thinker Academy on the importance of background knowledge

Resources on Media Literacy

Book Reference: Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of Media Manipulator

Book Reference: The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brain

Critical Voter - Podcast 7 - Media Literacy [ 29:20 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Obama vs. Romney - Rhetorical Devices

September 14, 2012 Argumentation, Arrangement, Blog, Rhetorical Devices One comment

The first thing Critical Voter listeners and readers might notice when they look over the acceptance speeches of President Obama and Mitt Romney at the recent party conventions is how frequently both candidates peppered their talks with linguistic rhetorical devices, such as alliteration (which, if you recall, is the repetition of an initial consonant sound), anaphora (the repetition of a word or phrase within a sentence for affect) and the “rule of three” (three items in any list or examples to used illustrate a point).

The moment the President was allowed a word in edgewise between cheers of “Four More Years!” he had already talked about a “dogged faith in the future…” (alliteration), “…which has pushed this nation forward, even when the odds are great, even when the road is long.” (anaphora).

Similarly, Mitt Romney had barely said yes to his party’s nomination before listing all kinds of triplets, talking about: “When a hard fought election was over, when the yard signs came down and the television commercials finally came off the air…” (three verbs), Americans who have always been “optimistic and positive and confident in the future.” (three nouns, with an extra “and” thrown in for anaphoric impact).

The use of such devices over and over again in both candidate’s speeches (along with other linguistic devices such as a modest attempt at chiasmus on the President’s part who announced to veterans, that once they took off their uniforms “we will serve you as well as you’ve served us”) should highlight the fact that, for persuasive speakers, such devices are as common as the use of pronouns by those engaging in normal conversation.

It’s commonly assumed that the President is the more skilled public speaker of the two, but in looking over both speeches, this seems to boil down to the fact that he has a greater comfort level utilizing the linguistic devices I’ve just highlighted far more frequently than his rival (alliteration, anaphora or a triplet can be discerned in almost every paragraph of his speech).

Romney, in contrast, seems to have spent more time responding to anticipated criticisms of his candidacy (that he is a rapacious businessman who has destroyed more than he has created, or that his party is hostile to women) by including content in his Statement of Facts and Refutation that confound such judgments.

A paean to women, starting with his mother and wife and continuing through Republican office holders (including those he ran with and worked with when Governor of Massachusetts) was meant to stave off criticism on the “War on Women” accusation. But his attempt to defend his role at Bain Capital was cleverer (and, thus, more effective), including as it did a list of companies that his rival’s campaign shops at (Staples) and the President’s own wife has praised (Sports Authority) which helped defuse the notion that Bain (and Romney) has done nothing but destroy businesses and export jobs.

Obama speech (which, as I mentioned earlier, was light on logos-based Arrangement elements, including Refutation) did not seem to include similar attempts at procatalepsis (the blunting of an objection by answering it in advance), although his overall message (that the work he has started will take another term to complete) could be seen as an attempt to provide an uber-response to any accusation that he has not delivered on his 2008 promises (with an answer that boils down to: “not yet, but I soon will”).

As much as I was expecting the best rhetorical moment to come from the Obama speech (given that, as noted above, he is the more skilled speaker of the two), I’ve got to say that my favorite point came during Romney’s defense of his role at Bain when he talked about his decision to not ask for investment from his Mormon church’s pension fund.

The punchline of that story was that his partner (who did get the pension fund of the Episcopal Church he was a member of to invest) did that institution a big favor since Bain brought in such good returns. But rather than leaving it at a self-effacing remark that effectively says “even I, a brilliant businessman, can make mistakes,” he instead continued saying that “…it was bad enough that I might lose my investors’ money, but I didn’t want to go to hell too.”

The reason this joke worked so well is that one of the candidate’s unstated negatives is his membership in a church (the Mormons or Latter Day Saints/LDS) with which many Americans are still uncomfortable. And by making this small gag, he was highlighting that members of the church – starting, importantly, with Romney himself – have a sense of humor about themselves (one of the most important elements of being considered “normal”).

And while I don’t think we’ve heard the last of the religion issue this election, we have seen an important turning point in how we deal with that subject, a turning point delivered not via a press conference dedicated to the subject (something both Presidents Kennedy and Obama had to do when dealing with contraversies regarding the churches they belonged to) by via a simple joke that wonderfully encapsulates the power of rhetoric.

 

Romney vs Obama - Past, Present and Future

September 13, 2012 Argumentation, Arrangement, Blog No comments

A systematic analysis of whether the two candidate’s acceptance speeches were more forensic (past-oriented), demonstrative (present oriented) or deliberative (future oriented) could be performed by going through each speech with a set of colored markers and color coding every verb based on whether it appears in the past, present or future tense.

But after performing such an exercise (and jiggering the tally to remove verbs related to casual asides, such as the many “Thank You’s” that dot each speech), you would probably end up with the same impression you would get from watching and then close reading the same speech once or twice. Namely, that both candidates did a good job keeping their acceptance addresses focused on the future, making most of their presentation deliberative (as any good political speech should be).

I was amused to see even references to the past delivered in a deliberative fashion (as in President Obama’s statement that “…we’re not going back.” – with “going back” being something you actually do in the future).

Now there may be more than one explanation as to why both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama were so comfortable dwelling on what comes next, rather than what was or what is.

For example, perhaps they are both avid listeners to the Critical Voter podcast and through this exposure knew that they would be doing themselves a disservice by dwelling too much on assigning blame, i.e., dwelling on something that can’t be changed (the past). Or maybe, as professional politicians, they simply understand these rules instinctively (an answer that avoids a post-hoc fallacy on my part.)

Then there is the nature of the acceptance speeches that cap a weeklong party convention. On the one hand, they are meant to be uplifting, especially since they are the only speeches the wider public (including opponents and undecideds) tend to watch and critique. So positive messaging (which means a deliberative presentation (since things can always be better in the future) should be the language of these addresses (especially since the job of nastier finger-pointing was already handled by surrogates earlier in the conventions).

There is also the possibility that, by their nature, both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama are optimistic people who really do prefer talking about a brighter future.

But I would also like to add one other reason why it was easier to focus on the future than the past this time around: the fact that the past is rather up for grabs with regard to many of the issues that will be the cornerstone of this year’s campaign.

Take the deficit. There’s no question that it has skyrocketed during the Obama years. But there is also no question that this skyrocketing began during the years of the previous Republican administration. Now one can argue whose skyrocketing was larger, faster and more (or less) responsible. But it does make finger pointing a bit more difficult than it would be had Obama inherited budgets that weren’t already well in the red.

Other issues, like the 2008 financial crisis, now seem in retrospect to have had multiple parents (not just “greedy bankers,” but also overzealous politicians from each party who created laws and regulations with unintended consequences). So opening up this can of worms can also confound the blame gamer.

Whether this means we’re due for a positive, deliberative campaign between now and Election Day is still uncertain. But if the past is any guide, don’t expect it in the near future.

Obama vs. Romney - Round 1 - Modes of Persuasion

September 12, 2012 Argumentation, Arrangement, Blog, Logos, Pathos and Ethos No comments

In the lesson plans I’ve included for podcasts covering subjects like the Modes of Persuasion and argumentation, I’ve included exercises asking students to color code different parts of a political speech for use of logos, pathos or ethos (indicating the mode of persuasion the speaker is using) or past-, present- and future-tense verbs (indicating the type of argument being made – forensic, demonstrative or deliberative).

As tempting as it would be to do this with both candidate’s complete acceptance speeches, time will only allow some overarching observations regarding each candidate’s use of these critical thinking components we’ve been discussing for the last several weeks.

As you heard during last week’s podcast, it was relatively easy to break down how Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech was organized. With the exception of a Division (in which he introduces his argument) broken in two and mixed with his Statement of Facts, it was fairly easy to see how his speech was constructed using the classical components of Arrangement.

One of the reasons why his speech fits so well into this structure is that Romney relied heavily on logos throughout his address, no surprise given his nature as a “just the facts” sort of businessman. And since the bulk of a traditional speech is built around logos-based elements (with ethos reserved primarily for the Introduction and pathos for the Conclusion), Romney seemed in his elements presenting his facts (his biography, his assessment of where the company was economically) and his logical proof as to why someone with his biography is best suited to solve the problems he describes.

If you tried to draw lines between where these same Arrangement elements fell in Obama’s speech, you would have a much harder time doing so. And I think the reason for that is that Obama (in this speech anyway) relies far more on pathos and ethos than he does logos.

This may be because he has to balance some of the difficulties the country continues to face with the high expectations he set for his presidency four years ago. Which means he is required to acknowledge problems still exist, but is not required to go into long explanations of each and every one of them in the same way his opponent does.

While this makes sense politically, it did leave him with a speech more focused on emotional and communal appeals than facts and logic. This certainly played to Obama’s strengths (since he is a master of emotional persuasion, especially in the Perorations that end his campaign addresses). But it created an acceptance address that seems more of a scattershot collection of general (vs. specific) statements punctuated by uplifting verbal images.

And speaking of uplifting images, I did find it interesting that the president chose to use a technique we discussed during our Modes of Persuasion podcast (talking about individuals who benefited from his policies) without naming names (much less having the people themselves appear in the audience – a standing ritual at recent political conventions). Perhaps this technique has just grown tiresome in recent years, although I suspect that the candidate knows himself well enough to understand that not everyone can pull it off successfully.

So, at least with regard to rhetorical round one, Mitt Romney gets the nod for structure and logos while Obama wins the contest for best use of pathos and ethos.

Next time, we’ll see who did better with regard to keeping the discussion future oriented through the use of deliberative argumentation.

The Canons of Rhetoric

September 10, 2012 Arrangement, Blog, Rhetorical Devices No comments

If time allows later in the election cycle (or even after the election), I’m hoping to dedicate five days of posting to more detailed discussions on each of the five Canons of Rhetoric. But for now, I’d like to just introduce the four we didn’t get the chance to talk about on the most recent Critical Voter podcast.

As mentioned during that podcast, these five Canons evolved from the Greek and Roman traditions, both of which placed enormous emphasis on oratory as the means to achieve political goals in the context of a pure democracy (in the case of Athens) and a representational democracy (in the case of Rome – and the US).

Not all of the Canons resonate with contemporary audiences as they once did with ancient ones. And some of the material covered in one or more Canon is still taught, but outside the framework of the “Big 5.”

For example, Memory played a much bigger role in ancient times when orators were expected to memorize their speeches in their entirety (lacking, as they did, Teleprompters and even easy access to the tools of writing). In fact, writing was still a novel concept (certainly in the days of Athenian democracy) with some thinkers (such as Socrates) rejecting writing completely in favor of the kind of mental acuteness derived from not just committing a speech to memory, but committing to memory all of the information needed to hold up one’s end of an argument from start to finish.

We’ve actually touched on areas of Style and Delivery in our discussions of, among other things, rhetorical devices. These were recognized, even in classical times, as being the important extras needed to turn a strong argument into a compelling one.

Style was more concerned with the way ideas were expressed in an argument (again a subject covered in our discussion of rhetorical devices), while Delivery had more to do with the overall performance of a persuasive presenter which could include not just words spoken but how gestures, facial expressions and body language were integrated into the presentation.

To a certain extent, both Style and Delivery were lumped into that notion of “mere rhetoric,” as much of what was taught in the ancient world was dismissed as irrelevant in the modern one. Which is too bad, given that Delivery would be a nice category to include discussions of those modern techniques (such as playing to the media) that make up much of the dynamics of our current political environment.

Since we seem to be bouncing around our Canons (and given that Arrangement is the one Canon we did talk about at length on the podcast), this leaves us with Invention which is the Canon that includes all of the content knowledge (including content knowledge of the subject being debated, and content knowledge related to understanding of what we now call critical thinking itself).

We’ll be talking a lot more about both content knowledge and the modern delivery of political messages over the next two podcasts which will be dedicated to Media Literacy next week, followed by Information Literacy the week after that.

In the meantime, you can visit here if you’re interested in learning more about the Five Canons of Rhetoric. And if you’ve got a Jones to learn more about Cicero, in addition to this best-selling biography on one of history’s greatest rhetoricians, I highly recommend Robert Harris’ Cicero trilogy (two of which, Imperium and Conspirata are currently completed) as an entertaining and enlightening window in the importance of this great personality and the era in which he lived.

 

 

Critical Voter - Podcast 6 - Arrangement

September 9, 2012 Argumentation, Arrangement, Blog, Negative Ads, Podcast No comments

Note: There was a problem with how this week’s episode appeared in iTunes which I expect to be cleared up Monday night. In the meantime, you can listen to the podcast by clicking on the podcast link below.

this week’s episode This week, we take a close look at one of the first major speeches of the campaign: Mitt Romney’s acceptance of the Republican nomination, through the lens of Arrangement – how an argument is organized.

Arrangement is one of the Five Canons or Rhetoric which (along with Invention, Memory, Style and Delivery) makes up what classical thinkers felt was the essence of the key critical thinking subject of argumentation. Many of the things we have been discussing during this critical thinking podcast fall into one or more of these categories/canons, which is why we’ll be focusing just on Arrangement as a way to break down a political argument into specific components, including an Introduction, Statement of Facts, Division, Logical Proof, Refutation and – everyone’s favorite – the Peroration (that emotional climax meant to drive an audience to its feet to cheer the hero and follow him or her into battle).

We take a couple detours this podcast to (1) clear up a misperception I might have created regarding the value of Aristotle’s syllogism to understand real-world arguments; and (2) take a look at heroes and villains, sidekicks and romantic interests, as we look at political persuasion through the lens of the Hollywood blockbuster movie.

This week’s resources include:

Critical Voter - Arrangement - Quiz

Critical Voter - Arrangement - Lesson Plan

Note: One of the assignments in this week’s lesson plan involves reviewing the following videos:

Romney RNC Convention biography video

Obama DNC Convention biography video

Background on the Canons of Rhetoric

Doing Fine – A negative ad dissected during this week’s podcast

Obama Press Conference – The origin of the quote used in the Doing Fine negative ad

Critical Voter - Podcast 6 – Arrangement [ 28:47 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Critical Thinking Skills - Building Block Resource

September 6, 2012 Blog, Building Block No comments

It occurred to me that with the election already providing so much material to discuss and analyze, that I’ve not had the chance to revisit that notion of critical thinking skills “building blocks” since first publishing something on the subject several weeks ago.

It may just be that we’ll have to get back to these critical thinking basics sometime after the election is over (assuming the blog continues after the podcast finishes up post Election Day).

But in the meantime, I found a terrific image document that I think nicely summarizes many key critical thinking skills we should be introducing to students well before they are ready to start absorbing some of the more advanced subjects we’ve been discussing over the last few weeks.

This was created by Enokson and is available at his flickr photostream sight. I can be used under a Creative Commons license, so just be sure to credit him if you decide to take advantage of it.

Ask not what chiasmus can do for you

September 5, 2012 Blog, Rhetorical Devices No comments

Given my fondness for chiasmus (that word order switcheroo mentioned in this week’s podcast, i.e., “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”) I was delighted to discover that someone had written a book on this “King of All Rhetorical Devices,” named (chiasmus-y enough) “Never Let a Fool Kiss You or a Kiss Fool You”

The author of the book, Dr. Mardy Grothe, has several pages dedicated to chiasmus and the famous people who have used it (including Churchill, Shakespeare and Confucius – and, of course, the greatest speaker of them all: Cicero).

And speaking of remarkable speakers, behold the mighty wisdom of… The Sphinx!

Obama Caught Using Rhetorical Devices!

September 4, 2012 Blog, Rhetorical Devices One comment

Because we will be picking apart Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech during the next Critical Voter podcast, I thought it only fair to pick on President Obama on the blog this week, or more specifically to take a closer look at one of his speeches based on the subject of this week which is rhetorical devices.

Most commentators would agree that President Obama is a highly skilled orator, which means his use of a number of rhetorical devices comes off more naturally than they would if used by a less talented speaker. And as we talked about during this week’s podcast, audiences tend to become more uplifted and transported when listening to a speaker who brings a skilled use of rhetoric to his or her presentations.

Let’s start by looking at some of those linguistic devices we discussed that tend to make the President’s speech “easy on the ear.” First, you can find many instances of alliteration (the repeating of initial consonant sounds). Thus we are reclaiming a “basic bargain that built” (B-B-B) and dealing with “a house of cards that collapsed in the most destructive crisis” (C-C-C), which is why we are at a “make-or-break moment for the middle class” (M-M-M).

Similarly, the President makes extensive use of anaphora, the repetition of the same word at the start of multiple linked sentences or phrases, which is why your children should get the chance to do better “no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what your last name is.” On the written page, all those extra “or’s” would be superfluous. But when spoken, they add life to an otherwise flat sentence, which is why we need to “make sure we aren’t taken advantage of by credit card companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions” (as opposed to credit card companies, mortgage lenders and financial institutions – a less threatening group without that extra “and” replacing the first comma).

Triplets abound within his speech, signifying how much we like examples, concepts and phrases to be grouped into threes (such as those aforementioned credit card companies, mortgage lenders and financial institutions). Or take a look at this paragraph, in which the anaphoric phrase “Why else” is repeated at the beginning of three sentences to pull us through a particularly damning set of accusations:

“Why else would he [Governor Romney] want to spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Why else would he propose cutting his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families? Why else would he want to slash the investments that have always helped the economy grow, but at the same time, stop regulating the reckless behavior on Wall Street that helped the economy crash?”

Before moving on, keep in mind that the use of these types of rhetoric flourishes by a skilled speaker is not necessarily manipulative, or even a conscience choice by a speechwriter or speaker. Every speaker wants to both convince and move an audience and devices like alliteration and anaphora are often what turn a dry speech into engaging oratory. And a skilled writer or speaker has likely internalized these techniques to the point of using them without even knowing they represent named devices (much like my frequent use of the parentheses device you are reading right now became second nature before I even realized it had a name).

Elsewhere in the speech, President Obama uses the strategic devices we reviewed this week to to avoid one of the biggest problems in a stump speech: how to attack one’s political enemies without sounding shrill or small-minded (a particularly problem for an incumbent President who must not be seen as damaging the dignity of his office).

Which is why he spends half a paragraph heaping praise on his likely adversary as a “patriotic American who has raised a wonderful family…” who has a lot to be proud of, including having “run a large financial firm” as well as a state (my own state of Massachusetts, as it happens). But (the President asserts), Governor Romney has learned the wrong lessons from these experiences (assigning to him the belief that wealth flows from the top down).

Now, one can argue that his misrepresents his opponent’s actual positions, but as a rhetorical structure, Obama’s praise for his opponent followed by harsh criticism presented more in sorrow than anger is an masterful way of condemning his opponent’s beliefs (while also defining those beliefs in a way that fits the President’s own campaign themes) without coming off as insincere or sarcastic (as in “my opponent deserves the billions he earned by ripping off the public for years”).

The speech actually climaxes eight paragraphs from the end with a series of rhetorical questions: “Will we [be] better off if more Americans get a better education?”, “Will we better off if we depend less on foreign oil and more on our own ingenuity?”, etc. (each of which is punctuated by the repeated phrase: “That is the question.” – an unnecessary add-on in an otherwise economical speech). Given that he is likely to be speaking to a friendly audience, the anticipated answer to each question is a resounding “Yes” shouted from the crowed, creating a dramatic bonding moment between speaker and audience, leaving the remainder of the speech as a relaxing cigarette and promises of more to follow.

Regardless of your political persuasion, watching an artist perform his or her craft well is something we should all be ready to appreciate. Especially since mastery of these devices can help us learn to effectively persuade others to do what we know is best for them (or at least help us identify when someone is trying to persuade us to do what they feel is best for us).

Resource: A Way With Words

September 4, 2012 Blog, Resources, Rhetorical Devices No comments

Back when I was a more of a commuter, I became fond of two series of CD-based audio courses: The Great Courses and Modern Scholar, both of which provide lectures (mostly undergraduate level) on subjects such as history, philosophy and language (to name but a few).

A class offered by Modern Scholar entitled A Way With Words: Writing, Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion provided a nice introduction to the type of rhetorical devices discussed during this week’s podcast. In fact, I owe the lecturer Michael Drout a hat tip for introducing to me the notion that figures of speech should be treated as the garnishes of persuasive speech, rather than the main course.

As it turns out, Professor Drout also shares my fondness for Sci Fi, as well as being an expert on fantasy literature, Old and Middle English and Medieval Literature. So while you could call him a Renaissance Man, his periods of interest seem to be more focused on before and well after that time period.

You can check out all of Drout’s courses (which include classes on each of the subjects mentioned above, as well as three other Way with Words lecture series on Literature, Grammar and Writing and Poetry). And best of all, you can check out these and many other audio courses from the local library.

Just exercise caution when learning while driving.

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »