I very much agree with Shelley’s statement that it is difficult to break out of a stereotype. Once people know you to be a certain way, it is hard to alter their thoughts about you.
Parry-Giles points out this significance in the image-making process in the media. Though what is presented about an individual in the media can be manipulated, not with ease, I think that it’s possible for the audiences to see the “realness” of that person. Not everyone believes what they see on TV or what they read in papers or the internet. I also think that a lot of people rely on the credibility of the type of source they resort to. For instance, I don’t really rely on gossip magazines to know what my favorite celebrity has been up to. Instead, I read the magazine where an actual interview has taken place. If they have their own official website, I’d check that out as well. Granted, there are some instances when those sources too could be inaccurate but it is closer to the truth since the actual person was involved in the communication process.
As for it being harmful if people are unaware, it could be due to lack of knowing the truth and in politics-- could result to corruption. But I think that the majority of people nowadays are more opinionated and therefore are more aware of what is being manipulated in the media. It is just a matter trusting our own instincts and what we choose to believe.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Week 6- Argumentation: form and content.
Warnick’s and Inch’s accounts of the different types of models of argument made me understand how the three components of an argument- claim, reason and evidence work, contribute to and provide for the argument’s message to get across to its recipients. But looking through the models along with the authors’ explanations and examples, some questions came to mind.
1. Once an argument’s claim is proven, it means that audiences have accepted a part of the argument and is ready for the evidence in order to reach a conclusion using reasoning and finding a common ground. The concept of “chaining”, the way I understood it was that the proven and accepted claim would act as a backbone to help explain the unproven claim. What would happen if the arguer’s first claim is not proven yet the second claim might help the first one? What do you think if the arguer were to refer to the second claim in order to make sense of the first? And how would the level of dispute adjust in the model?
2. Under Text Orientation, there is the mentioning of the arguers’ intentions. “Even when the arguers state their intentions, we have only their word for what they meant and still do not know what their true intentions might have been”. Thinking from an arguer’s point of view, I would lay out my intentions simply because that is the reason why I am arguing about a subject matter. I might be wrong but are the authors trying to say that there is or might be a great difference between an arguer’s thinking (not visible) versus the arguer’s words? I guess what I do not understand is that why would an arguer not truly convey what their intentions are?
3. I really liked how the authors described argument as a form of communication. In stating an argument, if the recipients react to it in any way or form, it means that that the message is being conveyed and “reaching” out. Recipients may not necessarily agree with the arguer’s argument but at least communication is in process and the argument is somehow instilled in the recipient’s mind. An example that came to mind was recycling (argument being we should recycle more). I admit, I don’t really recycle but whenever I see a recycling bin, I remember to throw my water bottle in that specific bin as oppose to a “normal” bin. I do not think about this on a daily basis but that recycling bin sends a powerful message to me to alter my habits of throwing things. Do you have any experiences like mine? Or an experience where an argument didn’t strike you at all? Is it due to lack of interest, experience about the matter, etc.?
1. Once an argument’s claim is proven, it means that audiences have accepted a part of the argument and is ready for the evidence in order to reach a conclusion using reasoning and finding a common ground. The concept of “chaining”, the way I understood it was that the proven and accepted claim would act as a backbone to help explain the unproven claim. What would happen if the arguer’s first claim is not proven yet the second claim might help the first one? What do you think if the arguer were to refer to the second claim in order to make sense of the first? And how would the level of dispute adjust in the model?
2. Under Text Orientation, there is the mentioning of the arguers’ intentions. “Even when the arguers state their intentions, we have only their word for what they meant and still do not know what their true intentions might have been”. Thinking from an arguer’s point of view, I would lay out my intentions simply because that is the reason why I am arguing about a subject matter. I might be wrong but are the authors trying to say that there is or might be a great difference between an arguer’s thinking (not visible) versus the arguer’s words? I guess what I do not understand is that why would an arguer not truly convey what their intentions are?
3. I really liked how the authors described argument as a form of communication. In stating an argument, if the recipients react to it in any way or form, it means that that the message is being conveyed and “reaching” out. Recipients may not necessarily agree with the arguer’s argument but at least communication is in process and the argument is somehow instilled in the recipient’s mind. An example that came to mind was recycling (argument being we should recycle more). I admit, I don’t really recycle but whenever I see a recycling bin, I remember to throw my water bottle in that specific bin as oppose to a “normal” bin. I do not think about this on a daily basis but that recycling bin sends a powerful message to me to alter my habits of throwing things. Do you have any experiences like mine? Or an experience where an argument didn’t strike you at all? Is it due to lack of interest, experience about the matter, etc.?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Response to Olivia’s Post for Week 1/26-1/30
1. Do you find the authors’ ideas to fit your ideas of metaphors in communication?
I very much agree with the authors’ ideas of metaphors in communication. Just like Olivia, I had never thought about Lakoff’s and Johnson’s statement that our communication is a metaphor. I guess it has become unnoticed that whatever we try to communicate, there will always be some sort metaphorical meaning to it. Take the idea of “Argument is War” for instance. Whenever we are trying to get a message across and want to let people know we are correct about it, we unconsciously want to “win” and have that sense of victory, hoping what we have convinced other people. I think whenever we do try to communicate effectively, it is to find some sort of inner betterment.
2. What do you think if meant this part of Burke’s definition of the human, especially as it relates to Hauser’s idea of action as an attachment “of interpretations to the raw data of existence”?
True that we “seek the logical extension of some principle” but I don’t think this equates humans as being perfectionists. For me, it is more of curiosity. We seek for explanations because our minds are set to be curious about certain things. For instance, whenever we don’t know about a certain something, any unknown- our mind serves as a blank canvas, perhaps that “raw data” that Hauser is talking about. Our minds are suddenly filled with information and just want to continue receiving more information.
3. Knowing both the expectations of his speech to rouse the American public with his rhetoric, as well as the current state of the nation, what do you think Obama outlined as his speech goal as defined by Verderber? What about his “Strategies for getting and maintaining audience interest”? Do you think his speech was a success in these two aspects?
I personally believe that President Obama’s speech was a success. Having been born and raised out of the U.S. that was the first time that I had watched a presidential inauguration. I found it very powerful and captivating. Although I am not a citizen of the U.S., he still managed to get my attention and kept me interested because he generally includes other nations as well. His choices of words are very effective too. Being English as my second language, I thought the way he tried to convey things were easy to understand and yet so powerful. The words that really struck me the most was when he said “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” President Obama possesses a lot of what Verderber said about the essentials of informative speaking. Although sometimes informative speeches can be boring, Obama sidestepped that landmine because he has personality, charisma and held people’s trust from the get-go. His speech seemed to flow in a fluid direction thus making his speech a great a success.
I very much agree with the authors’ ideas of metaphors in communication. Just like Olivia, I had never thought about Lakoff’s and Johnson’s statement that our communication is a metaphor. I guess it has become unnoticed that whatever we try to communicate, there will always be some sort metaphorical meaning to it. Take the idea of “Argument is War” for instance. Whenever we are trying to get a message across and want to let people know we are correct about it, we unconsciously want to “win” and have that sense of victory, hoping what we have convinced other people. I think whenever we do try to communicate effectively, it is to find some sort of inner betterment.
2. What do you think if meant this part of Burke’s definition of the human, especially as it relates to Hauser’s idea of action as an attachment “of interpretations to the raw data of existence”?
True that we “seek the logical extension of some principle” but I don’t think this equates humans as being perfectionists. For me, it is more of curiosity. We seek for explanations because our minds are set to be curious about certain things. For instance, whenever we don’t know about a certain something, any unknown- our mind serves as a blank canvas, perhaps that “raw data” that Hauser is talking about. Our minds are suddenly filled with information and just want to continue receiving more information.
3. Knowing both the expectations of his speech to rouse the American public with his rhetoric, as well as the current state of the nation, what do you think Obama outlined as his speech goal as defined by Verderber? What about his “Strategies for getting and maintaining audience interest”? Do you think his speech was a success in these two aspects?
I personally believe that President Obama’s speech was a success. Having been born and raised out of the U.S. that was the first time that I had watched a presidential inauguration. I found it very powerful and captivating. Although I am not a citizen of the U.S., he still managed to get my attention and kept me interested because he generally includes other nations as well. His choices of words are very effective too. Being English as my second language, I thought the way he tried to convey things were easy to understand and yet so powerful. The words that really struck me the most was when he said “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” President Obama possesses a lot of what Verderber said about the essentials of informative speaking. Although sometimes informative speeches can be boring, Obama sidestepped that landmine because he has personality, charisma and held people’s trust from the get-go. His speech seemed to flow in a fluid direction thus making his speech a great a success.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Week 3- Audience Analysis, Persuasion and Ethos
Having read the articles by Rodman/Adler, Larsen and Goffman, I saw the connections between audience analysis, persuasion and ethos.
In the Rodman/Adler reading, it states “… smart communicators alter their approach depending on the situation”. I found this very interesting because I see this almost everyday. When a person is trying to persuade someone to agree about certain subject matter, he/she might “adjust” his/her own beliefs or morals and have that connection in order to persuade the other person. Is a communicator still “smart” even though his/ her morals and beliefs are adjusted or distorted just to get the message across?
In the Larsen reading, he talks about the search for cultural premises. He talks about looking at two cultural premises which are: number 1 “cultural images and myths” and number 2: “the American value system”. Does Larsen mean comparing the American culture to other cultures in order to understand cultural premises better?
Finally in the Goffman reading, there was a bit about the expectation of consistency between manner and appearance. Most of the time, we correlate a person’s appearance to their manner. For example, if a girl looks and dresses gothic, she might be depressed when in reality maybe that’s just her style. How else could this relate to a recent situation or event that we are dealing with in the present?
In the Rodman/Adler reading, it states “… smart communicators alter their approach depending on the situation”. I found this very interesting because I see this almost everyday. When a person is trying to persuade someone to agree about certain subject matter, he/she might “adjust” his/her own beliefs or morals and have that connection in order to persuade the other person. Is a communicator still “smart” even though his/ her morals and beliefs are adjusted or distorted just to get the message across?
In the Larsen reading, he talks about the search for cultural premises. He talks about looking at two cultural premises which are: number 1 “cultural images and myths” and number 2: “the American value system”. Does Larsen mean comparing the American culture to other cultures in order to understand cultural premises better?
Finally in the Goffman reading, there was a bit about the expectation of consistency between manner and appearance. Most of the time, we correlate a person’s appearance to their manner. For example, if a girl looks and dresses gothic, she might be depressed when in reality maybe that’s just her style. How else could this relate to a recent situation or event that we are dealing with in the present?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)