The essay is written by Alice O'Connor and she talks about these think tanks feeding us "bad" knowledge. The research that the "idea mills" were churning out are pretty much skewed and are designed to support whatever company is sponsoring them. "They are also highly misleading and in some cases demonstrably false" (100). She then gives examples that contribute to bad knowledge and categorizes them as: 1) hidden premises, 2) misleading "indicators", 3) methodological creep, 4) pretentious diction, and 5) historical vacuums. She also forwards and adds to Orwell's rules that will ultimately promote political knowledge.
At first, I didn't like the essay. I was trying to read it and I didn't understand it. Also maybe because there was a lot of distractions in this damn house. Irrelevant.
After reading the essay, I thought to myself, "Wowzaaa! I never thought of it like that!" I mean, I had an idea that the materials that we get to peruse and the information that we take in are manipulated one way or another, but O'Connor was able to write it in a 12 page essay!
In her essay, it seemed like she was against the right-wing way of thinking. She just seemed to bash a lot of the traditional things that the conservative people are trying to preserve, even though they're totally outdated.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Infotainment Freak Show
AHAAAAA. That's a combination of Information and Entertainment. I've got a knack for the obvious, obviously.
Martin Kaplan, you're a genius. I thought it was super interesting. It's about "entertainment [substituting] juxtaposition for order, storytelling for truth telling, graphics for text, sensation for reason, spectacle for seriousness, combat for discourse, play for purpose, sizzle for steak" (137). He pretty much states that it's not Big Brother who rules us, but entertainment. He then goes on that it's very important that every domain of human existence grab and hold the attention of its audiences. In politics and in news, it's pretty much just a popularity contest. He talks about how everything has to have some sort of entertainment aspect, otherwise we won't get sucked in.
After I read this, I was like, "WHOAAAA, you are so right! How could I have been so ignorant all this time?" So yeah, he was pretty much right about entertainment substituting almost everything. If you suck at parenting, turn on the TV, buy a game console, and voila! You've got a substitute mother (or father. I wouldn't want to generalize now). Kaplan says that "objective knowledge is a mirage" (139) which just means that there really is no such thing as objectivity anymore, because according to him, all reality is socially constructed, and that everything, including truth, is politics. We're all pretty much screwed then. I wonder how long it took him to realize everything that he's written? He just might be my new savior.
Everything that's being done nowadays are pretty much for entertainment. In class, we talked about how the media decided to put so much airtime for balloon boy, instead of something really newsworthy. That family didn't need any more additional 15 minutes of fame. They were in freaking Wife Swap. OOOOOH, the lenghts people would go through just to get some airtime. Seriously, go pull a William Hung and audition for American Idol. That would be much more entertaining.
OH NO!
I said a baaad word. I am falling into the media's trap!
UGH, I go to church at 12:30 today. Damn. Yay for family not giving you room for choice.
Martin Kaplan, you're a genius. I thought it was super interesting. It's about "entertainment [substituting] juxtaposition for order, storytelling for truth telling, graphics for text, sensation for reason, spectacle for seriousness, combat for discourse, play for purpose, sizzle for steak" (137). He pretty much states that it's not Big Brother who rules us, but entertainment. He then goes on that it's very important that every domain of human existence grab and hold the attention of its audiences. In politics and in news, it's pretty much just a popularity contest. He talks about how everything has to have some sort of entertainment aspect, otherwise we won't get sucked in.
After I read this, I was like, "WHOAAAA, you are so right! How could I have been so ignorant all this time?" So yeah, he was pretty much right about entertainment substituting almost everything. If you suck at parenting, turn on the TV, buy a game console, and voila! You've got a substitute mother (or father. I wouldn't want to generalize now). Kaplan says that "objective knowledge is a mirage" (139) which just means that there really is no such thing as objectivity anymore, because according to him, all reality is socially constructed, and that everything, including truth, is politics. We're all pretty much screwed then. I wonder how long it took him to realize everything that he's written? He just might be my new savior.
Everything that's being done nowadays are pretty much for entertainment. In class, we talked about how the media decided to put so much airtime for balloon boy, instead of something really newsworthy. That family didn't need any more additional 15 minutes of fame. They were in freaking Wife Swap. OOOOOH, the lenghts people would go through just to get some airtime. Seriously, go pull a William Hung and audition for American Idol. That would be much more entertaining.
OH NO!
I said a baaad word. I am falling into the media's trap!
UGH, I go to church at 12:30 today. Damn. Yay for family not giving you room for choice.
Monday, November 9, 2009
George Orwell
So my good friend George Orwell wrote an essay that show how the English language plays a big role on politics. He claims that "language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" (205). He says that English is full of "bad habits"(206) and getting rid of these bad habits is the way to go so that we can all think clearly. And according to him, thinking clearly is the right path to political regeneration. He then gives four examples of what he calls "tricks" that prose-construction habitually dodges. The examples are: 1. dying metaphors, 2. operators of verbal false limbs, 3. pretentious diction, 4. meaningless words.
I thought the essay was pretty interesting. As I was actually writing this, I'm thinking about the six rules that he outlined so that I wouldn't continue to contribute to the bad habits of the English language. His opinions were strong, and it makes sense. Politics isn't necessarily my subject of interest, but in the 19 years that I've been alive, I've experienced several types of government from two different countries. Needless to say, Orwell was correct in that politicians manipulate the language in order to sway their constituents' thinking, which I think is quite clever. Why not take advantage of the fact that you can use your speech for your own advancement? Then again, if other people were to manipulate me with their speech, I'd be outraged. So I guess it's not really fair for me to have the power of manipulation, and someone else not.
I'm thirsty. I think politics dehydrates me. Or it could be the weather. It's 79 degrees right now.
The four "tricks" that he mentioned were pretty spot-on. Who the hell would be able to relate to a metaphor if it was a metaphor from, like, the 1800's? I mean, maybe it makes sense... but as Orwell said, some people don't even know the correct meaning of the metaphors that are being thrown about anymore. If people are able to mold and shape language to their personal advantage, can't they also think up of new metaphors that would actually be compelling to people? For his "operators of verbal false limbs"... I like long phrases, :(. I use it all the time. It makes my writing sound smart, but I suppose Orwell is correct in using his analogy of waxing a car that doesn't have a working engine. What the hell are long, smart-sounding phrases going to do for you if it's just full of shit? Then again... that's a tough call: sentences sounding wonderful and yet full of crap, or sentences that are short and succinct and NOT full of crap? Hm.. thinking thinking thinking. Anyway, moving on to pretentious diction: yeaaaaah, I know of some people who do that, trying to act smart, or sound smart rather, and use biiiig words quite excessively. We get it, you're smart. You don't have to continually try to prove it, because then it just makes it seem like you're compensating for something. Like a short guy with a huge truck. Yeah. Like that. Finally, meaningless words. Pretty much, those words are not interpreted using one solid definition. The people don't care to know the exact definitions of words, nor do they want to acknowledge the exact definition so that they can use it to their own liking. A discussion we had in class was regarding the word "democracy". That word is continually used by both sides of the political system, using their own definition of it. If the word was given an exact definition, it would not be applicable to the motives in which it is being used for. The word won't be able to be manipulated according to people's personal preferences.
So that's it for my rant. I'm not thirsty anymore. I got a drink of water. :D
I thought the essay was pretty interesting. As I was actually writing this, I'm thinking about the six rules that he outlined so that I wouldn't continue to contribute to the bad habits of the English language. His opinions were strong, and it makes sense. Politics isn't necessarily my subject of interest, but in the 19 years that I've been alive, I've experienced several types of government from two different countries. Needless to say, Orwell was correct in that politicians manipulate the language in order to sway their constituents' thinking, which I think is quite clever. Why not take advantage of the fact that you can use your speech for your own advancement? Then again, if other people were to manipulate me with their speech, I'd be outraged. So I guess it's not really fair for me to have the power of manipulation, and someone else not.
I'm thirsty. I think politics dehydrates me. Or it could be the weather. It's 79 degrees right now.
The four "tricks" that he mentioned were pretty spot-on. Who the hell would be able to relate to a metaphor if it was a metaphor from, like, the 1800's? I mean, maybe it makes sense... but as Orwell said, some people don't even know the correct meaning of the metaphors that are being thrown about anymore. If people are able to mold and shape language to their personal advantage, can't they also think up of new metaphors that would actually be compelling to people? For his "operators of verbal false limbs"... I like long phrases, :(. I use it all the time. It makes my writing sound smart, but I suppose Orwell is correct in using his analogy of waxing a car that doesn't have a working engine. What the hell are long, smart-sounding phrases going to do for you if it's just full of shit? Then again... that's a tough call: sentences sounding wonderful and yet full of crap, or sentences that are short and succinct and NOT full of crap? Hm.. thinking thinking thinking. Anyway, moving on to pretentious diction: yeaaaaah, I know of some people who do that, trying to act smart, or sound smart rather, and use biiiig words quite excessively. We get it, you're smart. You don't have to continually try to prove it, because then it just makes it seem like you're compensating for something. Like a short guy with a huge truck. Yeah. Like that. Finally, meaningless words. Pretty much, those words are not interpreted using one solid definition. The people don't care to know the exact definitions of words, nor do they want to acknowledge the exact definition so that they can use it to their own liking. A discussion we had in class was regarding the word "democracy". That word is continually used by both sides of the political system, using their own definition of it. If the word was given an exact definition, it would not be applicable to the motives in which it is being used for. The word won't be able to be manipulated according to people's personal preferences.
So that's it for my rant. I'm not thirsty anymore. I got a drink of water. :D
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)