.jpg)
From early in life, we are encouraged to be clear when speaking or writing. We put a lot of attention on specifying what we mean. We talk about words as delivering a message. Endless energies are expended trying to remove ambiguity, to magically bring everyone into alignment by crafting that perfect message.
This becomes especially noticeable during election campaigns. Politicians, media pundits, journalists, advertisers, and others talk about this or that candidate's message. They also quote catchy words or phrases, or paraphrase comments–with frequent reference to polls that supposedly report opinions of the pollster's invented audience "segments."
Some people even describe themselves selling us a message–apparently blind to the reality that "when we know the goal of communication is just to 'get a message out,' many of us understand intuitively that our views, feelings, or perspectives aren't considered important."[1] So much for that sales pitch.
Do we really believe that others receive just what we mean? It's still to be established that minds ever truly align. Each of us interprets and gives words meaning. It seems true that "Any text is open to countless interpretations and debates, and any word or phrase can connote and give rise to an infinity of other words."[2]
Also apparent in everyday life, and no less during elections, is that everyone interprets messages very differently. It's natural enough to assume meaning is in the words we choose. But even dictionaries only record some common usage of words. As Noam Chomsky indicates "The most elaborate dictionaries provide no more than the bare hints about the meaning of words..."[3]
The continuous boosting of message transmission as a simple, but mistaken view of communication causes serious delusions. And audience analysts convince public figures and many organizations to pay expensively for opinion polls or even creepy "measurement" of physiological reactions to bits of speech among focus group participants.
It was in the nineteenth century that the retailer John Wanamaker claimed "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half." It often remains hard to tell what if any part of an advertising budget may have value. Just as uncertain in a political campaign is predicting the outcome from the huge budgets and effort for mass media and digital advertising or political rallies and other publicity.
Likely, communication occurs when people jointly create new understanding and knowledge.[4] It's the to-and-fro of face-to-face, personal interaction that most aligns people. Likewise, in a political campaign, it's conversation, one-on-one, or with a few people at a time that provides the winning difference.
With weeks remaining to an election, what really matters is engaging friends, neighbors, family, workmates, or others to stand together to help elect candidates who are committed to deliver real solutions.
This is a time to ask what each of us can do to help defeat propagandist puffery.
References:
1. Rodney G. Miller (2022), "Developing the Culture of Trust," Communication Essays, Albany, NY: Parula, p. 19
2. David Sless and Ruth Shrensky (2023), A New Semiotics: An Introductory Guide for Students, London and New York: Routledge, p. 98
3. Noam Chomsky (1993), Language and Thought, Kingston, RI: Moyer Bell, p. 23
4. Penman, Robyn (2012), “On Taking Communication Seriously,” Australian Journal of Communication, 2012, 39(3), pp. 41-63, academia.edu/6487224/On_taking_communication_seriously_Penman, p. 9
4 comments:
Here's an example of how words confuse, distort, and disinform. Any fair-minded person who has read carefully the different accounts of who and how and why some powerful state or states, or others, blew up three of the four Nordstream 1 and 2 pipelines delivering gas from Russia to German would have to agree that Seymore Hersh long ago provided the most compelling account. Yet the mainstream media have for long ignored his account.
Today, (August 17) an article appeared in the Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, arguing that amid all the conflicting accounts we are likely never to know the truth. The author does refer to Hersh's article, but treats it rather dismissively because his sources are "anonymous."
It's true that his sources are not named, but that doesn't mean Hersh does not know their names. He does not name them because they trust he will not do so.
I would say that his sources are not "anonymous." Indeed the description of the reveals them to be very knowledgeable. It's just that Hersh does not name them, for the simple reason that if he "burned" his sources he would be out of of work as a (superb) investigative reporter.
We need to distinguish between unnamed sources and anonymous sources. With anonymous sources the reporter does not know who they are.
With unnamed sources, the reporter and often the editor know the source but do not name it.
Of course, the Greek etymology of "anonymous" literally means "without name," which would seem to cover both cases. But English usage requires a distinction between the two kinds of case, and I have just proposed the distinction needed to avoid confusion. To call Hersh's sources "anonymous" is to trade on an ambiguity to discredit his reliability. He describes his sources well enough to give his account high credibility, but without "burning" those sources by naming them.
Good piece. Thanks.
First of all, I have issues with Anonymous' comments in regards to Seymore Hersh's theory of the Nord Stream Pipline bombing. Let's just say Hersh had an incredible journalistic career, which unfortunately began falling apart around 2013. This is Hersh's latest attempt with an unnamed source (he only had one source and no confirmations from any other journalists nor anyone else to support his theory) to go off the journalistic track and create his own conspiratorical theory. Which isn't the first time he's done this.
But, I got off track. I want to comment about how we speak in metaphorical language. That metaphorical language creates images in our minds. As a dreamworker, I have been thinking about this - how our metaphorical daytime thinking translates into images in our dreaming mind. I'm just beginning to notice how prevalent or not this is. One can look through and pick out metaphorical statements from our writings here of which I'll list a few:
*Bring everyone into alignment
*Boosting of message transmission
*Face-to-face contact
*Bits of speech
*Burned his sources
*Cover both cases
*Got off track
*Go off the journalistic track
*Pick out metaphorical statements
As a former English as a Second Language teacher, I found that ESL students had the hardest time learning American idioms. That's yet another layer of meaning that is extremely difficult to overcome. One student once asked me why a teacher used the word "pretty" when saying to her "It's pretty important that I talk to you about your daughter."
I'm amazed when people hear the same speech or go to the same event and see the exact opposite of what the person next to them has seen. One Fox News reporter reported that the DNC was like a funeral, while an image from the rally (on a split screen) showed a man doing quite the lively dance on the stage. Go figure!
I totally agree that interpersonal connections are the most important. I am known in my art league as the best recruiter for our Board and Committee positions. Why? Because I ask in person. No amount of emailing or putting a note in the monthly newsletter generates the human need and needed warmth of being asked and being needed.
All this - just imho!
Thank you, All. And for commenting on metaphors, which we often use for illustrative and/or emotive purposes. Sless and Shrensky (listed in the references) suggest that when we look at a sign, we project our prior knowledge onto it so seamlessly that it is as if our "share is intrinsic to the sign." (p. 48) Many discussions exploring how we communicate draw on metaphors for these purposes. Often helpful, but also there's been talk of "monster metaphors" (how's that for a metaphor). These are the ones we draw on for advocacy or to frame a world view. In these, the emotional strength we give them may "blind" us to logic or common sense. Just a thought.
Post a Comment