For an interesting exercise try keeping an eye out for a news cycle when every channel all of a sudden starts hyping some trivial story dealing with a movie star breakup or a political sex scandal or the like. Then look in the alternative or international press for a serious revelation that poses real threats to the interests of the ruling class or a member thereof. It's only anecdotal evidence, but in nearly every case I find one. When I didn't have as much time to invest in regularly reading alternative news sources, I'd keep an eye out for this behavior. That kind of tabloid news blitz makes a good burglar alarm to warn that something worth paying more serious attention to must be happening. Another seeming rule of thumb of the corporate media; if you can't ignore the issue, and it's too cut and dry to muddy the waters much, then drown it out and distract with something more juicy.
Recognizing what is, and especially what is not being said in a story is essential to recognizing attempts at manipulation, but it is equally important to recognize how what is said gets phrased and presented. This is where message framing comes into play. A discussion of message framing could easily fill an article all on its own, so I'll defer readers to author George Lakoff for a more in depth analysis. Message framing stems out of research in cognitive science dealing with how the brain processes, stores, and recalls information; especially in the processes of making decisions. Essentially, it deals with crafting messages that attempt to persuade by taking advantage of subconscious brain functions. A message's frame can be thought of as the interaction between how a message is constructed (i.e. word choice, connotation, denotation, tone, authority), and how, given that construction, a particular audience will take it in (i.e. experience, interpret, understand, remember). Some messengers deliberately manipulate elements of a message's frame to craft a more persuasive message; many more elements are not consciously manipulated, but still influence an audience's perception of a message.
When political strategists or public relations specialists are framing messages metaphors are one of their most important considerations. These can be explicit or implicit metaphors. In explicit metaphors the messenger directly compares one thing to another. During the recent health care debate The Daily Show highlighted a memorable string of such explicit metaphor usage by right wing pundits who all complained of having Obama cram the healthcare bill down their throats. This is a not very subtle metaphor eliciting the image or rape by a black man. The resonance of this message among the Republican Party's core constituency should not be underestimated; especially in southern states, where the theme of the black man as a rapist has a long and ugly history. Understanding the effects of a message's frame requires an intimate understanding of the culture and history of a particular audience. Metaphorically comparing something that evokes an emotional reaction from an audience, to a different thing, has the effect of imprinting the emotions and concepts associated with the first thing onto the second. Keep this in mind and pay attention for a few weeks to how often the news media use metaphors related to rape; also pay attention to which ideas these are compared to. It's somewhat disturbing, but telling at the same time.
The emotional link between the object and subject of a metaphor is a result of the way our brain treats metaphors and stores information. It can be a very powerful form of subtle manipulation, especially when the audience is not paying attention to it. Before a person has perceived a metaphorical connection, the brain stores each component of the metaphor separately. Each already has many connections to all the emotions and other concepts that they were previously associated with. When the two components are metaphorically compared our brains form a link between the areas that store each one. All of each component's preexisting connections to other emotions and concepts in the brain then become connected to the other component of the metaphor. The more that comparison is made (or heard and accepted) the more that link is reinforced. The stronger the link becomes between the metaphor's components, the more strongly associated all of the preexisting connections of each one become with the other.
Most of these initial connections are formed during early childhood (part of why children are so vulnerable to marketers who make metaphorical connections between their product and the natural desires of children). As we live our lives, as we experience new things and grow aware of similarities between them, we constantly form and reinforce the neural connections between the concepts. These networks of connected concepts are known as semantic networks, most adults have thousands of them, interconnected intricately on all different scales. They play an important role in how we understand the meaning of words and the messages they convey.
Implicit metaphors are a little more complicated than explicit metaphors. Like explicit metaphors, when an implicit metaphor is understood and accepted there is a connection made between the compared concepts in the brain. However, implicit metaphors don't directly compare the two things in the text of the message. They often use connotation and implication to make metaphorical connections. The meaning of many words can vary to differing degrees depending on the context they're used in. However, the semantic networks formed in our brain don't only link the concepts specifically connected in the context the metaphor was used. The network, once linked, contains all the words associated with each component of the metaphor. Words that have strong emotional connotations in other contexts can subtly but powerfully influence how an audience interprets and accepts a message.
An example used frequently by George Lakoff in his description of implicit metaphorical framing is the carefully crafted term "Tax Relief." In this case "relief" is the loaded word. Tax relief was crafted in an effort to rebrand corporate "tax breaks." In other contexts the word breaks has bad connotations for a case supporting lower corporate taxes. Breaks are most often associated with work. Most people don't like seeing someone else get a break when they have to keep working, and by association don't like seeing others get a tax break that they don't get. The term relief has very different connotations. Relief implies that there is some affliction to be relieved from. When most people witness someone suffering from an affliction the normal reaction is to desire that affliction to be relieved; even if the witness is not personally affected by the affliction.
The use of implicit metaphors in message framing can get very subtle. Often it can be difficult to tell what is purposely manipulative and what is coincidental or subconscious. Purposeful or not, the long term effect of this kind of framing can be very powerful. Its power lies in its subtlety. Subtle manipulation is more likely to go unnoticed, and that which goes unnoticed usually goes unchallenged. This allows for high levels of repetition (which reinforces the semantic networks) without evoking suspicion. They could come right out and say "Taxes are an affliction to our businesses-- but then you are aware that someone is trying to make you think that taxes are an affliction. You could then look at where the information is coming from and what their motives are. You have the ability to analyze and challenge the idea. If over a period of years they can get you to talk and think about taxes as something to get relief from, then they have built a metaphorical connection between afflictions and taxes and the negative emotions and concepts associated with afflictions then become subconsciously associated with taxes.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
