"Crowds" vs. "Communities"

Ever notice how the Punditry likes to use those words -- "crowds" and "communities?"

There's a "Michael Moore crowd," a "Moveon.org crowd," and an "anti-war crowd." But there's no "rightwing fundamentalist crowd."

More respected are "communities," such as the African-American Community and the Christian Community; but I've also actually heard reference to the "Terrorist Community." I'm not kidding. I haven't heard of a "Liberal Community."

(Similarly, there are "Real Americans" and even, more recently, "Real People," who I suppose are part of some sort of "heartland community," as opposed to anyone else, who's undoubtedly part of a "crowd.")

Just an observation.

liked to refer to the cabal as "this crowd". I see why, now that you mention it, but didn't understand her carefully selected word at the time. It's good to analyze how much visual impact specific words have.

The right writes for radio, that's why they're masters at choosing visual words that have enormous impact.

This sort of subtle language manipulation slips by most people, and is astoundingly effective. Impressions and opinions are actually altered at the sub-conscious level, and those whom it is done to are usually completely unaware how they have been duped.

As a teen I read a book by Robert Heinlein in which a future America had become an outright theocracy, and there was an entire science dedicated to this sort of mass mind control. It opened my eyes, and I started to notice the beginnings of this type of thing in the newspapers and on television even then (this was the 70's). It is far, far, worse today.



"looting a grocery store."


"after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store."

Much of my political outlook was shaped by his writings.
Another good book by him is The Man Who Sold The Moon.

This is one of those fundamental things that needs to change before real reform is possible, like campaign finance reform and corporate personhood. There are too many happily hypnotized Americans wandering around that need to know. If only we had some magic sunglasses.......

:kick:

to be sure, one little word sneaked quietly into our subconscious can slip behind our radar and impact how we see things. few of us are able to remain eternally vigilant at all times. often, to grasp what we're hearing at one level, we must "listen beyond the subtleties" and we do not hear the spin ...

your example of crowds versus communities is a perfect example ...

still, we should not lose sight of what I see as the greater evil: not only are we labeled as "crowds" but our message and the logic and passion behind it are never disseminated by the corporate-controlled media. not only do they lump us all together and denigrate us with spin, but they never present our arguments in a clear and honest way. if our voices could receive "fair and balanced" time, what they call us would be less important.

we even see it right here on DU among so called liberals. Michael Moore is a Green. I remember those criticisms when Farenheit 911 came out. We can't have any discussions "across the tent" about anything Nader says. He's a traitor. He's a republican. The reality is, whether he as a messenger is flawed or not, he still addresses key issues that affect us all and many of us strongly support much of what he has to say. The haters can't see beyond the messenger to discuss issues some of us care about very deeply. Then they call us Nader lovers and traitors. That doesn't move the dialog anywhere. The truth is what it is and putting any part of it off limits because of who raised the issue is crazy. And lately we have the Cindy Sheehan business. The point? I fear many right here among us are not any better than the spinners we rightfully criticize.

in the end, it seems to me our first concern must focus on our failure to get our message out. when it comes to the Democratic Party itself, specifically those we've elected, I'm often not clear on what the hell the message even is. Look at the last Iraq funding debacle. Democrats let bush SPIN the issue into a battle over "supporting the troops". The REAL issue should have been over whether remaining in Iraq made any sense. The REAL issue should have looked at what was being done, who was in charge, and how likely was it that anything positive could be achieved. Instead, the Democrats let bush spin the issue. But here's the larger problem ... the much, much larger problem:

I have no idea how Democrats would answer the question: Can anything positive come from remaining even one more day in Iraq? That is just not acceptable. It's bad enough they let bush frame the debate; but, on top of that, I have no idea exactly how they feel and what they think about the issue. And I'm far more informed and interested than most Americans. How do we expect to succeed as a Party when our message is some kind of "big tent muddle" that's not clear to anyone?

The bottom line: spin is very, very important. How things are framed, what words are used, it's all very real and it's all very powerful. But more real and more powerful are the values and ideas that we hold. Sometimes, I think we're so worried about keeping the marketing department happy that we forget to put out a quality product. Pretty packaging only gets you so far when your cereal tastes like puppy poop.