August 27, 2008, 5:00 pm by AshleyJ

This is the political podcast that I have chosen to subscribe to. Being a lackluster history student, I figure I can benefit from more than one angle. Its description states:

TV pundits discuss politics in a vacuum. Cable news tells you everything is breaking news, but in most cases, events have long roots in history. In this podcast, we smash and bash the politics of today with a healthy dose of history–bringing you a better understanding of politics.

, 11:26 am by Robert

The implication is that certain groups speak a code language which serves to separate them from others. Though I do understand that language varies according to global location, I also feel that, by attempting to utilize the language of your audience to win over your audience, you reinforce the subject/object relationship that necessitates a power struggle in the first place. So, there are two ways of viewing the world which appear immediately when Heinrichs’ line of thought is followed. One view is this subject (our separate group with our own code) versus this or those object(s) which are other and different. The second view is that this subject and that object are really part of the same group with the same codes, only different language i.e. one human race.

I concede the point, though. Effective communication considers the audience in that the message must be able to be interpreted by the receivers in the way that the sender intended.

I really enjoy the idea of code grooming and can see how this concept, whether termed code grooming or not, is being used at the democratic national convention. The democrats, at least every time I flip to the channel, are using the code-language of Family. Of mom, dad, husband, wife, worker, i.e. everyday people in order that the viewer can then relate. Once the relationship is established, just as Heinrichs implies, then the democrats can lead.

I am interested in the concept of using code words to persuade. I am interested in Heinrichs assumption that Bush uses code words within his rhetoric in order to say something without saying something. I am also interested in applying the concept to Obama. The one that sticks out: change. My main question is, considering that human History can be viewed as a struggle between the haves and the have-nots, can Real change occur? Or is it just a distraction? While we focus on “changing,” perhaps those who have not or have less are focusing on strengthening in order to have more. Therefore, while we “change” we weaken.

Maybe so, maybe not.

When asked about the nature of good and evil and what should be done, McCain’s response, or arguably, code word that sticks in my memory was: kill. In paraphrase he said, I will kill Bin Laden even if I have to follow him to the gates of hell. These are words of fierceness, strength.

Neither better than the former, nor worse. Definitely distinguishable.

I rather enjoyed reading about the “alchemy of rhetoric” and president Bush on page 193. It is refreshing to hear someone talk of his rhetoric without making a joke out of it (though Bush has said some really funny stuff over the years; Will Farrel(misspel) made fun of him the best) . “He [Bush] has a masterful way of combining repetition, tone, and codewords unfettered by context” (Heinrichs 194).

I question though sometimes whether mastery gets too much credit when Kairos tends to put words into a speakers mouth more often than not. Whether it is Kairos or mastery or both, a great man must use Rhetoric in order to “pull [the] tribe together” (194).

This chapter interests me because it assumes a power struggle as a natural order. The implication is that one, in order to have power over an other, must use Rhetoric to his or her advantage.

Very interesting.

, 7:39 am by Laura

The article “Speaking Your Audience’s Language” was thoroughly entertaining, at least, for anyone who is not a fan of President George W. Bush. I totally understand and appreciate the point this article was making about the importance of codes in linking authors to audiences; however, the case of President Bush’s “Bushisms,” although very amusing, was occasionally a little farfetched to illustrate this coding concept in practice. I suppose I can understand how Bushisms exemplify code since they rely solely on key words rather than logic, but for a technique to be useful to other rhetoricians, it must be able to be duplicated. For the record: Bushisms should not be duplicated. Bush certainly does not mean to achieve his Bushisms, like the author points out several times, but if that is the case, how can anyone else hope to achieve the same effect or even take away any valuable lessons?

Any success that comes from Bush’s rhetorical technique – if you can call it that – is only an accident, and therefore hard to reproduce by anyone not inclined to the same natural illogic. In other words, I really have to agree with AshleyJ here, and believe that this is just stupidity with happy rhetorical accidents thrown in occasionally. So, while I can clearly understand the concept and purpose of what the author calls “code grooming,” I think using Bush as an extreme example is a tad disrespectful and a little mean spirited toward the man who holds the highest office in the land. That being said, it was really funny.

, 2:49 am by Arch

The First Part:

I have always found self help books funny, and I don’t know why.  The Idiots Guide To Blah Blah Blah has practical purposes but I never understood why someone would read a book on how to get help from another individual when the most obvious solution seemed to ask for it.  When it comes to podcasting, I understand the want and desire to master new technology and broadcast oneself across the digital highways and byways, but why not get some individual information firsthand.  

The internet has made it easier and easier to become a social hermit while still staying seemingly connected to the outside world.  Brent, from Virgin Worlds, talks of setting up a podcast like he is narrating his own autobiography.  There is no reason in the world that so much information needs to be contained in a “how to” podcast about podcasting, but is really more about how one man informs his audience on how his mind works and what he feels from minute to minute.  I really like that he uses the term “the gory details” when he describes what he is about to unleash on his audience, because it seems excessive at times.  Then again I really need immediate feed back when it comes to questions on instruction and planning, so maybe the instructional podcast is not what suites me… You gotta find what works.  

I get what Brent is going for and it is, if anything, packed with information but my problem is with the length and the obscurity with which it is compiled.  What good is an encyclopedia if you have to read the whole thing to find out one piece of information.  

The Second Part: (this part will be much shorter)

Ahhhhh, Yes….. W… The President.

What can I say about the current US President that hasn’t already been said about the country of Afghanistan.  “Bushisms” is one of my favorite new words, along with “krunk”.  I get what Heinrichs is after, and I think he writes this solely to get a response.  Whether it be positive or negative, I think the idea was to inspire debate.  What a rhetorician.  I will close with my personal favorites by George W.  

“It’s getting harder and harder for American’s to put food on their families.”

“We’ve got a lot of relations with countries in our neighborhood.”

“We got plenty of money in Washington. What we need is more priority.”

“Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?”

 

�

August 26, 2008, 11:44 pm by Tiana

Okay so let me get this straight, we are supposed to believe that Bush purposely gets up in front of not only the American audience but the world audience and speaks like a four year old on purpose? I’m sorry, I’m not buying that. While yes I agree, some of his inadequacies in speech lead people to remember the words…it’s never the important ones that I remember. I tend to remember the fact that he can not pronounce “nuclear” as oppoosed to his position on say nuclear war or the nuclear family. In all actuality I do not even know which one he was speaking of, I just know he messed up a word I could pronounce at the age of five. I feel that when he speaks, he is not speaking the language of the audience. I say this because if he were speaking the audience’s language then the mistakes would not be as noticeable.
To connect all of this to my upcoming podcasting thing, I definitely feel that I need to just speak correctly to my audience. I do not feel the need to overcomplicate sentences with hard to understand poeticies or words that people only used on the SAT. However, in congruence with the text, I want to make sure my words and sentences are consistent so that my audience knows what to expect when I speak. While I want it to be interesting I want my words to be their one consistency in the day that they can count on. I am also going to make sure the subject matter is one that I am passionate about simply beacuse I don’t want to get bored. I am more worried about my boredom than theirs because if I get bored the podcast will- for a lack of better words- suck.

, 10:25 pm by Ian

The Rhetorical Ape article use of simple rhetorical structures shows how rhetoric and good argumentation can make any claim seem perfectly reasonable and even going so far as to turning preconceived notions around. The article’s set up of an educational approach to key rhetorical ideas such as “commonplaces” and “code grooming” is a great way to pique the reader’s interest in the topic at hand. That and the easy to follow examples of apes grooming one another to doctor’s having their own handwriting club to teen “l33t speak” prepares the reader for the grand example of how the speaker’s audience is key to good rhetoric. Mr. Heinrich’s use of President George W. Bush’s rhetorical skills is a brilliant turn around for the reader’s thought process because the reader must be thinking Bush? Bush? How is he a great speaker? And in due time, Mr. Heinrich explains why in a manner that convinces me that he was writing an article that was part educational—highlighting the importance of code grooming and audience—and part satire—by way of his overt and at times gushing praise for Mr. Bush’s rhetorical skills.

What makes me think this article is part satire? Mr. Heinrich is obviously using code grooming in this very article that lets us in on the joke. Using words and phrases like “rhetorical pantheon”, “masterful”, “catapults” in contrast to “logic-free” and “sound of sense” clashes in a way that makes the article’s main example hard to take entirely at face value. Now that is not to say Mr. Heinrich’s article is bad. Code grooming, reverse words, repeated codewords, etc. are extremely important rhetorical tools that must be highlighted and reiterated, and it cannot be denied that Mr. Bush does indeed effectivly use these boiled-down-to-its-basics words that grab people’s minds, which showcases the most important rhetorical link between speaker and audience.

Though Mr. Heinrich denies writing this article in a tongue-in-cheek manner, I can’t help but notice who his audience will be (college students, most likely English majors), and how the clash of his own code grooming, repeated codewords, and oddly lofty praise for man’s unpracticed-but-perfect rhetoric creates some sort of satire that draws his audience in and in some makes the article all the more engaging and memorable.

, 10:23 pm by Brian

When Heinrichs points out particular code words that catch the attention of a particular audience he is right on. For a few decades now several self proclaimed manipulation gurus have been discussing this particular topic, and developing better ways to execute this tool. One of the latest buzzes, which takes using code words to a much greater level, is finding your audiences personal metaphor and exploiting it. For instance, if a boy likes a girl who happens to like birds, he would compare himself to a bird. This is a great oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Using key words that appeal to particular groups, such as “safety” for women, “brave” for men, “brilliant” for academics and so on, invoke emotion and feeling. If a leader can make her audience feel something they like, then her audience will adore her. It does seem bright that Heinrichs points this out in George Bush’s speeches. If Bush is so effective with his key words despite his ability to articulate, Obama is certainly the epitome of a persuasive speaker. He knows his audience very well, and he uses their personal metaphor to his advantage. He reaches out to the people who despise Bush and proclaims “change, change, change”, while implementing what Heinrichs calls “logic-Free Values”. He then goes farther by pinning his competition with the opposite “more of the same”. These mantras combined with his impeccable diction and delivery, with his resounding voice, and his varied speech patterns which put infuses on just the right words, all come together to make him one of the best persuaders ever seen.

, 9:04 pm by AshleyJ

Um, sorry, Mr. Heinrichs, but I don’t think that’s code that G-dub is speaking; it’s just plain malarkey. If stumbling through ‘Fool me once” blah blah blah is code for anything it equates: I’m an idiot.

Does anyone remember the ‘lockbox’ from Gore? Was that code? If so, what for? Brinks?

i understand what Heinrichs is saying, especially when he identifies the poor genuine speech of our leaders. But I am skeptical about Bush’s (specifically) idiocy counting for code. I think that his analysis on the words that Bush chose to reiterate– like the use of “and” for Biblical allusion– is a bit of a stretch, and who doesn’t use particular diction when addressing an audience?

If anyone is to blame for this use of pseudocode from Bush, it would possibly be the Americans who are buying it: “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in.” What are we, monkeys? Some of us are, apparently.

The notion of ’sound of sense’ is interesting, and it seems sensible. (what does all of that alliteration imply, Mr. Heinrichs?) The examples reminded me of emo music like Bright Eyes- does that bunk make any sense?

Sigh, I have long been waiting for genuine orations from our leaders, but it is a long time coming, I fear. But if one actually graced our ballots, how many of us would be able to recognize it? Are we so overly sensitized by THE code that genuineness has lost its meaning? Goodness, I hope not.

, 8:34 pm by Brett

Our boy Brent, of virginworlds.com, throws together a good bit of audio in order to instruct a unfamiliarized user about how to podcast. The very podcast itself is an example of good podcasting. I would propose that there are better ways to explain or instruct than an hour of audio.

I think the book does a significantly better job in helping an uninitiated user to begin exploring the world of podcasting. Although Brent’s podcast is informative, it lacks the benefit of the book’s ability to provide immediate access to a specific question by way of the index, table of contents, chapter headings, etc. It just seems simpler to use the book to tackle the challenge of podcasting with the book in front of you to help you as you go.

If I may offer a suggestion to Brent and other podcasters attempting to enlighten the masses about their trade - if you receive so many emails about how to podcast, create those quick and dirty shows where only 5 minutes are devoted to specific steps or frequently asked questions. This way, particular issues may be addressed by experienced podcasters so that we, the uninitiated, may utilize helpful resources like our books to feel our way around, then go to the experts in order to resolve more in depth problems.

I know I am no professional, but I feel like devoting over an hour to instruction without easy access to specific questions or problems newbies may encounter is just overkill.

, 7:58 pm by AshleyD

You can’t fear something you’re ignorant about. Maybe listening to Virgin Worlds podcast “Making of a Podcast” wasn’t the best thing to do before attempting to create my own for a grade. I now suffer from information overload. In Brent’s attempt to share his knowledge and help my chances of being successful at podcasts, he has somehow managed to create a deep fear of failing miserably within me. With that said he definitely gave tons of helpful information that was a great addition to the presentation from Monday’s class.

A few things that I took note of from the podcast were Brent’s clear and concise speech throughout most of the podcast; however, towards the end of the podcast there seemed to have been spots where he edited a bit less thoroughly. I only mention this to bring up my next point that informative podcasts should be kept to a 15 minute maximum. I believe he was tired and I know as a listener I was worn out by the end. He presented great insight to podcasts but I would have possibly been able to retain more if they were broken up into little segments like on Grammar Girl. Brent talked about how difficult it is to capture the listener’s attention and make a good impression within the first five minutes because typically the first three minutes are warm-up. I guess truly talented podcasters find a way to overcome this hurdle and this worries me because I am a “newbie” and will have to tackle this myself this semester.

All in all I have a deep respect for podcasters and find them to be very brave souls. Thanks to Brent’s podcast I will always remember to be kind to listeners and keep the credibility of the podcast by keeping true to my words and providing good content. Most importantly I’ll remember to edit, edit, edit! No one wants to hear you say “umm, so”, breathe hard, cough, sneeze, clear your throat or blurt out an impromptu lashing at your kid who interrupts you for the millionth time.

Newer Posts »