Interesting analysis

[SaburoS]

Yeah, it's from Berkeley. What do you think of the content after reading it?

Speech analysis

[ra]

After reading this, I think lefties are desperate.

[Martlet]

I think of a drowning man clutching at a floating marshmellow.

[Nilsen]

Dont even have to read it to guess what is says due to the response of the above handles

[ra]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Dont even have to read it to guess what is says due to the response of the above handles

It says that the evil Orwellian neocons are convincing some brain-dead American voters that the entire universe revolves around the Haliburton wars, and that Kerry's open mindedness is such a threat to the new world order that even this hero of the war in Cambodia is not fit to be president of the US.

[Nilsen]

good good.. its all good

[AKIron]

"If you don't want this frame accepted, you have to puncture it effectively by using what the public already believes (for example, that Iraq is a disaster area), and you have to offer a strong, positive alternative frame."


And what "public" would that be?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Yeah, it's from Berkeley. What do you think of the content after reading it?

Speech analysis

I think we could go back to Roosevelts fireside chats and see alot of "civilian deaths", "number of soldiers killed or wounded" omitted from his speeches as well.  You don't dwell on the negatives when you give a speech, you focus on hope , the sacrifices made for an end to a crisis, and a vision to finish the job.

[lasersailor184]

If he's volunteering to analyze the language used, he better be subjective.  But he wasn't.

[IK0N]

OK at the end of the article he basically states that dems should
 look for a new line of attack and fast!
My tree trimmer who is a junior college grad said that 4 weeks ago! But the Berkeley guy is so unique in his approach? LOL

IKON

BTW
 What does John Edwards bring to the table as far as fighting terrorism?

[Leslie]

The article gives insight to the opinion of the professor, but doesn't offer linguistic analysis of the speech used.  Maybe he's right in his analysis concerning the concept of framing, however, I agree with the ideas expressed by the Republican speaker's frames.  But I see it as a good thing. And I'm part of the public.  The professor assigns opiniated judgement to his "findings."

The professor doesn't agree.  Rather than simply presenting his findings, he politicises them, rendering them void.  He becomes subjective by mentioning the public, as if everyone knows what the hell he's talking about.  And if you don't, well then leave me alone with my bad science.  

The article alone amounts to nothing more than opinion, and is not a scientific linguistic analysis without diagramed formulas breaking down the paragraphs and individual sentances.  All legitimate academic proof of a theory rests on this alone, whether it's proven true or not over time.




Les

[lazs2]

neilsen... don't even have to read it knowing who posted it originaly don't you mean?

I see these things from the left around every election... it is a standard tactic of theirs... nothing new here including the fact that they only "analyze" republican candidates.  

in a few weeks when they really get desperate they will bring out the women who see auras.

lazs

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lazs2
in a few weeks when they really get desperate they will bring out the women who see auras.

lazs

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Yeah, it's from Berkeley. What do you think of the content after reading it?

Speech analysis

I think it is a lot of mindless drivel. I think it is useless Bravo Sierra written by one of the "intellectually annointed"who has no grasp whatsoever on reality.

I also think it is thinly vieled desperation. It is an analysis written for no other purpose than to attempt to advise the DNC and their cohorts on how to redirect their attack. It shows no objectivity and no sense of war or history. It is a perfect example of the liberal mindset that infests institutes of so called higher learning.

Anything else?

[niknak]

The professor was using the speech as an example of framing.

We all know politicians spin. Only children believe one side is always good/correct and the other side bad/wrong. The purpose of effective framing is to create a frame where all the negative is excluded.  That is politics.

the prof shows how the speakers mentioned that the US was winning the war on terror but omits the FACT that Osama Bin Laden is still at large. He never says that the US is not winning the war on terrorism which would be opinion.

In fact it is only when he says in public opinion iraq is a disaster is he treading on thin ice (but who knows maybe he has an extensive survey saying 62% of americans believe the war is a disater). He never says the war IS a disaster or even he thinks the war is a disaster.  

Framing is something both sides do, he shows his poitical bias only in that he choose conservative speeches to analyse.