Skip to main content

Obama and communication.

http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/

      In 2008 the Obama campaign won Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year award. Apple and Nike were among the giant corporations whose marketing campaigns were deemed by professionals in the industry to be less effective than Obama's.
      Marketing  is generally defined as "the process of communicating the value of a product or service to customers, for the purpose of selling the product or service. It is a critical business function for attracting customers."
      It is clear that when marketing is "communicating" it is the kind of communication where asking and checking are discouraged. We receive information that is designed to give us a particular idea. And so, when Obama promised "hope" and "change" people tended to wave their flags and weep rather than asking: "hope for what?" or "what kind of change?". The campaign was designed to spark the normal human idea that things can be better and, quite naturally if not asking and checking, people went along with it.
      But what kind of service was Obama really offering?
      As all communication most basically works as: INFO----> IDEA, then to get more of an IDEA about anything, we need more INFO. Useful information to know about the Obama campaign in '08 is that it collected more money from Wall Street than the McCain campaign:
     http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/06/05/analysis-shares-obama-idUKNOA53525520080605
      It's interesting to note that this Reuters article explains this situation as "investors want to simply back the eventual winner" rather than explaining it as "big business is in bed with politics, and ordinary people simply get to choose which branch of the elite takes power."
      In short, Obama was always going to serve the interests of big business and the powerful elite. That wouldn't really serve as an effective advertising slogan, though.

      Here's an alternative view of marketing-

  
       The recent whistleblowing by Edward Snowden illustrates an important aspect of the Obama administration's attitude towards communication.: We control information, not you. We will look at your information whilst keeping ours in the dark. And when we can get away with it we will get the clubs out and batter people to death.
        Force is a very powerful tool of communication and has been used throughout history by people who want to get their own way without bothering with that tiresome communicative baggage that humans carry with them. Much easier to use your animal mode and start to hit people. Do not ask any questions. Do not check. Explain things in a way that makes you feel better about what you are doing.
       That way, it becomes easier to do stuff like this:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare
             
       If we disagree with people, we kill them. And anyone who wanders into shot. This manic tendency towards violent communication and away from possible human communication is an inevitable consequence of an economic and political system that can only survive by stifling the natural human capacity to communicate.
       But let's pretend otherwise, because there's profit to be made.
        

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Apollo 11, The Sistine Chapel, and un-educated fleas: how communication is both effortlessly simple and ineffably complex (at the same time):

 The fundamental organic process of communication, the instinctive process that forms the basis of the functions of the nervous system, the brain, all understanding, intelligence, and language use, can be most simply described as:  (Where information is anything that exists or can be imagined, and idea is any information that is connected to, or can be connected to, the first information .) Thus it is that, as far as the basic process of communication is concerned, it is simple enough for babies, bees, and even un- educated fleas to do it. The most basic idea we have about anything is emotional or sensational . If the process were only as described above we would only ever be able to react to any information with our instinctive feelings. However, as any idea is fundamentally information , as soon as this process begins, it is immediately recursive: Although, in fact, the commencement of the communicative process is akin to a stone being dropped into a pond, with rippl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stranger in a Strange Land: the asking and checking skills of Grok

  Grok:  Bela Lugosi’s pyramid is a critical thinking model that places the question "What is it?" at its apex, emphasizing asking and checking as essential for understanding information and ideas. The July 2013 post expands this concept, arguing that these skills (symbolized as "Bela Lugosi") are suppressed by power structures globally, leading to poor communication likened to "barking." In Japan, cultural norms exacerbate this issue by discouraging direct questioning and articulation, as seen in classroom anecdotes and language learning. The phrase "Bela Lugosi is unwell" reflects the global neglect of these skills, with Japan as a stark example. The pyramid calls for reviving asking and checking to foster better communication and societal progress. If you’d like me to explore specific aspects further (e.g., Japan’s cultural context, other examples, or related sources), analyze the referenced Wikipedia link on debate, or search for additional c...
Post a Comment
Read more

Any Count could do it: Asking and Checking.

 "The only way we can begin to try to understand anything better is by asking+checking." If that statement is true, then you might think that it might be widely accepted, that, say, asking+checking practice for stidents might be eagerly accepted with open arms.  You would be wrong. Traditionally, no culture, no education system, makes any formal effort to encouage, practice, test, or grade asking+checking. The reason for this is very simple: any unjust power structure must inhibit communication, to a lesser or greater extent, in order to protect itself. Consequently, what we end up accepting is a world where understanding things better has no common currency, so that questions people should naturally have been asking in their schooldays bubble up years later. And because we lack practice with questions, just asking one and getting an explanation that is novel can be a profoundly moving experience : "What if the moon landing was a hoax?" The following is my answer to...
2 comments
Read more