Group items tagged

A leading political strategist explains how candidates use the art of storytelling to help swing elections.

Metaphors are extremely useful things. They provide a common language-an agreed-upon shorthand-for truths that can be difficult to discuss in terms that are simultaneously broad and precise. It doesn't take a Lakoff or a Luntz to appreciate the power of shared metonyms, particularly as the country grapples with the results of an election that was a political embodiment of that well-worn Fitzgerald line: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." This election, in particular, featured many more than two oppositional ideas. The 2018 midterms were about voter suppression, which is also to say about robbing swaths of Americans of their constitutional rights, which is also to say about structuralized inequality. They were about enfranchisement and its opposite. They were about progress. They were about backlash. They were about women winning. They were about women losing. They were about compassion empowered, and racism rewarded, and hard work realized, and cruelty weaponized, and corruption unpunished. They were about hatred. They were about love. They were about history made. They were about history ignored. They were about American exceptionalism in the best sense and-at the same time-in the worst. How do you sum that up in a headline or a news article? How do you talk about it in neatly cable-newsed sound bites? The true answer is that you can't, and the even truer answer is that this is why it is necessary to have a flourishing and extremely diverse media ecosystem, so that a broadly coherent picture might emerge from the individual efforts-but the more practical and immediate answer is that you can try to use metaphors to summarize the situation. You can talk about waves, with their familiarity and their liquidity and their visual power, and you can talk about the color of your notional water, and the size and shape of the swell, and you

Bradley Hayes, a post-doc student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has invented @DeepDrumpf, an amusing bit of artificial intelligence. DeepDrumpf is a bot trained on the publicly available speech transcripts, tweets, and debate remarks of Donald Trump. Using a machine learning model known as a Recurrent Neural Network, the bot generates sequences of words based on priming text and the statistical structure found within its training data. Created to highlight the absurdity of this election cycle, it has amassed over 20,000 followers and has been viewed over 12 million times -- showcasing the consequences of training a machine learning model on a dataset that embodies fearmongering, bigotry, xenophobia, and hypernationalism. Here's a sample tweet: "We have to end education. What they do is unbelievable, how bad. Nobody can do that like me. Believe me."

This article connects the use of metaphor and language throughout the election, and how metaphors are often the phrases we remember throughout an election.

Despite the tradition of studying campaign effects, we know little about the rhetorical strategies of candidates. This study speculates about the types of appea...

Both metaphor and grammar influence how people think about political candidates and elections. voters' attitudes can be influenced by a number of factors, including which information the media chooses to emphasize and how it is slanted. Framing, how a message is worded to encourage particular interpretations and inferences, can influence the perception of political candidates. Negative framing is often used to make opposing candidates seem weak, immoral and incompetent. It is persuasive because it captures attention and creates anxiety about future consequences. Grammar, though seemingly innocuous, also encodes meaning and is linked to mental experience and physical interactions with the world. Information framed with past progressive caused people to reflect more on the action details in a given time period than did information framed with simple past. Using grammatical aspect to frame campaign information, positive or negative, appears to be an effective tool for influencing how people perceive candidates' past actions. It may also be tweaked to invite inferences about what candidates will do in the future because it influences inferences about how events transpire.

This article highlights the phrases that Clinton used during the presidential debate to attract black voters. Phrases like "systematic racism", "implicit bias", "black bias", and "racist" were used to identify with the black voters. Many viewers were excited that she was facing such issues and was tackling them head on because according to this article, "A big chunk of Americans - not just people of color - want our leadership to talk about race, and to talk about policing the criminal justice system and the role that race plays in those institutions." As a presidential candidate, Clinton has been forced to become more skilled with the word choice. Here, she attempts to appeal herself to different groups of people to attract votes.

In relation to the current election that just passed, it was pretty obvious that there was a huge disconnect between two opposing sides. Words of frustration and anger flooded newsprints and social media. In the past, researchers found that there was a curious phenomenon in known as "positive feedback", which refers to people's tendency to use more positive words than negative words. In recent years, Google Books and the New York Times partnered to disprove this phenomenon. Both major print companies forged through tons of texts and found that 16.2 million of those texts contained negative language. They also found that negative words were used more frequently during times of unemployment, poverty, inflation rates, wartime casualties and political tension. More research has been conducted by psychological scientist including William Hamilton and Mark Liberman. Shockingly, they found that events like these were being triggered more often and positive language has decreased in the last 200 years.

Some of the "2016 is awful" rhetoric might be about the way we all consumed the headlines this year. Amy Mitchell, director of Journalism Research at the Pew Research Center, says what we've been witnessing in news consumption trends over the last few years has changed us. "A lot of the shift to digital is presenting a news experience that is more mixed in with other kinds of activities," she says. "You don't necessarily go online looking for news each and every time. Somebody shares it, somebody emails it to you, somebody texts a link. And so many Americans are bumping into the news throughout the course of the day." Nikki Usher, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, calls this recent phenomenon "ambient journalism," or "when you're constantly plugged in through social media and you're constantly online and engaged in some way." And that - that constant bumping into news and online discord, that constant engagement - over time, it becomes an assault. And, Usher says, besides that aggression of immediacy, a lot of the headlines we consumed this year, particularly about the election, pushed a certain narrative: a nation, and even a world, completely and disastrously divided, perhaps beyond repair. "Lots of crappy, bad things happen every year," she says, "but you aren't told over and over again that this just shows us how bad everything is."

A recent study suggests that our use of positive language has been on the decline for the past 200 years. The study measured the language positivity bias by analyzing the ratio of positive words to negative words. Language mirrors our psychological state, so this finding may suggest that happiness is also declining among the population.

Although recent election coverage may suggest otherwise, research shows that people are more likely to use positive words than negative words on the whole in their communications. Behavioral scientists have extensively documented this phenomenon, known as language positivity bias, in a number of different languages.

Why don't people like the sound of "woman president"? MANY people find the phrase "female president" annoying. But oddly enough, many others find " woman president" to be a problem, too. The problem is not that these expressions are ungrammatical, as Johnson explained in his past column. Yet both have their critics.

This article talked about different ways to handle a difficult situation, particularly on Thanksgiving. The reason for it being Thanksgiving, is because the midterm elections just happened recently, making the possibility of conversations to be about politics very likely. This article dove into why some people may want to converse about this, and why it's very hard to deal with tough conversations, particularly on a day where it's all about family and thankfulness.

This story takes a look at other papers on JSTOR to outline how politicians can deploy metaphors, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices to frame the debate and sway voters and listeners. This is the first of a two part article. It describes, specifically, the similarities between political rhetoric and advertising techniques deployed by companies. In both instances, those using language are seeking to present a certain image of themselves.

With 2020 being an election year, several key states along the presidential campaign trail get thrown into the spotlight. Candidates, celebrities, and the media all have been criticized for pronouncing some states' names incorrectly. States such as Nevada, Florida, Missouri, and Colorado are some controversial states with debated pronunciations. As this article investigates, although states have pronunciation from its original language, it has evolved and people today believe they're in the right. Read the article to find out whether you're pronouncing state names correctly.

Fun article! And then there's "Hah-WHY-yuh"...LOL!

Credit goes to Zane Yamamoto for finding this resource! Thanks, Zane! Former Republican speechwriter Barton Swaim and Democratic speechwriter Jeffrey Nussbaum wrote a ​totally pandering bipartisan stump speech for an imaginary presidential candidate - one who ​espouses only positions that a majority of voters agree with. ​Here's the speech they wrote, including snarky notes to explain their phrasing, behind-the-scenes tips on appealing to voters, and the data they used to decide which positions to take. An entertaining read.

"Sporting metaphors always overrun the language of politics in the English-speaking world at election time - and perhaps most of all in the US. We have now reached the point in the race for the White House when it helps to keep a glossary of American sporting terms ever close at hand."