New Yorker: lampooning or negated framing?

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

By now you've all heard/read widely about the cartoon on the cover of
The New Yorker. I have a question about it for you.

Alternet's Don Hazen condemned the magazine cover. He said that
negating a bad frame doesn't go away. He mentions Lakoff. See

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355

But in a Huffington Post interview, the editor of the New Yorker,
David Remnick, defends the cartoon, and compares it to the work of
Stephen Colbert.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html

Personally, I agree with Remnick. I think the cartoon and Colbert are
both very funny, and I think Colbert's performances do far more good
than harm for our side, though I'll admit that a few people (including
myself) have initially mistaken Colbert for an actual conservative. I
think that ridicule may be the best way to puncture pomposity, and
that the cartoon and Colbert may be examples that negating a frame
sometimes *can* make it go away, if done in the right fashion. And
though ordinarily I love Alternet, on this one occasion I think Don
Hazen has a pencil stuck up his a__.

Do you think that Colbert and the cartoon reinforce, or effectively
ridicule, the idea that Obama is a "secret Muslim"? By the way, one of
the very clever things in how Colbert does this is that he never
simply calls Obama a Muslim; he always instead uses the term "secret
Muslim," which emphasizes its ludicrousness.

My instinct says that when something makes us laugh, then it is
working, very effectively, on a level deeper than enlightenment
rationality.

What do you all think? Do satire, parody, irony, lampooning all merely
negate and perpetuate a bad frame? Or can they be effective? I think
they are effective, but I don't understand *how*; I'd be interested in
hearing any frame-centered explanations of that.

[janine kovac]

Remnick is dead wrong. 

Did anyone look at that picture and NOT think of Obama?  Of course not.  You can't have a picture and pretend that people will look at the picture and understand it in terms of all the things that are not in the picture.

one other thought: Remnick thinks it's satire and compares it to Colbert?  One major difference with Colbert/Stewart is that they always juxtapose a ludicrous frame with an opposite (real) frame and therein lies the satire.  This cover doesn't do it.  It might if it were able to show Barack and Michelle in  Muslim garb and depict them as Columbia/Harvard & Princeton/Harvard yuppie preppies at the same time.  Or juxtapose the mythical frames with the Obamas as patriotic, family-oriented Christians .  But of course it doesn't.  It just shows the one frame.

[janine kovac]

Another way to phrase it -- Remnick (and many of us) might think of it as satire because we have another frame for the Obamas -- Ivy League yuppies, let's say.  This liberal elite frame contrasts strongly with the Muslim/Weather Underground frame, and so, for those with a different dominant frame of the Obamas, it DOES seem like satire.  But if the dominant frame is the unpatriotic, Muslim frame, there is no contrasting frame since the picture depicts the dominant frame.  Since the whole point was to dispel the myth, of course it fails horribly because there is no contrasting frame to the dominant one. 

Here's an analogy.  Let's say that instead of thinking that Obama is a Muslim, you think that Ariana Huffington is a liberal socialite.  And instead of the truth that Obama is a yuppie Ivy Leaguer, the truth is that Ariana is a nun who lives in a convent instead of a penthouse.   But you're pretty sure she's a socialite.  Then the New Yorker says, "ha, ha, it's so silly to think that Ariana is a socialite when she's not.  Look, here's a picture of Ariana dressed like a socialite in furs and diamonds next to a private jet.  See?  It's satire because she's not a socialite!  Get it?"  And of course, anyone who looks at the picture see a socialite.  No one will see a "not socialite."  And of course there's nothing in the picture to say, "Ariana is really a nun."

One last thing: Remnick justified his faux satire by saying, hey, we do this to the Bush administration all the time and nobody complains about that.  And he's right-- but that's because the pictures about the Bush et al are satire; they depict two contrasting frames.  It usually what the administration does vs. what it says (which should be the same but they are not) or they contrast what the administration does/says with what it represents (which again should be the same but they are not).

[SeniorMoments]

The problem with the Atlantic cover is that it appears to lampoon the
subjects, not those who want to believe and promote that Senator and
Mrs. Obama are not only Muslim, but terrorists, as well. In order for
satire to retain its humor, the line of communication has to be self
evident. Here, it is not. Perhaps regular Atlantic readers will see
the ad obsurdum elements, but once the cover hit the web, it spread
like fire, legitimate magazine exposes the Obamas. It leads me to
wonder the intent under the surface.


On Jul 16, 9:17 am, "Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)"

<leftymathp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By now you've all heard/read widely about the cartoon on the cover of
> The New Yorker. I have a question about it for you.
>
> Alternet's Don Hazen condemned the magazine cover. He said that
> negating a bad frame doesn't go away. He mentions Lakoff. See
>
> http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355
>
> But in a Huffington Post interview, the editor of the New Yorker,
> David Remnick, defends the cartoon, and compares it to the work of
> Stephen Colbert.
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_...

[Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter)]

Excellent explanation. I think I'll use some of it in the web page
that I edit at

http://www.tennesseeallianceforprogress.org/

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM, janine kovac <janine.ko...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > Remnick is dead wrong.
>
> > Did anyone look at that picture and NOT think of Obama? Of course not.
> > You can't have a picture and pretend that people will look at the picture
> > and understand it in terms of all the things that are not in the picture.
>
> > one other thought: Remnick thinks it's satire and compares it to Colbert?
> > One major difference with Colbert/Stewart is that they always juxtapose a
> > ludicrous frame with an opposite (real) frame and therein lies the satire.
> > This cover doesn't do it. It might if it were able to show Barack and
> > Michelle in Muslim garb and depict them as Columbia/Harvard &
> > Princeton/Harvard yuppie preppies at the same time. Or juxtapose the
> > mythical frames with the Obamas as patriotic, family-oriented Christians .
> > But of course it doesn't. It just shows the one frame.
>
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Leftymathprof (Eric Schechter) <
> > leftymathp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> By now you've all heard/read widely about the cartoon on the cover of
> >> The New Yorker. I have a question about it for you.
>
> >> Alternet's Don Hazen condemned the magazine cover. He said that
> >> negating a bad frame doesn't go away. He mentions Lakoff. See
>
> >>http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355
>
> >> But in a Huffington Post interview, the editor of the New Yorker,
> >> David Remnick, defends the cartoon, and compares it to the work of
> >> Stephen Colbert.
>

> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_...

[janine kovac]

thanks!

[SeniorMoments]

Oops, make that the New Yorker, (not The Atlantic). Sorry.

On Jul 17, 7:53 pm, SeniorMoments <leonardll...@mac.com> wrote:
> The problem with the New Yorker cover is that it appears to lampoon the

[Greg Lawless]

Regardless of which magazine, regardless of who it SEEMED to lampoon, the problem *I* see is that people REALLY need to get over it and move on. There are more important thing about which to worry, especially since the artist stated that his intent was satirical. Considering that the New Yorker does run satirical cartoons, this is more than likely the truth of the matter, and continuing to take offense at something that was not intended in that way is just childish.

 

I was at a Ren festival once with a group of friends. One of them was a very attractive young lady dressed in period costume that accentuated her attributes. A young man approached this woman and posed the following question: "Are those real?" while looking in the direction of her breasts. The men in our group, and the young lady in question at first just stared at him, then we asked him to explain himself or there might be a little trouble, to which he replied "Your tattoos. Are they real or the fake ones you get here?" We all had a good laugh after that, especially when his face turned red after realizing how his comments could be taken. We certainly did not keep being offended after he explained himself.

 

Cigar, cigar.

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

Greg, sure we need to move on, but there was a real point being made
here, and it was subtle enough that some of us (including me) didn't
catch on to it at first, and it was important enough to deserve some
attention. I'll try to summarize it -- at least, I'll summarize what
*I* learned:

My initial reaction was like that given by the editor of the New
Yorker, in his interview --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html

He said, essentially, hey this is just satire, like Stephen Colbert,
what's all the fuss, a few people will read it the wrong way but that
can't be helped.

But several columnists, for instance Don Hazen

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355

said that this is an error which is being made way too often. I didn't
understand Hazen's complaint at first, but Janine clarified it for me.
You can make satire safer by presenting two contrasting frames; an
example of that is Stephen Colbert's "The Word."

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?collectionId=168691

If you don't do that, then people will only see the frame that is
already dominant in their own minds. Thus, when I look at the New
Yorker cartoon, I see humorous satire, because I know that Obama is
not a secret Muslim; but someone who doesn't know that will see the
New Yorker cartoon entirely differently. And some conservatives grab
The New Yorker cartoon and use it for their own purposes -- e.g.,
"reputable left wing magazine admits Obama is really a terrorist," or
something like that. The mistake was that the New Yorker's cartoonist
and editor assumed the cartoon would only be seen by people who know
better. And Hazen says that kind of mistake is being made far too
often by our side. I wonder if that's because we're too trusting,
which in turn might be because we have too much faith in
"enlightenment rationality," the very thing that Lakoff cautions
against in his latest book.

Eric

On Jul 18, 4:07 pm, "Greg Lawless" <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:
> Regardless of which magazine, regardless of who it SEEMED to lampoon, the
> problem *I* see is that people REALLY need to get over it and move on. There
> are more important thing about which to worry, especially since the artist
> stated that his intent was satirical. Considering that the New Yorker does
> run satirical cartoons, this is more than likely the truth of the matter,
> and continuing to take offense at something that was not intended in that
> way is just childish.
>
> I was at a Ren festival once with a group of friends. One of them was a very
> attractive young lady dressed in period costume that accentuated her
> attributes. A young man approached this woman and posed the following
> question: "Are those real?" while looking in the direction of her breasts.
> The men in our group, and the young lady in question at first just stared at
> him, then we asked him to explain himself or there might be a little
> trouble, to which he replied "Your tattoos. Are they real or the fake ones
> you get here?" We all had a good laugh after that, especially when his face
> turned red after realizing how his comments could be taken. We certainly did
> not keep being offended after he explained himself.
>
> Cigar, cigar.
>

[janine kovac]

There's also a big framing mis-assumption in the phrase,  "people just need to get over it," which gets used from time to time as a way to say "let's move on."  I acknowledge that there seems to be a contradiction in our efforts to get past an issue without reinforcing the frame (i.e. negating it) and yet we spend a bunch of time talking about the frames around which we didn't want to talk.  (Like the New Yorker cover and Obama the not terrorist.  But I think this can be chalked up to our efforts to understand our own framing and unconscious thinking and our efforts to teach ourselves with no real active mentor. 

So eventually I envision a place where our framing discussion revolves around what how we should react to such a frame aside from the obvious "don't reinforce it" (so no links to the cover, etc.).  And our discussion would revolve around our efforts to negate the frame by mutual inhibition, that is, reinforcing or activating opposing frames.  This is different than just ignoring it.  It's more like what Amy did with her mom a few months back.  Her mom is the primary caregiver for the grandmother, whose health is declining.  This created some tension and resentment between family member and defensiveness on the part of the mother.  Amy chose instead to activate the empathetic frame, which by its nature inhibits the defensive frame.

So in our efforts to help people to "just get over it" what can we do in our own individual framing efforts to negate the New Yorker cover frames by activating other frames?  I have ZERO answers here, but that's the real mission here, isn't it?  What gets done about it if we can't just say "Don't think of the New Yorker?

[Amy Meier]

I think our best defense on the NY cover issue is to have the message, "Obviously, not everyone will recognize this as the satire it was intended to be." In that we do not give specifics or emphasize the caricature, but rather emphasize the fact that it is at least supposed to be satire.

"Get over it." is never a great sentiment for me. It feels hostile and says to me, 'You're a loser. Accept that as the status quo now. Perhaps a better sentiment is, 'this is what has happened, is it so important to me in the big picture that I can (or can't) vote/campaign for Obama'.

On a tangent, here's another trend (that's about passed I think ) that always bothered me, "its all good." When someone says, "It's all good", it really says to me, 'whatever you are talking about is inconsequential and I don't really need to go into it with you.'

Amy 

---

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:50:50 -0700
From: janine...@gmail.com
To: rockridge-an...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [annex] Re: New Yorker: lampooning or negated framing?

---

With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on the go.

[SeniorMoments]

What drives your rush to terminate this discussion? Why insist that
others move on?

On Jul 18, 2:07 pm, "Greg Lawless" <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:
> Regardless of which magazine, regardless of who it SEEMED to lampoon, the
> problem *I* see is that people REALLY need to get over it and move on. There
> are more important thing about which to worry, especially since the artist
> stated that his intent was satirical. Considering that the New Yorker does
> run satirical cartoons, this is more than likely the truth of the matter,
> and continuing to take offense at something that was not intended in that
> way is just childish.
>
> I was at a Ren festival once with a group of friends. One of them was a very
> attractive young lady dressed in period costume that accentuated her
> attributes. A young man approached this woman and posed the following
> question: "Are those real?" while looking in the direction of her breasts.
> The men in our group, and the young lady in question at first just stared at
> him, then we asked him to explain himself or there might be a little
> trouble, to which he replied "Your tattoos. Are they real or the fake ones
> you get here?" We all had a good laugh after that, especially when his face
> turned red after realizing how his comments could be taken. We certainly did
> not keep being offended after he explained himself.
>
> Cigar, cigar.
>

[GregJL]

1. I was speaking of the "offense" and "outrage" over this cartoon.
People spend way too much time these days being "offended" and
"outraged" by every little comment made by anyone, instead of focusing
on real problems. Course, most of them don't even realize what the
real problem IS.

2. I have not "insisted" on anything. I made a COMMENT on this
subject, a comment that was even directed toward the people in this
group.

Eric, the actual mistake is not that the artist and editor thought it
would only be seen by those who know better, it is that they think
everyone knows better. But my point isn't that it wasn't a mistake, my
point is the level of offense and outrage over it is a little
overblown. Especially since you know damn well that Obama understands
the satire in it. What, should all readers of the New Yorker now
cancel their subscription? Just like, should the Democratic party
throw General Clark out because he made a remark that was "offensive"
to the man who can't fly straight? (He didn't only crash the ONE
plane, you know). "No, no, sorry, can't associate with you any more,
you must be SHUNNED!" It's ridiculous, childish, and not helping
anyone. Both sides are guilty of it, and I'm REALLY tired of seeing it
EVERY DAY, almost everywhere I look.

But yes, from a framing point of view, it was a mistake, and the
artist needs to be informed of how and WHY it was a mistake. But there
was no ill intent, so the anger I've seen and heard from progressives
on this is unjustified in my opinion, and yes, they need to GET OVER
IT. Especially since half of them don't even know why they're angry in
the first place. They blather about how the media has been taken over
by conservatives who are trying to portray Obama as a "secret Muslim",
blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying they should move on from the ISSUE,
I'm saying move on from the ANGER. Maybe I wasn't being clear. Sorry.
Anyone wish to keep being offended? :)

And how do you know Obama isn't a secret Muslim? Isn't that the whole
point of it being secret, so nobody knows? ;)

Janine, not everything Colbert does is juxtaposed with
anything...matter of fact, I'm pretty sure 'The Word" is the only part
of his show that does that. It's why I have a problem watching him
sometimes, because I feel like he's reinforcing their frames. If it
weren't for the audience laughter, his show could be on Fox. Stewart,
on the other hand, does show both sides, since his "reporters" mostly
play like they're coming at the news from the conservative side and
he's the liberal.

> > > > > hearing any frame-centered explanations of that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[janine kovac]

CORRECTION:
I had said previously that Colbert and Stewart always have juxtaposing frames.

I should have said that in Colbert and Stewart's *satire* they always have juxtapose contrasting frames. 
While in Colbert's case this is most clearly done in his segment, "The Word," it is also present in Colbert's social cues and line of questioning.  The example that comes to mind is touting the undesirable consequences from conservative agenda as if they were intended desirables.  In our frame for talk show hosts they are either politically correct or intentionally saying something inflammatory -- they are not saying something inflammatory with the enthusiasm and pretend naivete that their commentary is generally accepted and agreed upon.  I agree that Colbert sometimes fails at this contrast of frames, but still, it is two contrasting frames stuck together, while the NYer cover only included one frame.

[SeniorMoments]

I think Amy gets to the point best:

On Jul 19, 6:51 pm, Amy Meier <amyadaml...@msn.com> wrote:
>...

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

My objection to the idea of quickly abandoning this subject is that
there are at least two questions I don't think we've dealt with.
Admittedly, maybe we won't be able to find answers to these questions;
but I don't think we've really finished looking at them.

(1) Don Hazen's article

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355

says that the New Yorker cartoon is not an isolated incident -- that
in fact there are many recent incidents of other liberal media
supplying the right wing with usable text. He gives several examples,
and mentions Lakoff in his discussion of those examples. I would like
to know: Is he correct? Is this something to be concerned about? What,
if anything, should we be doing about it, to instruct the media? How
should we frame the issue of instructing the media?

(2) I used to think that anything that could make me laugh must be
good, as long as it was a joke that did not demean anyone (e.g., no
"blonde jokes" or "Polack jokes" are good). Perhaps that was overly
simplistic. How does humor work, in the political world? And actually,
does the New Yorker cartoon demean the fearmongers? What is the
significance of that? From the Lakoff viewpoint, the conservatives are
merely mistaken, not evil; from the Buddhist viewpoint, the
fearmongers are merely other incarnations of ourselves. But actually,
that would permit the humor: it is good to laugh at our own mistakes.
But I'm getting off on a tangent. I guess what I meant was this: Our
present discussion group is devoted to the question of how to achieve
certain goals, and avoid certain other possible outcomes, through our
use of language; how does our analysis of language apply to humor? In
particular, to satire? Is satire just a case of negating the elephant?

I think that there is some truth in Lakoff's statement about negating
the elephant. But I don't think he explained it adequately, and I
don't think I understand it well enough. Here is an example:

Do you remember the television show "Lassie," in which many of the
plots were variants of the plot that the little boy Timmy falls in a
well and Lassie has to run to get help?

Okay, imagine that Timmy's family has just moved to a new home.
Timmy's mother says to him, "yes, Timmy, you can go play outside now.
But listen, there's a big deep hole in the backyard. I want you to
walk around very carefully, looking for it, so that you'll find it
without falling into it. Then, after you know where it is, you can
keep at least some distance away from it, and you'll be less likely to
accidentally fall into it." Is she negating the elephant? Is she
making it more likely that Timmy will fall into the hole? Would it be
better for Timmy's mother to just say nothing about the hole, and
instead just promote the use of the swing set, which is in a different
part of the yard?

On Jul 22, 2:31 pm, "janine kovac" <janine.ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CORRECTION:
> I had said previously that Colbert and Stewart always have juxtaposing
> frames.
>
> I should have said that in Colbert and Stewart's *satire* they always have
> juxtapose contrasting frames.
> While in Colbert's case this is most clearly done in his segment, "The
> Word," it is also present in Colbert's social cues and line of questioning.
> The example that comes to mind is touting the undesirable consequences from
> conservative agenda as if they were intended desirables. In our frame for
> talk show hosts they are either politically correct or intentionally saying
> something inflammatory -- they are not saying something inflammatory with
> the enthusiasm and pretend naivete that their commentary is generally
> accepted and agreed upon. I agree that Colbert sometimes fails at this
> contrast of frames, but still, it is two contrasting frames stuck together,
> while the NYer cover only included one frame.
>

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

I didn't know that McCain crashed more than one plane. Can you tell me
more about that? Do you know of a particularly good article about
that? Thanks.

On Jul 22, 12:56 pm, GregJL <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:
> 1. I was speaking of the "offense" and "outrage" over this cartoon.
> People spend way too much time these days being "offended" and
> "outraged" by every little comment made by anyone, instead of focusing
> on real problems. Course, most of them don't even realize what the
> real problem IS.
>
> 2. I have not "insisted" on anything. I made a COMMENT on this
> subject, a comment that was even directed toward the people in this
> group.
>
> Eric, the actual mistake is not that the artist and editor thought it
> would only be seen by those who know better, it is that they think
> everyone knows better. But my point isn't that it wasn't a mistake, my
> point is the level of offense and outrage over it is a little
> overblown. Especially since you know damn well that Obama understands
> the satire in it. What, should all readers of the New Yorker now
> cancel their subscription? Just like, should the Democratic party
> throw General Clark out because he made a remark that was "offensive"

> to the man who can't fly straight? (He didn't onlycrashthe ONE

[GregJL]

"they are not saying something inflammatory with
the enthusiasm and pretend naivete that their commentary is generally
accepted and agreed upon."

I know Fox News is probably not high on your favorites, but I've seen
Bill O'Reilly. And after seeing him, I can honestly say that while
your above statement may have been true years ago, but now the
conservative commentators act as if everything they say is just common
sense, no matter HOW offensive or disgusting it is. I was actually
surprised that the "terrorist hand jab" woman wasn't promoted instead
of fired.

Which of course is WHY Stephen Colbert does his show, because he takes
it even farther than O'Liely. But like I think has been mentioned
before, there are people who honestly thought, and probably even some
who still do think, that Stephen Colbert is a genuine conservative
poking fun at liberals and touting conservative talking points.

And if you really want to get into a discussion of satire, we can do
that. Because satire is not only juxtaposition. It also includes
exaggeration, parody, irony, and a host of others, with irony topping
the list, of course. I would say the New Yorker cartoon is a perfect
example of something taken to an extreme...hmm, funny, I think I've
seen some other place where someone takes "all their statements and
purported beliefs to their furthest (supposedly) logical
conclusion" (Wikipedia entry on satire, under the contemporary satire
section)...now where would that be? Oh yes! "The Colbert Report". :)

Oh by the way...who ever said satire was the same as humor? Not all
satire is humor, just like not all humor is satire.

And once again I will repeat. I never said anything about dropping the
subject. I said the "offense and outrage" over this cartoon are
misplaced. Yes, the media have to be educated on how to use framing
correctly, especially liberal publications like the New Yorker. But
getting pissed off and screaming at them sure as hell isn't going to
help.

I'm beginning to think that satire may be something that will have to
be dropped as a means of political commentary. The problem being that
it's not just the intended audience that sees things like the New
Yorker anymore. And while the accompanying articles were supposedly
serious and thought provoking, the average Joe who doesn't actually
READ the New Yorker is only left with that image. :shrug: No use
crying over it, like I said. Let's point out the error to those in
charge, show them a better way, and let our blood pressure return to
normal before we have a STROKE. Anger is helpful occassionally. But if
you're angry for too long, you end up shriveled inside, even if you're
a bloated deaf Oxycontin-popping gas-bag on the outside.

I actually think the other problems Don Hazen mentioned are more
disturbing...seriously, someone thought "Dykes, Whores or Bitches" was
good as part of a progressive headline? But hey! We have hope, people!
The executive editor of ALTERNET is a Lakoffian (Lakoffite?)!
Hopefully this will start spreading to the other progressive
publications. Maybe that is where we need to concentrate our efforts,
letters to the editors of progressive publications, both internet and
print. Heck, it shouldn't take long. I mean there's what, about five
that haven't been taken over by conservatives? lol!

So tell me something, people...what HAS Fox News had to say about the
New Yorker cover? The only things I'm seeing anywhere about this are
from the left. Has anyone at Fox News said "See? We told you he was a
radical Muslim!"? I'm being serious here, I really try VERY hard not
to watch or listen to conservatives, they make me physically ill.


On Jul 23, 7:29 am, "Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)"

[Greg Lawless]

one last thing...when I talk about people being pissed off and screaming, I am NOT referring to the people on this list...at least not on this occasion. I'm speaking of the general progressive movement out there...which is what I do MOST times. If I'm speaking of or to a specific person, I will refer to that person by name.

 

Eric, below are a few paragraphs from "Vietnam Veterans against John McCain". I assume the military has records on this sort of thing, but I wouldn't know where to begin to find it. Of course, his military records could now be in the same place as Bush's National Guard records

 

McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by the impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.

 

McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," Timberg wrote, "he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

 

McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.

 

Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees.

 
 

[Patrick Draper]

Others:

The A-4 he was flying when shot down over Hanoi.

The A-4 he was sitting in on the Forrestal flight deck when it was hit
by a rocket accidentally launched by another aircraft.

The dude is lucky.

[janine kovac]

Re: Timmy & Lassie, Hole, Hole, Hole

Yes and No.

The Yes Part
Did you ever say "Don't touch that" or "Don't throw that" to a two-year old?  And of course you know what happens.  Ever try "NO!  Hands off."  or  "Wait!  Hold on to it!"  The results are amazing.  A-mazing.

The No Part
We talk about negating frames but not reinforcing them but when we really drill down the point is that (politically) some frames reinforce cooperation (systemic causation) and others reinforce competition (direct causation).  No one can simultaneously compete and cooperate in the same moment, just in the same way no one can feel empathy for something and attack that same thing in the same moment.  Your brain won't let you.  Core progressive values vs core conservative values can be generalized as cooperation vs competition and one inhibits the other. 

At the core of conservative propaganda are the deep structures that reinforce competition.  (Hence a Moral Order). 

So the best way to promote progressive values is to reinforce the deep structures behind them: frames that reinforce cooperation and systemic causation.  Reinforcing them will inhibit the competitive frames. 

I'm not sure how to fit the Timmy example into this b/c I can't divide "stay away from the hole" into cooperative vs competitive frames.

Hope this helps.

[Amy Meier]

Janine, that was really helpful for me. My conservative family is asking me what I think the difference between conservative and liberal is and the competition vs cooperation is a great simplification. That way they don't feel like I'm trying to drag them into some psychological hocus pocus. It's easy to understand that they are mutually exclusive (rather than launching into biconceptualism with them - though it is, of course, a factor).

I don't know how effective it is to compare Timmy to our political discussion, but here is another piece to it.  Mom can explain to Timmy "that  over there, by that tree is a deep well and if you fell into it, we might never get you back the same, and it will hurt a lot. Now, over by those rocks, there are a bunch of kids playing Red Rover, hear them laughing? Now, go have fun." and then the mom keeps and eye on things.

Most kids will gravitate to the cooperative fun. It just goes to show that introducing a whole NEW frame will get people focused on it, especially if it's appealing.Then, a progressive mom would go out and find the well and cover it properly to make the whole yard safer for all the kids.

Amy 

---

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:37:44 -0700

From: janine...@gmail.com
To: rockridge-an...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [annex] Re: New Yorker: lampooning or negated framing?

---

Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you're online.

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

Okay, I think I understand the cooperation versus competition. But I
still don't understand Lakoff's elephant example. I think he should
have picked some other example. Or maybe not; I guess the concept of
framing goes much wider than just cooperation versus competition.

But, in any case, my local protest group is going ahead with an anti-
Rove rally on Saturday night. We just couldn't see a way to frame it
positively. Perhaps that's inherent in our mission: I just described
my local group as a "protest group." Is that inherently self-
defeating? I'm not convinced that it is.

I've given this matter a lot of thought recently, and here's the best
answer I've got so far in favor of negative frames:

Cooperation versus competition certainly is a major part of our
struggle, but it would be a mistake to believe that the ills of our
society can be traced to that one simple explanation. It's too simple.
I would say that another major ingredient is the prevalance of
authoritarianism, i.e., the tendency that too many people have to
unquestioningly "respect" and obey authority. When I first saw the
bumper sticker "Question Authority" 40 years ago, I thought it was
just funny, but now I understand that it's a very serious matter.
Psychologist Bob Altemeyer has written a book titled "The
Authoritarians," and it's available free online at

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

and in my opinion it's excellent. These sheeplike people comprise a
fifth of our society, and that explains why George Bush's approval
rating will never go below 20 percent, no matter WHAT he does. How can
we change the mentality of these people?

Well, they are very strongly driven by an urge to conform to whatever
norms they see around them. If they see some people publicly
protesting, publicly dissenting, publicly questioning power and
authority, publicly not cooperating with the powerful, then they
become more aware that at least a few people do consider such action
to be a norm.

But I agree that Lakoff's point nevertheless is valid -- that you
can't make a frame go away by negating it. So I am conflicted here. I
think the two things are not really a contradiction -- I think it
might be comparing apples and oranges, and those two kinds of fruit
are not actually opposites of each other -- they have much in common
-- they're both fruits. Still, the two notions -- negating a frame and
protesting a power -- appear similar enough on the surface that I
would like to see a clarification of how they differ, so I will
understand better how to do the latter without doing the former. Can
anyone help me out on this?

On Jul 24, 2:37 am, "janine kovac" <janine.ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re: Timmy & Lassie, Hole, Hole, Hole
>
> Yes and No.
>
> The Yes Part
> Did you ever say "Don't touch that" or "Don't throw that" to a two-year
> old? And of course you know what happens. Ever try "NO! Hands off." or
> "Wait! Hold on to it!" The results are amazing. A-mazing.
>
> The No Part
> We talk about negating frames but not reinforcing them but when we really
> drill down the point is that (politically) some frames reinforce cooperation
> (systemic causation) and others reinforce competition (direct causation).
> No one can simultaneously compete and cooperate in the same moment, just in
> the same way no one can feel empathy for something and attack that same
> thing in the same moment. Your brain won't let you. Core progressive
> values vs core conservative values can be generalized as cooperation vs
> competition and one inhibits the other.
>
> At the core of conservative propaganda are the deep structures that
> reinforce competition. (Hence a Moral Order).
>
> So the best way to promote progressive values is to reinforce the deep
> structures behind them: frames that reinforce cooperation and systemic
> causation. Reinforcing them will inhibit the competitive frames.
>
> I'm not sure how to fit the Timmy example into this b/c I can't divide "stay
> away from the hole" into cooperative vs competitive frames.
>
> Hope this helps.
>

> On 7/23/08, Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter) <leftymathp...@yahoo.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Greg Lawless]

"Then, a progressive mom would go out and find the well and cover it properly to make the whole yard safer for all the kids."

 

And a libertarian would complain that his freedom to choose whether or not to fall in the hole. :)

[GregJL]

Argh. That was, "And a libertarian would complain that his freedom to
choose whether or not
to fall in the hole was being taken away." Sheesh. Guess I was rushing
to get a laugh.

Greg Lawless wrote:
> "Then, a progressive mom would go out and find the well and cover it
> properly to make the whole yard safer for all the kids."
>
> And a libertarian would complain that his freedom to choose whether or not
> to fall in the hole. :)
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Amy Meier <amyad...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Janine, that was really helpful for me. My conservative family is asking me
> > what I think the difference between conservative and liberal is and the
> > competition vs cooperation is a great simplification. That way they don't
> > feel like I'm trying to drag them into some psychological hocus pocus. It's
> > easy to understand that they are mutually exclusive (rather than launching
> > into biconceptualism with them - though it is, of course, a factor).
> >
> > I don't know how effective it is to compare Timmy to our political
> > discussion, but here is another piece to it. Mom can explain to Timmy
> > "that over there, by that tree is a deep well and if you fell into it, we
> > might never get you back the same, and it will hurt a lot. Now, over by
> > those rocks, there are a bunch of kids playing Red Rover, hear them
> > laughing? Now, go have fun." and then the mom keeps and eye on things.
> >
> > Most kids will gravitate to the cooperative fun. It just goes to show that
> > introducing a whole NEW frame will get people focused on it, especially if
> > it's appealing.Then, a progressive mom would go out and find the well and

> > cover it properly to make the whole yard safer for all the kids. **Amy
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------

> > On 7/23/08, *Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)* <

> > ------------------------------

> > Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime

> > you're online.<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008>
> > >
> >

[janine kovac]

Thanks, Amy. 

CLARIFICATION:
I think it's important to remember that we all have cooperative and competitive frames and that the cooperative vs competitive translates to progressive/conservative with regards to policy.  Sometimes I think it's misunderstood as saying that republicans don't cooperate, which of course is not the case at all.

I also think it's important to remember that we live in a culture where competition is valued greatly -- from sports to awards shows to music and television ratings, elections, business, SAT tests and so on.  Finding a solution in which we are do not compete with one another but instead search for a joint solution in which we are all better off at the end is not a kind of game we practice as Americans.  In fact, I cannot think of any such game.  Sadly.  I bring this up because I always seem to talk myself into a corner when I try to tout cooperation instead of competition.  Of course the facts support cooperation for any kind of progress (otherwise we all have to recreate the wheel) but as we know, it does no good to spout facts if you can't frame them.  (The later chapters in Political Mind have some of these).  The myth that competition creates better, stronger stuff is very strong.

[janine kovac]

 Unless you can protest against something without talking about the something.

But it seems that evoking the "other" frame is an inherent attribute of the "protest" frame.

[dano]

At 7:03 AM -0700 7/24/08, Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter) wrote:
>Okay, I think I understand the cooperation versus competition. But I
>still don't understand Lakoff's elephant example. I think he should
>have picked some other example. Or maybe not; I guess the concept of
>framing goes much wider than just cooperation versus competition.

...

>But I agree that Lakoff's point nevertheless is valid -- that you
>can't make a frame go away by negating it. So I am conflicted here. I
>think the two things are not really a contradiction -- I think it
>might be comparing apples and oranges, and those two kinds of fruit
>are not actually opposites of each other -- they have much in common
>-- they're both fruits. Still, the two notions -- negating a frame and
>protesting a power -- appear similar enough on the surface that I
>would like to see a clarification of how they differ, so I will
>understand better how to do the latter without doing the former. Can
>anyone help me out on this?

Quickly here, let me try to explain.

It's about the way the brain works, with neural connections (mental
associations) turning on whole networks of other neural systems (metaphors).

When you negate a concept, you *turn on* the whole neural network
associated with the concept. Even though there is a "logical negation"
association connected to this idea as expressed, unless it is deeply
learned (through long term repetition or a traumatic experience associated
with the negation of the concept), the negation more easily falls away
while the activated neural system stays on.

While the active neural system is on, it inhibits all neural systems that
contradict it in the (biconceptual) brain. This is Lakoff's point: as long
as you include "elephant" in your operating instructions, you *can't* "not
think" about it. The only way to not think about an elephant is to choose
some other thing to think about and think positively about that, hopefully
something that actively inhibits thoughts about elephants. Think about
neutrinos, for example (non-life, microscopically small, subatomic
particles of virtually zero mass -- but forget about all those
characteristics per se, because you might associate them with negations of
elephant characteristics).

So the idea is instead to activate whole neural systems that inhibit the
conservative metaphors and promote the progressive metaphors. Rather than
stating a simple negation of a conservative story (which will activate the
conservative story and inhibit progressive stories), better to tell a
progressive story that negates the conservative story inherently and thus
inhibits the conservative circuits in the brain.

Janine's comment about Yes and No are illuminating to me (I don't have
kids, but I can imagine the example, having heard stories about the
"terrible twos"). And Rikard's point about emphasizing empathy all the
time is spot on, as it does tend to activate the progressive circuits
generally, and that will provide more nourishment for progressive stories
everywhere.

Janine also pointed out that fairness is a contested concept (in many, many
ways). To restate her point, it can be about individual versus collective
interests, the endless conflict of which forms the foundation of political
debates (fair to me, or fair to others, and can you have both
simultaneously?).

So if we talk about fairness in the context of the Golden Rule (which is
derived fundamentally from the principle of empathy), it places the focus
of fairness on others, i.e., the commonwealth. It puts you in the shoes of
others.

Interesting twist on the affirmative action point: The way a "level
playing field" can be fair in a progressive sense is to recognize that
initial circumstances must be factored into the comparison, and that it is
unfair that initial circumstances are systematically distorted by social
dynamics originating with forced slavery and perpetuated with segregation
and economic differentials. So this obviously appeals to systemic
causation. If we can get the systemic causation frame activated, then this
story fits.

Another commonwealth principle in support of affirmative action is the
value of a diverse student body in what is an important learning
experience. Putting people in social proximity to one another enables
communication that otherwise might not happen, thus tending to defuse the
"otherness" of others derived from social distance. It's far easier to
demonize people one has never met in person, more likely to engage empathy
when we can see a human being in front of us in the flesh.

This is also a reason why economic class differences are bad for society in
general: it leads to a society that is not culturally uniform enough for
everyone to identify with everyone else, and promotes the us-versus-them
dynamic that ultimately weakens society. Yes, extremes of economic
differentiation are harmful to national security because they fracture
society and undermine the nurturing of the commonwealth which is the
foundation of national/societal strength. Divide and conquer, united we
stand. Frame these slogans properly and they become progressive stories.
Competition is about division and conflict between boats on the ocean,
cooperation is about unification and a rising tide to lift all boats.

Bottom line: Always better to find an explicitly positive story to tell
that implicitly negates (and inhibits) conservative stories than simply to
try to attach a free-standing "negation logical operator" to an intact
conservative story.

It's harder work to put this together, but the conservatives have already
done a lot of hard work over the last few decades, and nothing less will
ultimately suffice to counter it.

Trying to get this on the cheap will only have us continuing to swim
upstream instead of finding the downstream river to our destination. We
need to get the whole river flowing in the progressive direction.