tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34908001678740811782012-02-01T13:25:24.740-05:00The past 20 years of 24/7 mass communications have brought us such growth in the prevalence of persuasive messages that the average media consumer is nearly always being sold something ~ be it an opinion or a product. Here students in Journalism 542, Public Opinion and Propaganda, will share their thoughts and discoveries about the world of spin. Note to contributors: The date on the prompt is the deadline for posting.Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.comBlogger1731100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-44096883903897754322008-01-01T22:40:00.000-05:002008-01-12T12:07:16.194-05:00

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-40700994631560502112007-12-06T17:37:00.000-05:002007-12-06T17:57:49.384-05:00

I believe that Bernays' statement from 1928 is a little outdated for today. However, I do feel there is a redeeming notion. It still holds true today for some that the role of the woman is to supplement the man. In today's culture, I believe it would be better stated this way: "The role of women allows men to succeed in the world today by caring for all the tedious details that would not

cuadravnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-62266633806610643812007-12-02T15:46:00.000-05:002007-12-02T15:51:40.876-05:00

I agree with Bernay's statement that American Motion Pictures are carriers of propoganda. I believe this statement is very true because the movie industry holds very high power with the size of audience it captures. Going to the movies is an ordinary source of entertainment for many people. Those people who attend the movies are exposed to not just the flick, but all the junk intertwined

cuadravnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-74600399357351815632007-11-28T19:00:00.000-05:002007-11-28T19:10:12.869-05:00

I completely agree with the assessment of film in America by Bernays. However, I do not believe "the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda" really relates well to the "documentaries" of Michael Moore. I feel like movies such as his pose an obvious meaning, and anybody watching them is much more consciously aware of his propaganda filled films. On the other hand, I believe Bernays relates

drockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17572646784364948730noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-57805657545363164502007-11-27T08:02:00.000-05:002007-11-19T08:10:57.300-05:00

Bernays wrote in 1928, "The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today. It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions. The motion picture can standardize the ideas and habits of a nation. Because pictures are made to meet market demands, they reflect, emphasize and even exaggerate broad popular tendencies, rather than stimulate new ideas and

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-43045426543912706432007-11-26T23:53:00.000-05:002007-11-26T23:58:43.550-05:00

And Bernays' statement is most definitively true, and has been true for decades. Product placement or not, if there is one definitive way of reaching millions and billions (depending on the film) of people worldwide in almost every continent in the world, it is through film. And whether we like it or not, these ideas often shape our behavior, whether in simply trends of clothing or drinks due to

Presslyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14588222645995887748noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-74645510083225298352007-11-26T23:36:00.000-05:002007-11-26T23:50:03.119-05:00

Propaganda seen in film today is an interesting topic to discuss. For, I do not believe that movies are made today solely to feature certain products so that moviemakers can say "buy this now." There are more politics involved than to simply narrow it down to that. Studios need money in order to finance films. Distribution companies need money in order to distribute. Coca-Cola needs people to buy

Presslyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14588222645995887748noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-41483137224222887052007-11-26T23:27:00.000-05:002007-11-26T23:36:57.075-05:00

There may be some truth in Bernays' statement about the power of motion pictures. However, today perhaps they can't be called "the greatest carrier of propaganda" so much as "a major" carrier. In 1928, television had not been invented yet and the internet wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of technology. Today, t.v. is a major source for learning our social cues with programming targeted to

chitarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16297112795147160474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-33539703381641404642007-11-26T15:46:00.000-05:002007-11-26T15:56:07.000-05:00

I agree with Bernays. Movies are a driving force in our society. They have so much potential to reach so many people. Movies are not usually considered or associated with propaganda, but in many ways they can be. Think of Michael Moore's numerous documentaries.... perfect examples of propaganda, at its best (or worst), depending on your views. Also, more and more movies and products are utilizing

Stephanie DuPrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13154984471227700222noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-11200259817981639242007-11-26T15:35:00.000-05:002007-11-26T15:48:10.791-05:00

Bernays statement towards motion pictures is true now more than ever. Back in 1928 when he stated this, he probably did not realize how almost 80 years later his idea would still be correct. When you go into a movie theater, all that is around you are advertisements. You see Coca-Cola and Pepsi signs everywhere along with the posters for other movies that are not out yet. When you sit down in

Brodiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05396935809291416376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-72232171212730727112007-11-26T10:40:00.000-05:002007-11-26T13:33:09.840-05:00

I think this statement made by Bernays is extremely true-both back in 1928 when it was written and especially today. Movies are being used much more often today as advertising, especially because of zipping and zapping with TiVos and other devices that allow consumers to skip commercials and advertisements more often. Product placement is very prominent as well. It is not just advertisements

penguinrocker17http://www.blogger.com/profile/09519733087227579898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-74577604725672705692007-11-26T09:55:00.000-05:002007-11-26T09:56:17.022-05:00

There are many examples of how movies perpetuate everyday life with regards to exaggerating broad popular tendencies. Somehow Bernays knew in 1928 the practices and procedures that still are followed today by the producers of movies and films. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 have heightened the American citizen’s fear of terrorism tactics, increased the sense of patriotism and flooded the box

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-84024706875523809912007-11-23T23:32:00.000-05:002007-11-23T23:39:37.300-05:00

that's so true. the motion pictures play upon stereotypes and things that make us, as the audience, kind of uncomfortable to actually say. it takes reality to a new level.. it pushes us. i guess because they know the response of the public on specific situations and that drives the market demand. It takes what we think and plays with it, and molds the way we view things and how we respond to

Kodihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05545410360695356740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-84237273882803172152007-11-23T21:20:00.001-05:002007-11-23T21:26:52.560-05:00

I think that Bernay's is correct that movies are an incredibly powerful carrier of propaganda. He also says that if you can change the minds of a few, then you also influence the people who they influence. That being said, movies made now reflect the interests of society, if they didn't then nobody would go see them. Since 9/11 for example there have been an outrageous amount of patriotic movies

Carli DiPietrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03216404545979642187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-17658257083911186032007-11-21T10:53:00.000-05:002007-11-21T10:57:03.923-05:00

Movies as reflections of larger social tendencies is amazingly accurate. We as a country of free thinkers decide to only view movies that might exaggerate or illustrate social problems and the human condition. I would agree completely that Bernays is 100% accurate in his assumption that movies are an ultra-effective method for displaying and relaying propaganda. We glorify movies that either

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-4289348807915610552007-11-20T10:57:00.000-05:002007-11-20T11:20:32.061-05:00

Impeccable example of sheer propaganda, this clip of Lowell Thomas was beautifully constructed to address all needs and concerns of it's viewers and patrons. Starting off by explaining how successful we, as a nation, have already been at war by "crushing Germany", but our nation cannot stop now. Getting a little more personal, the speaker explains the effort of our fellow countryman in New Jersey

Alisahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15359854036904143702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-32339549296374653242007-11-20T09:29:00.000-05:002007-11-20T09:37:54.099-05:00

I believe this statement is true to an extent. It's not secret that we have had and influx of war movies, particularly concerning Iraq, since America has gone to war. However, I think that movie makers are not so much trying to sway popular opinion as they trying to capitalize on an issue that affects most Americans. I do believe movies are some of the greatest enforcers of stereotypes. Because

Suzanne Natolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08652523747387007161noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-17209686538649355432007-11-19T23:53:00.000-05:002007-11-19T23:54:43.179-05:00

“Just as men and women complement each other in private life, so they will complement each other in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which one or the other is likely to ignore.”For me this is a more modern statement which could be used in the 21st century. Today women are not looked at as supplements to men; many men and women today complement each other in

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-52993177335466996982007-11-19T23:03:00.000-05:002007-11-19T23:14:56.219-05:00

I do believe this statement rings true. Motion pictures have the ability to stimulate new ideas and opinions but they rarely do. It is safer, it seems, to create works that reflect what we as a society know, rather than what we don't (because that is what we fear.) It is easy to believe this statement because you always hear of the film that "broke through" or "made a statement." These few films,

Stefanienoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-23204448986754460622007-11-19T17:22:00.000-05:002007-11-19T17:52:10.459-05:00

I agree with his statement. Movies are made to be entertainment for the public. New ideas are not formed from viewing movies. I think that there are some movies that can create new ideas, such as Micheal Moore's movies, but not enough people see them and if they do not many people agree with him or his ideas. Movies offer a "getaway" to the public, not an outlet for new ideas.

runklehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17920452259244898187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-26293404002297565452007-11-19T16:46:00.000-05:002007-11-19T16:50:31.560-05:00

I must say that this statement was probably very true back in 1928 when Bernays wrote this, but times are changing. Sure, we still have the overdramatic chick-flick that makes every girl in America hate her own relationship, but also think about people like Michael Moore. Even though I happen to hate Michael Moore, you have to admit that the ideas he conveys in his movies are anything but "

meganwohlfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12439710935674522940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-19031163450400005602007-11-19T15:14:00.000-05:002007-11-19T15:22:59.706-05:00

I disagree that motion pictures do not stimulate new ideas and opinions. I think films can be used as an art form as well as a marketing tool. It is true that movies can be a great opportunity to use product placement as a form of advertising. However many film-makers are creating movies to primarily stimulate the public's ideas and not capitalize off of them. The industry has changed since

uscktheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11950078642612811859noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-5909004341404549212007-11-19T14:08:00.000-05:002007-11-19T19:10:52.387-05:00

When I first read the exert, I noticed that it was incredibly sexist and would be read that way among most people in the 21st century. I also thought of some words that could be synonymous with supplement, but would denote a more symbiotic relationship, or a relationship with mutual benefits. I came up with words similar to "complement", which another poster found to work. And while I agree,

drockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17572646784364948730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-19410595041673631832007-11-19T13:21:00.000-05:002007-11-19T13:27:38.017-05:00

I believe that this statement is very true, although today television may be just as strong if not a stronger influence than movies. If movies and television did not have unconscious power that it does advertisers and public relation workers would not use product placement and integrated marketing strategies.

cornishjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08212183131919298857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-24256744687910552992007-11-19T13:05:00.000-05:002007-11-19T22:50:10.764-05:00

For me the biggest problem with the statement is the use of the word supplement. When I read the word supplement, I infer that there is a deficiency or incompleteness to the parties involved, which is most certainly not the case with men and women. However, if the word compliments was substituted I think it could be salvaged. Complements, does not suggest any type of deficiency to either party

cornishjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08212183131919298857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-46326726675194445532007-11-19T12:14:00.000-05:002007-11-19T12:15:10.200-05:00

The statement that women will supplement men in public life as well as private life has changed substantially since Bernay’s published his statements in 1928. There have been so many significant changes in the social atmosphere when it comes to gender roles and standards for each of the sexes, that saying women will supplement men in public is a disagreeable statement.I interpret Bernay’s

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-85676913796879014672007-11-19T10:55:00.001-05:002007-11-19T10:55:59.944-05:00

What I got out of the original statement was that women are the clean up crew for men. Women are right behind the men to take care of things that they overlook or things that they are careless about. Being that this is the 21st century and people nowadays are more likely to get offended by sexist statements, it could definitely use some rewording. Since the word supplement gives off a demeaning

dymedowthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254690178891086805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-57265422997982190832007-11-19T09:52:00.000-05:002007-11-12T14:36:03.769-05:00

Bernays wrote in 1928: "Just as women supplement men in private life, so they will supplement men in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which men are likely to ignore." Allowing that there is a salvageable notion here, how might Bernays' statement be reworded for a 21st century world?

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-61320203430023860342007-11-16T13:30:00.000-05:002007-11-16T13:40:35.492-05:00

Supplement means "something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole." If this definition is linked with Bernays' statement then I think there is definitely a salvageable notion here. Women supplement men, just like men supplement women, women supplement women, and men supplement men. I think the key to rewording this for a 21st century world would be to make

Stefanienoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-46933930684011588452007-11-16T09:35:00.000-05:002007-11-16T09:40:24.799-05:00

I think that it would be near impossible to reword Bernays's statement without it losing its original meaning. While I'm sure that there are still households where it is the wife's primary job to take care of the husband, house, and kids, these households are declining. I agree with some of the previous posts in that the statement should be reworded to be something like, "Men and women work

Suzanne Natolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08652523747387007161noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-71496766545187975172007-11-15T15:43:00.000-05:002007-11-15T15:55:39.087-05:00

Bernays' statement would definitely have to be reworded just for this statement to be socially acceptable. There are so many women's right groups out there that would practically tear Bernays apart for that statement. To change the original statement to bring it to the 21st century, it should say something along the lines of "Men and women have developed a partnership that allows them to assist

Brodiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05396935809291416376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-80472373999363533392007-11-14T13:28:00.000-05:002007-11-14T13:29:16.960-05:00

I honestly don’t think this statement is salvageable for the 21st century. If I had to re-word it, I would make sure that women are not viewed as supplements to men. Women should be viewed as equal to men. “Women are not only companions to men but also are partners with men and facilitate them in public and private life.” I think that statement makes it clear that women are equal and they have

runklehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17920452259244898187noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-14700746502029709382007-11-13T16:03:00.000-05:002007-11-13T16:11:10.899-05:00

While I am not entirely sure how to reword Bernays' statement to make it more applicable and understandable in the 21st century, I do feel that the wording needs to pull away from the perception that women are objects, as Bernays' quote suggests. The first part of the quote, "Just as women supplement men in private life", should be completely left out of the 21st century quote. This suggests

penguinrocker17http://www.blogger.com/profile/09519733087227579898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-5399661814923827052007-11-13T11:23:00.000-05:002007-11-13T11:41:40.039-05:00

When Bernays wrote "Just as women supplement men in private life, so they will supplement men in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which men are likely to ignore," he may have seen women as representing life inside the home and family while men's public life represented life outside the home and beyond the family (i.e. work, social groups, etc.). Women took

chitarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16297112795147160474noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-86186658192190300052007-11-12T23:27:00.000-05:002007-11-12T23:28:09.336-05:00

For me, Carnegie’s quote "Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires" seems as if the consumers desires are going to be subconsciously aroused. If this is what Carnegie is implying then I strongly believe that his opinion and Roberts opinions are similar. Roberts believes also in the subconscious thoughts of a consumer with his quote “loyalty beyond reason”-having

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-74447342618365591162007-11-12T10:10:00.000-05:002007-11-12T10:21:48.789-05:00

Loyalty beyond reason has the potential to be incredibly profitable for a company willing to adapt its principles. The way to get customers that will be loyal beyond reason is to offer them products that will satisfy their hierarchy of needs as presented by Maslow. Companies will be significanlty more productive if they can somehow tune in with a consumer base that will stick with them through

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-70776902176662309472007-11-12T09:16:00.000-05:002007-11-12T09:20:47.243-05:00

I don't personally feel that Kevin Robert's M.O. of "Loyalty Beyond Reason" is any different from Dale Carnegie's version of enlightened self-interest. Furthermore, I feel that Having the ability to create that brand loyalty beyond reason most likely leads to the ability to have people do something that benefits not only that person, but you as the advertising executive as well. I feel very

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-63120176541926475912007-11-11T22:41:00.000-05:002007-11-11T22:47:01.006-05:00

“Loyalty beyond reason” is a phrase that Kevin Roberts used to describe his goal of winning and keeping consumers. While ‘loyalty’ to a brand is important, it is the phrase, “beyond reason” that infers a strong emotional or spiritual attachment, similar to the attachments cults hope to create in their new recruits. Therefore Dale Carnegie’s advice, “get the other person to do what you want them

Sarah S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00211305367839524184noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-19147288469729303022007-11-11T18:16:00.000-05:002007-11-11T18:21:46.426-05:00

Kevin Roberts has something in common with Dale Carnegie; they both understand what it takes to sell your product, brand and company to consumers - emotion and desire. Dale Carnegie's advice, "Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires," was the beginning of how to reach consumers on a deeper level. Many companies have taken this advice and are trying to arouse

Stefanienoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-61442393048851047832007-11-11T17:56:00.000-05:002007-11-11T18:04:18.517-05:00

Those people today, in the 21st century, seeking success in business should definitely read Dale Carnegie's book. The rules in which he asks those to follow still hold true today. "The customer is always right" is a saying that you costantly hear in business and it encompases two of Carnegie's rules which say, "Don't criticize, condemn or complain," and "Give people a feeling of importance." A

Stefanienoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-76803114312616110452007-11-09T14:02:00.000-05:002007-11-09T14:09:35.318-05:00

Roberts strategy coincides with Carnegie's statement in many ways. Kevin Roberts studied cults to determine and understand more about the way people are attached to certain things and then he applied it to brand promotions. He targeted certain groups, or cults, because they all share the same beliefs. If he could figure out what they wanted and what pushed their buttons just the right way, he

Brodiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05396935809291416376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-24086906450207665122007-11-07T16:44:00.000-05:002007-11-12T16:51:29.178-05:00

The phrase "loyalty beyond reason" was used in the program The Persuaders by ad man Kevin Roberts to describe his goal of winning and keeping consumers. Roberts studied members of cults in hopes of understanding more about the nature of attachments so that he might apply what he found to brand promotions.How does Roberts' strategy square with Dale Carnegie's advice, "Get the other person to do

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-89698788951401933512007-11-06T00:30:00.000-05:002007-11-06T00:39:49.245-05:00

I think Carnegie's statement still holds true and may even hold more truth today. It is has always been more productive to appeal to people's egos than to demean them. People respond positively to flattery and other things that make them feel good about themselves.Today many people will not tolerate even the slightest bit of criticism. Co-workers and employees are a prime example of how this

cornishjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08212183131919298857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-3079833879595388952007-11-05T18:10:00.000-05:002007-10-29T21:16:53.201-04:00

Dale Carnegie (right) advised those seeking success in business in the mid-1930s to follow a few simple rules. Among them ~"Don't criticize, condemn or complain.""Give people a feeling of importance; praise the good parts of them.""Get the other person to do what you want them to by arousing their desires."Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People, from which those notes are cited,

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-68489519141115340362007-11-05T11:28:00.000-05:002007-11-05T20:10:09.278-05:00

I agree with Carnegie’s advised and believe that it is still suitable for the 21st century. There are defining things that have changed in Americans since the mid-1930’s however I do not think that Carnegie’s advise for success in business from the 1930’s is much different from what someone might advise for today. In the very high pace of today’s business world it becomes insufficient and

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-51473505907129208292007-11-05T10:27:00.000-05:002007-11-05T10:38:39.579-05:00

The advice that Carnegie gives to help people succeed in the business world still holds true today. No one likes being criticized or ostracized if they mess up, especially if they are socially humiliated at work. Constructive criticism is the best way to approach a situation where you or your coworker are incorrect.The quote of give people a feeling of importance is definately still sound advice

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-59678919445695386292007-11-05T09:20:00.000-05:002007-11-05T09:25:17.440-05:00

I feel that Carnegie's advice can still be followed today to ensure success among today's business leaders. I do not agree with his quote that you should never complain or criticize because if you do not, you will be walked all over and taken advantage of-and that applies to everyone, not just those who want to be successful in the business world. His two other quotes are extremely accurate,

penguinrocker17http://www.blogger.com/profile/09519733087227579898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-34411467180301752982007-10-31T16:36:00.001-04:002007-10-31T16:41:31.841-04:00

I feel that Carnegie's notion of baiting employees with "positives" hold true for today's society. As much as we would like to deny it, we live in an extremely selfish society. We want the best for us, because if we are happy and content, then we feel that perhaps others around us will become happy and content as well.The feeling that I get as a manager of a retail location is that these days I

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-76761072530926494362007-10-29T23:07:00.000-04:002007-10-29T23:08:47.954-04:00

I think we can attribute the start of a new wave of strategic thinking to the charitable wristbands. Old fashion ways of fundraising for charities still work somewhat, such as the containers that sit at the front of registers at grocery and retail stores that has the advertisement around the containers. Group psychology understood that this would be successful because it would capture different

dymedowthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254690178891086805noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-58297447804222605672007-10-29T22:00:00.000-04:002007-10-29T22:20:01.780-04:00

The group psychology influence is the overwhelming driving force behind the success of charity wristbands. Let's say I don a yellow "Live Strong" wristband. What does that say about me? Not only may it imply that I support research to eradicate cancer (I say may, because I don't think that most people wear the wristbands primarily for that purpose), but it also says: I'm like Lance Armstrong.

Courtneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14775576896225910158noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-76938825117412369352007-10-29T21:42:00.000-04:002007-10-29T21:48:08.115-04:00

The notes by Carnegie are most certainly still appropriate for 21st centruy men and women. I think in today's business world you have to show that kind of respect and give praise for a job well done. "Don't criticize, condemn, or complain." He is exactly right. There may be times in any job when there is something to be done that you don't want to do, or when there is someone you don't get

cuadravnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-68519824100519696112007-10-29T21:31:00.000-04:002007-10-29T21:35:48.244-04:00

I definitely believe and agree that the masses are swayed by "wearable" messages. I think something such as a wristband is very noticeable and highly recognizable. They automatically catch the public's eye and even moreso when they are a bright color. For instance, most would know when they see a yellow band that it is attribute to Lance Armstrong, or a pink one to Breastcancer Awareness. It

cuadravnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-45902572575172237332007-10-29T19:04:00.002-04:002007-11-05T07:05:54.043-05:00

I feel that these guidelines will always be in effect. Though we are more encouraged to speak our minds when we feel things aren't right in the workplace, we are still not encouraged to complain about every detail that bothers us. It is important to roll with the punches in some cases in order to show superiors that you are able to function well under duress. Also, as the saying goes, it is much

Suzanne Natolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08652523747387007161noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-91525661882800473912007-10-29T19:01:00.000-04:002007-10-29T19:22:01.043-04:00

To what might we attribute the success of charity wristbands as promotional devices?Marketers have been able to successfully promote and sell all sorts of charities because of the use of wristbands and their connotations. People can easily identify with these causes and are willing to buy the wristbands due to the fact that it is the "cool" thing to do. People who are interested in being part of

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-38446413761714905882007-10-29T18:58:00.000-04:002007-10-29T19:02:48.404-04:00

I agree with the post below. People like to have things to show off what they did or contributed. For example, the Red Cross Clemson/Carolina Blood Drive gives away free t-shirts to all those who give blood, and there are people who will donate specifically for that t-shirt. People, especially impressionable young adults, like to show off anything that proves they were there, they did something.

Suzanne Natolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08652523747387007161noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-68580510276928842442007-10-26T11:36:00.000-04:002007-10-26T11:43:02.930-04:00

I think Bernays is really on to something here, as are the people who created these wristbands. Some very intelligent marketing manager is understanding the group psychology of why people give to charity. I think these wristbands have a lot to do with people wanting to say "look at me, I gave money, I have the wristband to prove it." I think being charitable is very "in" and those who give not

meganwohlfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12439710935674522940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-35496786242927486662007-10-25T01:11:00.000-04:002007-10-25T01:13:48.907-04:00

Wristbands have become a trend because they allow people to give to a cause without actually doing anything for it. We would much rather spend a dollar then an hour to a particular organization. Companies know this and use what have now become trendy wristbands in order to make money for an organization. It works, obviously or they would not continue this trend. Soon it will not be the "in" thing

spacemnky85http://www.blogger.com/profile/09842409109326556741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-9347989718099035532007-10-24T12:20:00.001-04:002007-10-24T12:25:49.791-04:00

I feel that the charity wristband idea has taken on a new meaning besides just supporting charitable causes. Bernays states that large groups can be swayed by strategic messages, but I think alot of the swaying comes from an original message given by the P.R. Professional and then absorbed by a smaller group of people that are representative of the larger group. Once the smaller group has

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-7226902178554175742007-10-24T00:16:00.000-04:002007-10-24T00:17:04.268-04:00

I give Bernay’s justification for corporate transparency a 9, especially today. In the past few years we have seen many corporations lose millions of stockholders and money from not handling a negative situation positively. When something within a corporation goes wrong the company should attempt to ensure that they maintain their goodwill. Goodwill and is an intangible asset and can help a

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-3693232045021883052007-10-23T23:59:00.001-04:002007-10-23T23:59:46.874-04:00

I would suggest to the AOA that they find a “cool” alternative to flip-flops to promote.“Propaganda changes our mental pictures of the world” –Bernay’s. If the AOA presents all of the negative repercussions to wearing flip-flops while at the same time presenting a “just as cool” alternative then I believe their campaign would be more successful. If the AOA’s campaign budget could handle it, I

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-6549615233221039862007-10-23T23:14:00.000-04:002007-10-17T23:27:12.105-04:00

Bernays writes, "A single false rumor at a critical moment may drive down the price of a corporation's stock, causing a loss of millions to stockholders. An air of secrecy or mystery about a corporation's financial dealings may breed a general suspicion capable of acting as an invisible drag on the company's whole dealings with the public."On a scale from 0 to 10, rate Bernays' justification for

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-57603373416605214822007-10-23T11:20:00.000-04:002007-10-23T11:28:27.486-04:00

I give this is complete ten. The two largest examples to back Bernay's point are the Tylenol cyanide scare and the Exxon-Mobil Valdez oil spill. Tylenol came forth and explained to the public the crisis, apologized, recalled the products, and profited from an increase in sales eventually. However, Exxon hid the severity of the oil spill crisis and tried to cover it up appearing callous and

drockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17572646784364948730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-65964693781031646082007-10-23T08:04:00.000-04:002007-10-31T19:00:51.293-04:00

Bernays argues that the effective public relations counsel understands group psychology and how the masses might be moved or swayed by strategic messages. To what might we attribute the success of charity wristbands as promotional devices?

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-14688321157034561922007-10-22T23:55:00.000-04:002007-10-22T23:59:30.654-04:00

I would rate Bernay's quote with at least a 9 if not a 10. I believe it's the best policy to set out being an open and honest company in order to retain customers who are loyal and beneficial to the company. If a company starts out "hiding" things, it only leaves room for rumors or even damaging truths to be found out or sought after. Then, as the quote states, this things tend to tarnish and

CarolinaCait85http://www.blogger.com/profile/02863582661226881768noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-6149610813572489432007-10-22T22:52:00.001-04:002007-10-22T23:01:19.582-04:00

I give Bernay's justification about corporate transparency a solid 10. I fear for any large corporation's success if their senior management do not also find this highly persuasive. We are in a society today which demands 100 percent transparency from each company that communicates to us. We find it extremely important to know that a company has our (consumers) best interests at heart rather than

Stefanienoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-64029985572634243882007-10-22T18:51:00.001-04:002007-10-22T18:56:38.121-04:00

I give it a 7 just because I've worked with two well known companies, not on the higher end of them by all means, but companies in general are just difficult to manage. I think it's true that the public is best to know, but some things you just shouldn't tell them. Maybe that's my law side coming out. For example, I work for a company who got in a lot of trouble by animal rights activist

Kodihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05545410360695356740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-51683773240664603962007-10-22T14:23:00.000-04:002007-10-22T14:44:34.779-04:00

While I fundamentally agree with the idea of corporate transparency, Bernays justification rings a little hollow to me, only rating about a 2. Were I a corporate manager with scepticism about corporate transparency, I would not be swayed by this argument, especially since the paragraph from which this argument comes is an overly-dramatized attempt to sell me on the idea of hiring a "public

chitarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16297112795147160474noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-26511083425138202002007-10-22T10:44:00.001-04:002007-10-22T10:54:10.196-04:00

It is absolutely essential for a company to practice transparency in business these days. The overall importance of transparency should be a 10 in every companies' mission statement. We live in a world of easy to use technology and the internet makes everyone vunerable to negative public image. With blogs, online discussion forums and even Wikipedia, companies are forced to make sound decisions

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-38764526913755902892007-10-22T10:13:00.000-04:002007-10-22T10:19:23.030-04:00

Bernays justification for corporate transparency would be a perfect 10 for me. The reasoning behind this is my own personal experience in the past 6 months with stocks. I have watched recently purchased stocks fluctuate up and down over the last 6 months based off of rumor and false light. I feel that Bernays hit the nail on the head with his interpretation that corporations walk a very fine line

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-82395954241241934432007-10-22T10:11:00.000-04:002007-10-22T10:15:10.331-04:00

To Bernay's rating, I would rate it at about a seven. I feel that it is going to be very hard to change the attitudes of people today. People like what they know and resist change. Although there may be significant proof to show that they should or should not wear/purchase something, it will be hard to stop the habit since it has been in place for so long. I feel that people stick to what they

cuadravnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-3186047362995745392007-10-22T08:16:00.000-04:002007-10-22T08:25:04.598-04:00

I would rate Bernays' argument on this matter at least an 8, simply based on personal experience. No matter how high you have a corporation ranked in your mind on morals or standards or trustworthiness, all it takes is one bad thing for you to hear that could change your mind drastically. You can compare the situation to how you would feel about a significant other if you two always had a great

penguinrocker17http://www.blogger.com/profile/09519733087227579898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-17309219865635948202007-10-21T14:10:00.000-04:002007-10-21T14:15:02.784-04:00

Since this is a topic that would be very difficult to change the perspective of the hard headed college student, the AOA may want to have the 20-somethings speak directly to the public. They could go out and find college/university students who have had problems with their body due to wearing flip flops and let them tell their story. I feel that this would be the most proactive solution of

Brodiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05396935809291416376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-18299209343074205572007-10-18T18:48:00.001-04:002007-10-18T18:57:49.105-04:00

I would rate Bernays's justification at an 8.5. In any market it is important to establish credibility with consumers; a reputable company in many cases can charge more for the same good or service, simply because customers trust them to be credible, and reliable. Therefore its worth the extra cost of the product for the customers. In today's society, it is becoming increasingly difficult for

cornishjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08212183131919298857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-65667570217858174512007-10-17T15:47:00.000-04:002007-10-17T15:52:28.805-04:00

To change the worldview of any group of college students anywhere in the United States would be difficult, if not impossible. Lippmann spoke in his book about propaganda being met with consternation and objection. The message that the AOA would be trying to send would be in direct violation of what EVERY college student in America is all about...looking like they don't care what they look like. I

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-30852855810014894922007-10-16T22:34:00.000-04:002007-10-16T22:43:00.255-04:00

I think they should focus on physical representation of how the flip flops could actually harm an individual. Because most college students has to see something to believe it, they would need to bring in people that have been directly harmed by wearing them, preferrably college students so they can relate better. If they have the actual people speaking to them and showing them the harm they have

dymedowthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254690178891086805noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-25431364253031251492007-10-16T09:49:00.000-04:002007-10-17T23:14:38.091-04:00

The American Orthopaedic Association needs help framing a message that will raise awareness of the potential hazards of wearing flip-flops as everyday footwear. They're planning to launch the campaign at universities, where the practice is most prevalent. Though the AOA is funding and sponsoring the campaign, it feels it's profile, while authoritative, will not draw the attention of the target

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-8144552879898915042007-10-15T14:13:00.000-04:002007-10-15T14:21:50.909-04:00

Changing the minds of college students is difficult. Flip Flops are great, especially for the college student who rolls out of bed 10 minutes before class starts. They are easy. In order for AOA to get through to college students they need to provide an alternative. Writing articles and posting information is great but not as effective as walking down Green Street and being handed an alternative

runklehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17920452259244898187noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-85099806193798114582007-10-15T10:21:00.000-04:002007-10-15T10:37:09.734-04:00

Convincing university students to stop doing something that they practice so commonly is a very hard feat. A way to go about doing this would be to have a story in the school newspaper about the dangers of wearing flip flops everyday and suggest alternative options for foot protection. If there was a way to get a corporate sponsor of a popular shoe brand to give a discount coupon for new shoes

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-13695453558732444682007-10-15T09:43:00.000-04:002007-10-15T09:50:42.053-04:00

Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann have similar views when talking about how people think and react to certain situations. Bernays' "We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." follows closely to Lippmanns' "The makes of a code fix upon certain typical situations, and then by some form of reasoning or intuition, deduce

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-56516799242975051572007-10-09T10:09:00.000-04:002007-09-30T10:27:02.603-04:00

Below are quotes attributed to Edward Bernays, the father of public relations. How do his thoughts square with those of Walter Lippmann?"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if

Proffer5http://www.blogger.com/profile/03201692751056613517noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-44391428305491993812007-10-08T23:29:00.000-04:002007-10-11T16:11:27.098-04:00

Edward Bernays' first and last quote suggests that he believes it is human nature to solely live based on knowledge that may not be directly gained through the individual themselves. Bernays argues, “In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything

dymedowthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254690178891086805noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-12491875426947654582007-10-08T13:56:00.000-04:002007-10-08T13:59:16.451-04:00

Based on these quotes from Bernays it is clear to me that Lippmann and Bernays views of society are parallel in many ways. The biggest similarity I was able to pick up on was that both Lippmann and Bernays believe that what we know and believe as individuals comes largely from what we observe and “learn to be true” from others, our media and government. However this way of “knowing” is okay in

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-75439690790300047242007-10-08T13:42:00.001-04:002007-10-08T13:42:27.965-04:00

The image of a noose hanging from a tree and what it stands for being brought back to the forefront of our news headlines as well as our minds from years ago is heartbreaking. I choose the word heartbreaking because I agree with Lippmann’s statement about pictures and how they do not fully convey an idea to us “until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture.” I think it is an

Hamerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17763035238319108489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-82960595411115577102007-10-08T01:10:00.000-04:002007-10-08T01:15:04.924-04:00

Both Bernay and Lippmann both have similar ideas on how the world works and how a person forms their ideas of life and the environment around them. Both believe that propaganda is a tool used in the world today in order to shape and affect the decisions of the people around them. Like Lippmann's take on stereotypes and pseudo-environments, Bernay believes they are shaped by how we have grown up

spacemnky85http://www.blogger.com/profile/09842409109326556741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-29451125638569164662007-10-07T14:19:00.000-04:002007-10-07T14:26:34.783-04:00

After reading these quotes by Bernays, I can see that there are some similarities between both Bernays and Lippmann. I feel that they both believe that our thoughts and opinions are formed, in part, by what we see and hear from people of power, mostly people we do not personally know. We look towards opinion leaders for guidance and stability in our morals and principles. I also believe they both

Suzanne Natolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08652523747387007161noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-44533072192967238752007-10-03T10:30:00.000-04:002007-10-03T10:34:31.654-04:00

It almost seems as if Bernays is stating that we as a society require the propaganda from people of higher authority. He seems to say that as a society, we are easily molded and crafted by the words of someone else and those words create order out of chaos for us. I agree with this ideology to a certain extent. On the flip side of Bernays, Lippmann's contrasting idea is that groups within a

Matthew Dowdeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12062195612866863346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-47080167853047159662007-10-02T08:08:00.000-04:002007-10-02T08:12:40.026-04:00

"Pictures have always been a sure way of conveying idea..."Lippmann puts this idea into perspective. In my opinion, he is saying that a picture can mean so much or so little to each individual. In this case, the picture of the noose carries a heavy weight on a lot of people. As a picture, I believe that this symbolizes a time of the past of criticism and racism. I feel, for some people, seeing a

cuadravnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-81804782379154520782007-10-01T22:51:00.000-04:002007-10-02T02:06:08.030-04:00

While the noose is a "symbol" of death in most societies, in this case, it becomes even more specific than just death and takes on an entirely different meaning to some people. There are some symbols, particularly religious symbols, which can take on many meanings among different societies. For example, take the five-sided star or the pentagram. In some ancient societies it was merely viewed

drockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17572646784364948730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-3583215441483168912007-10-01T13:20:00.000-04:002007-10-01T13:30:02.775-04:00

This particular use of noose pictures exemplifies Lippmann's idea about pictures. That pictures convey a stronger message than words, and are capable of evoking intense emotions. The noose is also an example of how certain images images become symbols, and stand for a larger idea or notion. The noose because of its historical background ,and the circumstances surrounding it use in this scenario

cornishjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08212183131919298857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-42561765369794977982007-10-01T10:28:00.000-04:002007-10-01T10:33:46.461-04:00

Pictures are quite beneficial at getting a message across, especially when they have a major value that people can identify with.I think the reason that this is such a big deal is because pictures of noose's weren't put up, it was an actual noose. People who were affected by this internalized the symbol of the noose itself and every negative connotation that it represents.I also think that this

BeGroundbreakinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11161738347385355685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-49748749279238646132007-10-01T02:43:00.000-04:002007-10-01T03:01:37.121-04:00

To say that "it all started in Jena" is a bit presumptuous, and a little bit frustrating, as opportunists seek to liken the legal upheaval there to the original move to desegregation in the South (and to lend their protests credibility). It didn't all start in Jena; the noose has been a metaphor for racism, violence and bigotry for generations, and it wouldn't have caused so much consternation in

Courtneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14775576896225910158noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-14024185677635992282007-10-01T01:31:00.000-04:002007-10-01T01:39:34.555-04:00

As Lippman has said, pictures are very important in the world. Since the dawn of man, we have used symbols and pictures in order to show a particular emotion or idea. Lippman believes you must "ourselves with some aspect of the picture" in order to understand the idea. Throughout African-American history, the noose has been a very powerful symbol, especially in the United States. Thoughts of

spacemnky85http://www.blogger.com/profile/09842409109326556741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-53558377782061053502007-10-01T00:28:00.000-04:002007-10-01T01:24:54.091-04:00

I agree with Lippmann's proposal, "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea .... But the idea conveyed is not fully our own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture." The recent media coverage of the Jena 6 incident and images of nooses has reopened old wounds for some people, new wounds for others, and something to think about for the rest. The way

Junrinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14383134799288769272noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-44605676834094246092007-09-29T18:20:00.000-04:002007-09-29T18:25:05.423-04:00

If suddenly the media had started displaying pictures of nooses before the Jena 6 incident, many different people and cultures may have received it differently. It is hard to make an educated guess how one would analyze a picture that could convey several different meanings, without knowing what the individual has been exposed to. Personally even before the Jena 6, I viewed nooses as a negative

dymedowthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254690178891086805noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-77629021106322326672007-09-28T16:33:00.000-04:002007-09-28T16:53:08.711-04:00

The picture of a noose has a negative connotation to me because of past knowledge of what it stands for. Lippmann is correct on that pictures are the surest way of conveying an idea, yet at the same time each individual person has a different feeling towards the picture presented in the blog. Once an individual makes their decision about what the picture means to them, I feel the idea has been

Brodiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05396935809291416376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-41403577284712811722007-09-28T12:01:00.000-04:002007-09-28T12:08:41.582-04:00

I totally feel that Lippmann is correct when he talks about how an idea is not fully conveyed in a picture without us having identified with something in the picture ourselves. I do feel that the situation in Jena is horrible and has obviously created a lot of emotional distraught among not only those directly involved, and not even just those in the black community, but anyone who is offended

penguinrocker17http://www.blogger.com/profile/09519733087227579898noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-92084103565393283662007-09-27T14:02:00.000-04:002007-09-27T14:12:46.165-04:00

I can definitely agree with Lippman's statement about pictures. It seems as if to really understand the picture, we ourselves as people must have some sort of stake in the picture. Though the image of the noose has been around for quite some time, many people have not been able to fully grasp the idea of this image until the "Jena 6" story broke out.As this picture has been shown on the media to

shortemlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06718653861315376741noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-54652820578741060032007-09-26T22:27:00.000-04:002007-09-26T22:37:45.800-04:00

I think Lippmann's statement absolutely relates to this picture of the noose. Whether this current situation had happened or not, one usually associates a noose with the horrible history of lynchings and racial tension in our country, especially in the South. If we did not have the preconceived notion of what a noose usually stands for, we perhaps would just think this was a rope tied up in a

CarolinaCait85http://www.blogger.com/profile/02863582661226881768noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-28116329089578707802007-09-26T17:36:00.000-04:002007-09-26T17:37:28.351-04:00

As has been pointed out in previous posts, nooses are strongly associated with lynching, especially in the American South and especially when hanging from a tree. A noose in a gallows has an altogether different meaning – implying the law has been involved; whereas a noose in a tree is vigilante “justice”. African Americans were lynched in the past for trivial “offenses,” which not only served to

chitarihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16297112795147160474noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490800167874081178.post-8851720077804899252007-09-26T14:01:00.000-04:002007-09-26T14:11:45.159-04:00

It is a horrible situations to say the least. We should not be hearing news like this today. I think Lippman is correct with statement. Pictures are stronger than any words in this situation. You read the articles but the pictures of the noose and the pictures of the protesters walking in downtown Jena really give you the emotion and struggles of a town in disarray.With pictures people are able

runklehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17920452259244898187noreply@blogger.com0