I believe that Bernays' statement from 1928 is a little outdated for today.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 otherwise be given a second thought. This also testifies that women also play the enabling role for men through pleasurable activities." While behind every great man there is a great woman, this does not mean that the woman is inferior to the man.

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 within. There are so many messages hidden in movies today that persuade the audience.
If there is high demand for a movie coming out, you can bet upon major corporations paying for advertisement spots during the previews. This is a very wide media outlet. If the market is high for a particular trend, millions of people will be exposed. They will see this propoganda and more than likely be affected by it, too. I definitely think all motion pictures our outlets for propoganda. And because they are rated and only so many people review and edit them before being displayed, there is a lot of room for propagandists to work with.

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 much closer to certain cultural aspects in film like smoking cigarettes and even buying a certain car, and these are more likely to be viewed as "normal" in the viewer's mind. Its not these subtle product placements that are sometimes hard to view, but occasionally there are certain themes like shopping on Black Friday in the movies that affect the unconscious mind much more.

Picture Shows

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 opinions."

Does this statement ring true?

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 it being seen in the film, or even in how men or women may behave around the opposite sex due to ideas they have seen in films like Gone With The Wind or any Julia Roberts or Hugh Grant movie, Bernays is correct in that films, through propaganda, have the power to shape and influence the world's cultures.

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 Coke. Plain and simple. So, if Coke says that it will pay Dreamworks millions if they will have an actor use a can of Coke instead of another brand, and Sony needs millions in order to finance the next Steven Spielberg film, then the perks seem rather tempting. Im not saying that propaganda isnt in films, for it certainly is. I simply do not believe that most times it is the fault of the filmmaker and productions companies. I think that it does, and always has, been the doing of companies that need propaganda in order to keep their products thriving. It just happens to benefit the film industry. Granted, there are filmmakers like Michael Moore and there are documentaries made solely to influence the viewing public. If propaganda exists in films and filmmakers, it lies not in product placement, but in what the filmmaker is trying to say in his film. If a character is compared to Jesus Christ in image, or if a war movie comes out, one must ask "how does the filmmaker feel and what is he or she trying to say in this film?" Therein lies the propaganda.

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 audiences as young as babies (literally). The internet also has a major influence on our perceptions of society.

Movies and Propaganda

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 "product placement", as seen in CastAway with Tom Hanks. People flock to see these films, and they often don't even realize the advertising and propaganda they are being exposed to. Also, the movie industry is all about making money...as most industries are. They want the public to be interested in their film, therefore they will tailor it to popular interests, ideas, etc. that are prevalent in society at that time.

Picture Shows

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 your seat to watch the movie, the previews for upcoming movies are made to stick in your mind so that when they come out, you'll remember you wanted to see it. Oh, and please let's go so far as to discuss a movie such as any recent James Bond film where all he drives are BMW's or the new Ford sports car. It's all about product placement. Movies are a great tool to use to reach the masses. Millions of people go see movies as soon as they come out in theaters. If your movie has an important message or you would like to change the audience's opinion about a situation, what better way to do it than a movie. A motion picture lasts forever. As far as exaggerating broad popular tendencies, movies these days are all starting have the same layout. I agree with one of the other posts for this topic that ever since 9/11 there has been an increase in the war movies that have come out. Currently, it does not seem like there are any new ideas floating around towards movies. They either all are a love story and have a happy ending or they are about war in the middle east. It has become a repetitive cycle and needs to be broken.

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 that are being shown and influential in movies but other ideas in general that influence the way that people think. They also change people's views on things-take Michael Moore's documentaries for example. Think about how most movies reflect things that happen just a year or two before the movies are released.

Picture Shows

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 office with movies playing on the fears and virtues that are a result of 9/11. Just a few of the examples of the movies resulting from the attacks are The Kingdom, Fahrenheit 9/11, Jarhead, Munich, World Trade Center, Team America: World Police.
These movies do nothing to improve the circumstances that we are living in right now, they just exaggerate the popular tendency of being afraid that it could happen again and people unconsciously behaving with more patriotism stemming from the attacks. It has been over six years since 9/11 and instead of trying to move on from what happened, Hollywood is still trying to make money from it. They are not stimulating any new ideas or opinions from their consumer, the general movie going public, they want to ride the wave of fear as long as it continues making money.

motion pictures

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 them. In the 1970's there were a lot of blackplotation films that played upon the views and opinions of the audience. Take blacula for instance, the main monster.. blacula (who was infected by dracula) is actually seen as a good guy who is just trying to get back to his african roots... who he was before he was "cursed." some could argue that this curse is how whites brought slaves over to america and forced them to leave all their beliefs, views and their hertiage behind. motion pictures are so fitting to society.. they have great power in creating the way we think about something or someone. more and more they have molded our society into who we are and how we respond today.

Movies

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 that pull at the heart strings. People are going to go see them now, in 20 years, who knows. Since the film makers know that these movies will be seen, they are definately going to try and persuade audiences to believe things like they do, or see events in a different light. If they convince at least some of their audience to think this way, they will be able to influence the masses through them. Movies are a great way to use Propaganda to enact change because they are so far reaching and entertaining, that they will reach an enormous amount of people like no other meduim could.

Reflections

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 shock us or motivate us into actions. It is as if we almost want to see the train wreck so that we can steer clear of it in our "real" lives.

Matt

Strategy

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 who built thousands of unmanned fighter planes. Strategically, Mr. Thomas next goes into the benefits and possible pay that each man who signs up, tapping into the need for survival for some and desire for a better way of life for others. Signing off with, "Stay in the Fight!" Mr. Thomas finally says what he wanted to say the entire clip. He mumbled a small phrase afterwords, but the point was to stay in the fight. This clip provided extra support to those who were still in the fight, an inlet for those not yet in the fight, and united those not willing to fight with brief patriotism for our nation. Everything excellent propaganda needs.

Movies

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 most movies only last a few hours, they must make their point as hard hitting as possible to obtain that lasting impression. In doing this, they often manage to stretch the truth or overly emphasize characteristics of groups of people. For example, war movies like "The Kingdom," seem to glorify the idea of American heroism while simultaneously evoking stronger, somewhat skewed stereotypes of some Middle Eastern countries.

Complements

“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 many different ways: emotional and physical.

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, because they are the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda, create ideas and habits of a nation and then many more are created around this new, broad popular tendency.

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.

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 "popular tendencies." He, along with many other artists of our time, are beginnig to encourage audiances to think out of the box, rather than listen to everything they are told. I personally believe that Bernays is a brillant man, but some of his ideas, like this one, simple won't translate into today's world.

Picture Show

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 Bernay's time and this statement is too general for the motion picture industry today.

Changing Supplement Furthur

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, you would have to revise the sentence to not only say that one sex complements the other, but to also clearly show both sexes complement each other. In my opinion, saying a woman complements a man could still be viewed as sexist in this society without saying a man complements a woman as well.

Picture Shows

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.

helpmates complement vs. supplement

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 but rather that they can be improved when combined. Even though men and women both can function successfully independent from one another, both parties benefit from the other. The typical differences between the sexes compliment each other, so that when they come together in work or home life both stand to gain from the partnership.

Helpmates

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 statement as a preliminary thought for the propaganda campaign of “Rosie the Riveter” that was so prevalent during World War II. Not in so much as men ignoring their roles, but when men are unable to perform duties on the home front because they are out fighting a war, women will be looked to fill their positions at the factories and in the job force.
Some examples of how women perform jobs in the public eye that men “are likely to ignore”, are the responsibilities of buying groceries, getting the children’s haircut, and buying birthday presents for the extended family. Men do not typically take the time to do those things unless asked to do so by their wives, so Bernays argument still holds some truth today.
However, women have held many duties and responsibilities in the past that men now perform, so to say that only men have been supplemented by women is wrong.

Helpmates

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 connotation, I would replace it with a word that exemplifies support so it would equalize the man and woman as far as partnering go. Neither the man nor woman role in each other’s lives should be less meaningful than the other. The statement should exemplify unity rather than supplementation.

Helpmates

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?

Supplement

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 this statement equal for both sexes; "Women and men supplement each other in both private and public life by working together to create a product which is a result of a combined effort." I believe that men offer insight that women cannot and visa versa because we are natually different. If the statement needs to be more broad then it could be reworded by simply saying "individuals" or "humans" but the reality is that we, as a society, continuously work together to complete a "thing" regardless of what that "thing" is.

Equal Rights

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 together, both in private and in public, to support each other, their households, and their families." I believe that Bernays's statement would not be well received today as there has been such dramatic movements to establish equal rights among males and females in the decades following Bernays's statement. The thinking among most Americans, in terms of gender roles, has changed dramatically as well.

Men vs. Women

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 each other in both private and public life." I know my statement is not as profound as something Bernays would say, but it needs to be stated that men and women are equal. We are no longer their "slaves" and do not live and breathe just for them. We do not pick up the pieces when a man overlooks an important detail and then screws everything up. Women were known for being the housewife that had dinner on the table as soon as the man of the house returned home from work. Men were the ones that brought home the money and fixed things around the house that the woman could not do. Now, there are no boundaries between what men and women do. I know families that the man stays home and cooks and cleans while the wife goes to work. There are no set rules as to what the man has to do and the same goes for the woman.

Equal

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 more to offer than helping men with what they overlook.

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 that women are nothing but sexual objects who are there to pick up the pieces when men screw up without recognition. Or that women are there to deal with things that men choose not to. The new version of the quote should somehow suggest that men and women are simply different and have different responsibilities. It should be a mutual understanding that what one sex does is just as important as the other.

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 care of maintaining the household and raising the children while men were the primary wage earners, were generally responsible for paying bills, were often the primary rule maker for the household, and were generally seen as the representative of the family unit in social concerns as can be seen in their title as 'head of house.' Men could also have more of a life away from the family as their career was seen as another responsibility they had to attend to. However, in the 21st century, men and women often do not have these defined in-household and out-of-household roles. They both can feel the pressure to manage both a home life and a work or social life (although many times women feel this pressure more than men). Rather than focusing on the stereotypical roles that were nonetheless relevant at the time Bernays made his statement, we can revise his statement to more reflect today's lifestyles: "Peoples' concerns about their family life are not just private affairs seperate from their idealized views of the world. Their families' needs will combine with other broader social and political ideals to influence how they respond to different messages."

Carnegie and Roberts

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 such a stong loyalty for a brand that the brand is never questioned.

Reason For Loyalty

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 thick and thin because they believe in them and their products.
Companies must be able to build a repport with customers based on solving more than one problem they have. This is also true for cults. The cult offers need fulfillment that the person can't satisfy by themselves. If the person feels that the cult can satisfy them in many aspects of their being, they will be loyal to it beyond any reasonable measure. If you can arouse their desires with what you offer (both in products and cult activities) you will be able to satisfy them and have built a truly loyal consumer.

It is all the same...

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 strongly about the "loyalty beyond reason" mantra. Kevin Roberts hit the nail square on the head when he described those successful areas of advertising that are timeless and evoke feeling and emotion in buyers far beyond the scope of just needing the product. If you can create that loyalty beyond reason then you have tapped into the very essence of why someone does the things they do and then you can potentially sway their purchasing habits from that aspect.

md

Arousal vs. Brainwashing

“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 to do by arousing their desires,” is similar to Roberts’ own strategy. (“Desire” is a word that stems from emotion, and any “loyalty beyond reason” could only come from an emotion-based thought.)

However, one difference exists between the two strategies. Carnegie acknowledges the need to “get the other person to do what you want by arousing their desires. Thus, he recognizes the persuader, the person being persuaded, and the necessity of constantly arousing the persuaded in order to get them to do what he wants. Roberts’ strategy, specifically his use of the words “beyond reasoning,” brings to mind brainwashing—perhaps a left-over from his cult research—which would negate the need to constantly arouse the persuaded. Instead, the person would believe he or she knew, “beyond reason,” some action or belief was correct; in turn, this belief would be considered loyalty.

So the difference between these two strategies, I believe, is how they are carried out; Roberts would expect brand loyalty be practically brainwashed into the consumer whereas Carnegie is more subte and would constantly arouse a person's desirse so that he or she would feel as if they need a product.

Roberts/Carnegie

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 those desires, but in today's cluttered society, there has to be more. Roberts understands that and is going as far to say there needs to be "loyalty beyond reason." He has gone as far as to study the behavior as cults to figure out how ot succeed at creating this type of loyalty. I think Carnetgie would be surprised today by how far people like Roberts has taken such an idea but would agree with him.

Carnegie's advice

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 21st century business person may not believe that in today's society that consumers can be sold things simply by arousing their desires, however those who understand this concept and run with it are those who will be successful. With an on-the-go society, we as consumers don't have time figure out what we're looking for in a product; we need businesses to dig deep into our souls and find those desires and reach out to us through them. Digging into our emotions and touching on our desires is the key to success in today's cluttered world.

Roberts/Carnegie

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 could link that to brand promotions so that the companies could target all of the different groups with creative advertising. With Dale Carnegie's advice, it is the same basic principle that Roberts was trying to achieve when studying cults. If you make the other person or group feel that you are targeting the specifically and giving them exactly what they want, then they are more tempted to buy your product or visit your store merely because you made them feel as if you sought them out. People respond strongly to ads that make them feel important or fulfill their desires. Basically, both Roberts and Carnegie had the same idea, just worded differently.

Loyalty beyond reason

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 what you want them to by arousing their desires"?

re:handling

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 works. Many times it is more effective to make a coworker believe that they are more important than they actually are, in order to get them to preform a routine job function. Rather than telling them that they are not adequately preforming their duties, making them feel important makes them want to do it. Employees feel as though they are special for being selected to have a responsibility , the other option usually just results in lackluster performance of the bare minimum.

Handling people

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, is still in print. Is this advice suitable for 21st century man and woman?

Carnegie's advice

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 nonproductive to condemn or complain- especially if you are on the lower end of a corporation. Obtaining good productivity from a workforce is more likely if the workforce receives praise and a feeling of importance- this is part of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and is still a part of people today.

Carnegie Advice

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 today. The generation entering the workforce now is one that has been raised on immediate gratification and constant rewarding towards behavior. It is easier to win someone and get them to work hard for you if they are recognized for their efforts afterwards. It is very essential to build goodwill with the employee/employer relationship, and also within coworkers as well. By doing that it will increase their willingness to help out.
Arousing desires within people is key to getting them to work harder. Giving incentives for their extra effort will make them want to continue to work hard for you. Carnegie's advice is still valuable today.

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, though. As a marketer and a promoter of your company, it's not always about catering to people's needs. Sometimes, the measure of your success, is whether or not you can take your products or services and make your customer believe that that is what he/she needs. Of course you have to appeal to your customer's desires-otherwise, there would be no customers.

still holds true today...

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 can't really call out an employee like I could have maybe 10 years ago. In order to get what I want as a boss, I have to emphasize the good things the employee does(if there are any) and de-emphasize the bad or negative things they do. This is what I call "blowing sunshine". Blowing sunshine is making people feel important in order to get things done. It's not always the right thing to do, but for a manager, it is a very powerful form of self-enlightenment. using others around you to your's and their advantage. I believe this idea holds very true in today's society in which we are all afraid to say what we feel to employees.

md

Wristband Attribute

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 people in different ways. Some people may feel guilty if they got a hand full of change from their purchase and didn’t put anything towards the charity that sat right before them. Or some people would look at it as why not give the change; might as well give to a good cause. But as times change and people change, so does the approach to fundraising. Bernay’s argument is undoubtedly notable because in order for a PR counsel to be successful and effective; they would have to be able to adapt to the changes that take place over time and can formulate new and strategic ways to sway the public at large and keep them involved with supporting charities. Charitable wristbands were a great strategy because it targeted a Public that is into fashion and that likes to be recognized for their good deeds. Although, there are several good citizens that just support from the goodness of their heart, a lot of people naturally tend to give more when they get something in return or something they can show for it. Right around the time wristbands became a great success, people started putting different color ribbons on their vehicles to show different charities that they support which was also strategic. Obviously wristbands are not as popular as they used to be, but PR counsels can play off that strategy to create new creative ideas that will continue to move and sway the public for those purposes.

Wristbands: Great (Temporary) PR

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. I'm athletic. I'm outdoors-y. I'm cool.

While it may be disconcerting to some that the philanthropic purpose of the wristbands is lost on many who wear them, I still believe that it is an effective way to increase awareness of a cause. Inevitably, it will become (it is already becoming) passe to wear charity wristbands, though; the masses of Regular Joes (not Lance Armstrong, not athletic and not cool) wearing wristbands for every cause under the sun don't have quite the same appeal.

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 along with, but down the road you will be happy you didn't show criticism or complain. There may be a time when you might need the help of someone you've had a dispute with or when you need a reference from a company. Also, people these days more than ever need to know they are doing a good job. Sure, no one likes to be told they've done a bad job, but a "thanks" or "great job" go a long way. They let the person know you were observant of what was done and appreciative. Those little remarks help keep the motivation and drive up. And lastly, many parts of any job can get dull and boring, especially if they're repetitive. To keep up the pace, it is imporant to make tasks fun and come at them from a different perspective so that people continue to stay efficient.

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 is a very infallible trend and way to get others involved. It is also a way to wear and show what you support. For the most part, a portion of the proceeds from purchasing these bands go to support the cause, so why not? You are providing for the community and making a statement at the same time.

Carnegie's Advice

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 easier to attract flies with honey. It is important to remember that most people will respond better to positive attitudes and kindness than negativity and harsh demands. While I do not feel that sucking up is an effective means of achievement, I do feel that appreciation for co-workers and superiors will take you farther than a handful or complaints and demands.

Wristbands

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 the "in" crowd will always be looking for the next big fad, and for a long time, charity wristbands were incredibly popular.
These wristbands became popular because a small minority of people started wearing them which lead to people wanting to be noticed by having them, and then became mainstream after that. The cutting edge of charity wristbands had to go to Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong. His marketing campaign was dependent on people wanting to be considered cool. He was getting so much positive press after winning the Tour De France 6 consecutive times, and Americans thought that it would be popular to be associated with him. The marketers for LiveStrong knew how to take advantage of his situation, making the wristband yellow just like the yellow leader/winner jersey that is given to the winner of the Tour. His charity was able to benefit from his success and the marketers knowledge that people will always want to be socially accepted.

Manufacturing Trends

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. Bracelets, like the ones pictured, are cheap and easily manufactured. They come in different colors and patterns. They can easily be purchased and collected. They make you a part of a group with similar interests in the same causes.

Wristbands

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 only want to do a good thing, but they want people to know that they've done a good thing. Kids and teens all over the country are wearing what are essentially rubber bands around their wrists. Why? It's cool. Charity in any form is a wonderful act of kindness, but when it results in a fashion statement, I become less and less impressed.

Wristbands

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 to do, and they will have to move to something new.

Charity Wristbands

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 accepted the message and adopted the ideals of the message, the actions and messages(in this case the wristbands) spread out almost like an infection to the larger group. The larger group, no matter how charitable they might be, basically wants to band together with like-minded people. This group mentality is evident in other items in recent memory:
CROCS-small group adopts the shoe because of a functional PR message, and then the larger group jumps on the bandwagon.
MUSIC-A small group hears and identifies with the message of a singer or band, and then the larger group adopts it as well.

So, In essence, I think Bernays might be missing a step in his social equation. The larger group is swayed by the actions of the smaller contingency within the group until it spreads to the whole body. People basically just want to be with others who think similarly to themselves.

MD

Corporate Transparency

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 corporation going through a tough time get through it. Goodwill is most defiantly not built though secrecy which is why a corporations dealings should be visible and offer nothing to hide

Flip-Flops

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 think it would be even more beneficial to have a popular spokes person promoting the wearing of an alternative to flip-flops. This could help change the “pictures” of flip-flops in ones mind even more.

Truthtelling

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 corporate transparency; 10 is highly persuasive.

Corporate Public Relations

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 uncaring. Their stock price dropped tremendously, and there was a large public outcry that did nothing but tarnish their image even more. Bernay is completely correct in his assessment on how people view corporations, and corporations partake in more "truth telling" today because of it. In our society, it is even more vital they are quick with a response because of how fast information travels.

Manufacturing Trends

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?

Corp. Transparency

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 hurt a company to the point where they may not rebound, especially if the customer's loyalty has been threatened.

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 strictly focusing on the bottom line. We not only expect for companies to be open and honest about their finances but we also expect to have easy access to their code of ethics and they ways they contribute to the environment, among others. One wrong move, true or false, will in some way, hurt the brand image of a company. United Way and Enron are just some recent examples of how difficult it can be to recover from the releasing of private facts (or fiction) proving that it may be better to create an initial trust rather than waiting until it may be too late.

corp. transparency

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 because they used real fur in their products. I know now that they are "fur free" but in reality, they just changed the definition of what "FUR" really is (with the skin) and still use the animal hair in their products. I think if people who got mad at them in the first place knew about this, they'd be in a lot of deep crap. But the company stays hush hush on it and nothing has been brought up about it... yet. If financially something is going on with a company, however, I think you take it to a different level. Stockholders want to know what they are investing in and since it is their money, they have EVERY right to know everything that is going on behind the scenes. But this is an invester relations job, so I think the information can stay inside the company and not have to be revealed to the public. Ah , I'm confusing myself with what I'm trying to say.

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 relations counsel". Where is the justification that "a single false rumor at a critical moment" happens often enough for me to truly worry about? Bernays does not provide a sufficient level of data to make me question this skeptical point of view, much less an overwhelming level to make me abandon it altogether. Falling back on the word "may" then gives him room to argue, "well, I didn't say it would happen _all_ the time." I want to know tendencies. I want to know strengths of those tendencies. At the very least, I want to see fully examined case studies showing me how rumors were dealt with or not dealt with in time.

Corp. Transparency

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 about how to publicize themselves. Anyone who has internet access has the ability to slander companies, and if they don't make an effort to nullify the statements, the rumors will build and inevitably hurt the earnings of the company.
A example of this is the effect that YouTube has on the internet marketplace. Last year a guy made a video about how terrible the Apple Mac computers are, and within 7 hours it was taken off of YouTube because Apple contacted him and bribed him with free products.
It is vital for companies to be clear about their financial earnings as well. Ever since the fallout from the Enron scandal has occurred, companies that fail to use judgement when dealing with money take the chance of losing their public goodwill and could also lose important investors.

Corporate Transparency

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 between complete openness and transparency and complete and total secrecy. When the secrecy occurs inside a company, anyone can say anything and it will directly affect the company's shares.
On a social note, if something is being said about someone that is false, and that person does nothing to dissuade or deny the allegations from being continued, then that person's "stock" will also decline. Stock in this situation being credibility, loyalty, honor, or respect. So you can pretty much take Bernays argument against corporate secrecy and parallel it to any social situation.

md

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 believe and what they are brought up with. People are going to buy what they know regardless of the price simply because they have created trust with a company. The company can then, either value that bond with their customers, or unfortunately take advantage of them.

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 time together and he/she treated you with respect, but you heard from a friend that he/she cheated on you. That turns the tables a little bit and I think that it is the same way for corporations. I also agree that if something is mysterious about a company, it is embedded into the mind automatically as something negative because most people, as well as myself, believe that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't withhold information.

Flip Flops...

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 getting the problem out there and try to change the general public's outlook on daily wear of flip flops.

Truthtelling

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 companies to establish this type of trust without being transparent. There have been many instance when companies have not been transparent and their conduct has been unethical or in some cases illegal.

Flip Flops

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 sell several different types of quality made leather flip flops. The bottom line is, 99% of other demographics(other than college students) would not be caught dead in a 50 dollar leather flip flop, much less a flip flop that cost $5 at Old Navy. The point is that ANY message being delivered by the AOA or any other organization would be met with hostility and indifference after that. There are some messages that, no matter how helpful, will never achieve change in a particular group's M.O.

matt

flip flops

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 suffered face to face, it would be more effective than representatives of the company speaking on behalf of others.

Flip-flop message

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 audience ~ college and university students. They need some advice in accomplishing, as Bernays writes, a change in the target audience's worldview. What do you suggest?

Flip Flops

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 shoe for students. I think the best way to get through to college students is giving them an alternative. Most college students don't pass up on free items either. Another great way to get through to college students is word of mouth. Get the attention of a few students and it will spread through campus.

Flip Flops

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 along with the story, the students would be more interested in what the story has to say. Stories about personal health are always important, but college students are the kind of people who say "this doesn't affect me yet, so I am not going to worry about it until it does." The AOA will have a difficult time convincing them to stop wearing flip flops unless they can create a picture that the students can identify with. The only way they will inherit and adopt the message is if they think it will adversely effect them specifically. Getting a local celebrity or person of interest to endorse the AOA's viewpoint will also help them in getting the word out to students who could be at risk by wearing the flip flops everyday.

Bernays and Lippmann

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 the kind of behavior which would produce the aim they acknowledge. The rules apply where they apply." (79) What they both are saying is our belief systems and ways of thought come from places and circumstances that most people have never experienced directly. We have to live according to processes and social standards set by people we never knew and must adapt to these constructs to "not upset the herd."

Edward Bernays (1891-1995)

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 they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society."

"Propaganda will never die out. Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos."

"In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. 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. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions."

Comparing Thoughts

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.” His thoughts on this are somewhat similar to Lippman’s beliefs. Lippman stated that “we shall assume that what each man does is based not on direct and certain knowledge but on pictures made by him or given to him.” Both Bernays' and Lippman’s words exemplify how it is human nature for people to mold their characters off of experiences with others and things that they are exposed to.
But they also have dissimilar beliefs. Looking at his second quote, Bernays believes that propaganda is essential to order in society. Lippman believes that it is almost impossible for propaganda to exist. He stated that, “Without some form of censorship, propaganda in the strict sense of the world is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event.” Lippmann also implied that propaganda creates confusion when he asked, “What is propaganda, if not the effort to alter the picture to which men respond, to substitute one social pattern for another?” Bernay and Lippman represent two extremely different arguments on the subject of propaganda.

Bernays/Lippmann

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 society because it is our way of organizing such vast amounts of information we are bombarded with each day.

Jena 6

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 awful day when people who have in any way been dramatically affected from a hanging noose and all the hatred that comes with it have to relive those feelings due to ignorant people reminding them of years of hatred and sorrow. I also have pity on those who identify themselves with a noose in a positive way today. I have to believe that at some point in time they passed up the opportunity for a good education, because only ignorant people would view a noose hung from a tree in a positive way.

Bernay's Quotes

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 and what we are introduced to. Lippmann believes that we fill in the blanks with stereotypes, ultimately creating our pseudo-environment.

Bernays and Lippmann

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 have similar ideas when it comes to why we use opinion leaders to help govern our lives. It is impossible to know or obtain information about everything in our world. And it is much easier to look to the experts and opinion leaders for knowledge in order help form our opinions. However, I also agree with the post below. I feel that while Bernays seems to argue that we fully accept any and all information that is given to us, Lippmann argues that, even when information is given by a credible source, we are likely to refute the information if it goes against our set of norms and values.

Bernays V. Lippmann

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 society are natural resistant to outside influences because those groups have created rules and norms that govern them and create order out of chaos. One theory comes from an external source, while the other theory comes from an internal source. Both are valid to a certain degree in my opinion.

Md

"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 picture of a noose will take them back to these times and open old wounds.

As for the Jena six case, it was not a picture, but a real noose. I feel this "symbol" signifies that people are still so ingnorant to what has changed and are bringing up situations we have dealt with in the past already. There is no need to bring it about once again and remind those who have suffered from it. We need to move on and not dwell on what was, but what is to be.

Identifying with Symbols

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 as a representation on the five universal elements: water, earth, fire, air, and divinity. It became worshiped in some pagans for various reasons, and it even became their “symbol”. Even throughout the history of Christianity, it has changed from a symbol of protection of witches and demons to a symbol of Satanism and into the very thing it protected its wearers against. This is shown through various artwork over the years where it was seen in heavenly and vibrant settings to a dark and demonic mood.

How we view symbols such as the pentagram and noose in pictures and artwork alike, clearly correlates with how it affects our life and our beliefs. But pictures are taken by people and their ideas are always going to be conveyed in the picture, even if it is very subtle. In this new light, sometimes the way someone will normally identify with the symbol can change, even drastically…just as an event like Jena can alter a person’s identity with a symbol for death to a specific event in history.

Jena 6

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; signifies implications much larger than just a rope hanging from a tree. In this instance, the noose is definitely become a symbol.

Identifying with Jena

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 is a larger issue because it is in the deep south where racial tension is so prevalent. The people affected took the symbol to heart because they have to put up with racism day to day, and this was the breaking point. To do something of this nature is so blatantly negligent and it will instigate who it was geared towards because they identified themselves in the symbol.

perhaps... perpetuated in jena?

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 Jena in the first place if people hadn't already been "(identifying themselves) with some aspect of the picture" for many, many years. Furthermore, the picture of the noose actually has very little to do with the protests, since the battle is really about whether or not one of the black students should be tried as an adult for beating a white student (who reportedly was not one of the kids who hung the nooses in the tree, in the first place). Is it possible that the image of the noose is being used to induce empathy from a public that might otherwise actually focus on the real issue at hand (gasp)?

Jena

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 slave traders and groups of KKK members are the first thoughts to enter my head, as I would suspect many other people would. This becomes a blatant threat of a time where African-Americans were not as free as they are now, which is what the threatening party is attempting to accomplish. The fact that this is an issue still absolutely amazes me, but this is a past I would prefer we forgot about.

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 each of us has been exposed to a particular image, such as a noose, affects how we view that image.
African-Americans who lived through the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s may see a noose and flashback to a time when lynchings were not all that uncommon. The younger generation of African-Americans may not have quite the same connection, but still view the noose as a threat. Before the Jena 6 coverage, my predominant image of a noose involved the wild west.
Now the news coverage of the Jena 6 incident has made Jena, Louisiana and the images of nooses almost synonymous; and so, the comment, "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena," isn't that far from the truth.

The Power of an Image

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 image that mainly connected with the slavery period in America, because that’s what I have been exposed to for so many years in the media and in textbooks. Therefore, I certainly understand the argument from the organizer of the protest when he stated, "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena." Yes, I agree the recent media flare up and hate messages with the nooses started in Jena but that particular hate message from the nooses started way before then. The Jena 6 incident only brought the image to the forefront for several citizens to relive again, and for many to experience first hand for the first time.

Lippmann stated in his proposal that, "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." His proposal clearly suggests that the protest organizer’s argument is valid. When one turns on the TV now and see nooses hanging everywhere, for majority of the public who is knowledgeable about the incident, they are going to instantly connect that image with Jena 6. Same goes for others who were indirectly affected by the incident. Regardless that one was exposed to this indecent behavior against their will or not, he or she can now identify themselves with some aspect of the picture, in which before hand they may have drawn ideas from previous knowledge they were depicted about the image.

The students who hung the nooses may not have necessarily intended to actually try to use the nooses. Hypothetically, they could have just been trying to intimidate the other students or make them feel inferior so that they would not sit under the tree again. They probably didn’t expect a physical reaction, but the fact that the victims did take it to a physical level indicates that the aspect of the image they identified themselves with was hate related and offensive. The immediate take over from the media of the incident allowed others to identify themselves with pictures in the same manner. Therefore; yes, "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere….” Yes it did start in Jena.

Jena 6

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 fully conveyed. For example, when I look at the picture, I personally think of back in the day when they hung individuals for breaking the law. It is portrayed in several movies and books, for instance "The Crucible". I do not automatically think of slavery and the hardships they faced during those times. The "Jena 6" story is horrible and has obviously offended many individuals, including myself. Due to this story, whenever anyone sees a picture of a noose, their idea of what it means will most likely be directed to the Jena 6 case. The African-American students that were involved in this, I'm sure felt racially targeted and that is something that our society should not allow.

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 by such symbols. To be quite honest, whenever I see a picture or any portrayal of a noose, slavery and racial injustice are not the first things to come to my mind. I always picture in my head pirates or witches being hung rather than slaves. But either way, no matter whether or not you are talking about racial issues or something else, anytime a noose is shown, you can be certain of one thing..and that is that of wrongdoing. I'm sure for those African American students involved in the incident, seeing a picture like this, and more so, seeing the real thing, makes them feel as if they are in the same category with others hung, indicating evil or being thieves.

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 tell this story, younger generations, such as ours, have gotten a better idea of the gravity of this image.

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 fancy way and not associate it with racial issues. However, due to our prior knowledge of hangings, one automatically sees a satanic way of killing someone usually paired with racism when viewing the noose. Therefore, because of what we already know and feel about a noose, this picture shares an idea that most people think of when seeing it just as those in Jena probably thought when they saw it hanging from a tree.

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 maintain an unfair social order but also to devalue the lives of an entire group of people. Hanging a noose in the “white” tree after a black student sat there was meant to be a symbol- most likely that the black student had stepped above his “place” with the implied consequences that he, or any other black student who did the same, would be in danger of violence if not of being lynched. The fact that there was an understood “white tree” at all clearly shows sustained cultural tensions in the area where the ideas the noose was meant to convey are unlikely to be forgotten. Whether or not the student(s) who hung the noose would have actually followed through, the threat was very clearly and succinctly conveyed with that image that harkened back to a shared cultural history.

This situation in itself, even before media involvement, demonstrates Lippmann’s proposal that "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 white students didn’t need to say anything to the black students. The noose said everything, and everyone, both black and white, understood its meaning because they grew up with it as part of their culture.

Once it became news, others outside the Jena area could also understand because a noose in a racial incident means a threat of lynching. The organizer is not trying to redefine a noose. The organizer is instead recognizing that this picture, which represents an implied threat, is being posted on websites to in fact threaten these students and convey hate. “And it all started in Jena” seems more a lament that the symbol was brought back into the public eye, and the hatred is there everywhere “now when you turn on the TV.”

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 to see themselves in that picture. Like Lippman said, " the idea conveyed is not fully your own until we have identified ourselves with some aspect of the picture." People have to have something to see to truly understand the situation and relate that picture to their lives and thoughts.

It is unfortunate that the event surrounding the Jena Six has reintroduced the noose as a symbol back into public discourse. As others have mentioned, I also believe this is a good example of what Lippmann was saying with his statement "Pictures have always been the surest way of conveying an idea." When it comes to identifying ourselves with the picture (the noose), it seems to me that the organizer whothat said "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena" is using the symbol of the noose to form an idea in our minds; possibly change how we viewed it before resulting in support for the Jena Six. This organizer wants us to pair the picture of the noose with the situation in Jena, however I am not so sure the public is allowing that idea to fully be their own. Some relate the the noose to the Jena Six who received too harsh a punishment while others may view it and think of the white schoolmate who was attacked. Some may choose not to relate it to this current situation at all and, like Prof. Wiggins mentioned in a previous post, the boys who initially hung the nooses may have seen them as a weapon; something that could actually be used on another person. All in all, I believe the picture of the noose is being used by all parties involved in the Jena Six situation to convey a number of messages - it's just a matter of who will successfully convey their idea to those in power who will be making the ultimate decisions on this case.

I think that pictures help us to make written text more specific, in the sense that movies based on books help to give readers a picture to go with their imagination, for written text can interpreted in so many different ways. In the same sense, a picture, although more specific, can mean a multitude of different things to a multitude of different peoples and cultures. It seems though, that at times an event can strike the hearts of so many people that a single picture no longer means a multitude of various things, but perhaps one single idea. A burning skyscraper may have meant many different things to people in 2000, but in Sept. of 2001 this same picture probably connotated the same images, ideas, and feelings to a majority of America. Basically, the point is that I agree with Lippmann's statement. It is not until we identify with a picture that we make it our own. This common identity will give rise to specificity among the majority.

The Language of Jena

The demonstration supporting the six black high school students in Jena, La., accused of assaulting a white schoolmate after nooses were hung in a tree on the campus grounds has reintroduced this symbol into public discourse.

In fact, one of the organizers of the protest said this about Web site postings and other messages that threatened the black students and their families: "Now when you turn on the TV, you see nooses hanging everywhere. And it all started in Jena."

Reflect on the above statement in light of 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."

I agree completely...

With the statements already made about the symbol of the noose. These young students probably had seen the image of a noose multiple times before and, even though it generated images of hate and intolerance, once the symbol took on personal meaning for them, it went to a different level completely. Just as lippman stated, the symbol for the noose took another meaning once it was personalized for the students it was directed towards. We identify on a whole new level with symbols of hatred when it is directed at us personally. I feel that this is a great and unfortunately accurate example of the idea Lipmann was trying to convey about images and feelings from images.

md

In light of the events in Jena, LA, this picture obviously speaks a thousand words. Lippmann says that "pictures are the surest way of conveying an idea," and I think that the nooses that hung from the now famous tree where a black student dared to sit conveyed exactly what those who placed them there wanted them to: pure hate. This image doesn't say "hey, I don't agree with what you think," or "let's just agree to disagree," this image says "I hate you now, I have always hated you, and I always will."

Lippmann also says that we don't fully make an idea our own until we identify with the image. This could not be more true in this case. A noose (especially one hanging from a tree) is something that I can only assume most African Americans in the South identify with. It would be different, I think, if the image was a gun, knife, or really any other way of killing someone.

Whoever put the nooses in the tree that day knew two things: (1) this is a symbol of racism, hate, and murder, and (2) this symbol will strike the very core of those it is intended for.

"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."
-Lippman

It is unfortunate that a symbol of a noose was reintroduced into our society (and copy-cat nooses are being sited elsewhere as a result). In the American South, it was, and is, symbol of violence, bigotry, hatred, and days lived in fear. Internationally, it could be considered a symbol of suicide or forced death by way of rope and a hunter's knot. However, in any cultural setting, a picture of a noose evokes images of death.

With recent events supporting the Jena Six, this negative image has garnered even more attention from the media. For those people who did not have a memory to draw from to make an image of a noose "fully their own," they now can turn to any cable news station to see pictures that allow them to identify with the hatred, violence, and bigotry the image represents.

The American youth who grew up in a time where noose no longer dangled from trees and fiery crosses rarely flared, now have a picture to connect to the idea of racism. This week, at the Jena Six rally in Louisiana, the country watched, amazed at the staggering number of people who turned out for the peaceful protest. After hearing about busloads of USC students who also drove down to protest, I remembered Lippman's words. "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." Now that the media has grown significantly since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, pictures have even more potential to effect change by allowing the younger generations to make ideas their own. Maybe the recent media proliferation can effect some change?

Stereotypes simplify the world?

In Walter Lippman's Public Opinion, he argues that stereotypes help simplify a cluttered human world. Wouldn't fewer movie ratings do the same? Yes. There would be less confusion at the box office--albeit more whining from kids not able to get into some shows because they are days shy of their 18th birthday--but, overall, fewer movie ratings would certainly make parents' lives less complicated.

pictures in our heads

"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 noose in response to lippman's quote is a good example. before we all knew exactly what it meant, not necessarily to a specific event, but now I think we have it as a symbol for what happened in Jena. We have "identified ourselves with some respect of the picture" because it carries a certain meaning now. Before, it conveyed an idea of something that we could refer back to olden days, or of someone possibly commiting suicide. Yet now since the media has plastered this everywhere, they have turned it into the symbol that our heads relate to the event in history of what happened in Jena.