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.