The Big Three Roles

The age of television put a simplified version of the dramatic art form on steroids.

TV drama finds one victim, one hero, and one villain... plus assorted supporting cast members Sometimes we get a surprise... when the victim is really the villain. There are not many other variations. For crime mysteries, I annoy my family by immediately identifying the villain. It is not hard, the patterns are few and whomever is not the victim must be the villain.

Drama takes true life problems and then exaggerates and distorts things to make it interesting. Sadly, people do imitate the patterns they see on TV. Those soap opera drama queens have made a mess of our schools, work places and families.

Oddly enough, in real life we all know everyone mixes in parts of heroism, treachery, and victim hood. But when we turn on the Tube we subconsciously recognize people "wearing" just one of the big three roles. Even in the news, the editors and reporters add their narrative. Check it out in the next few stories -- can you tell who has been casted as Snidely Whiplash, Dudley Do-Right, and Nell?

So... a question for conservatives: When you arrive as a guest on a talk show, and the topic is some victimized group, and the liberal is defending them... do you really think it matters what you say?

What say you?
$

Context and Emotion

While searching for an introduction to "Narrative Journalism" I found the quote below from Bill Kirtz, Professor, Northeastern University:

Now more than ever -- when outmoded notions of "he said/she said" fairness, avaricious owners and new media all threaten newspapers' primacy -- narrative journalism has the chance and the vital mission of bringing context and emotion to reporting.

He wrote this on Dec. 5, 2005. How very cool to see the mission stated without guile: "...threaten newspapers' primacy..."

Read "Now more than ever" and you might wonder if he had already been teaching this technique of "bringing context and emotion" into journalism for a while.

Ok, so it has been quite obvious that newspapers and other media formats have been bringing their own context and emotion to, um, something that is still called journalism but that which behaves quite differently from what existed prior to the 1960s.

Outmoded notions of he said/she said fairness... wow. Many reporters and editors feel they have a vital mission to move beyond outmoded notions of fairness. This is what was being taught in school.

The article quotes Cheryl Carpenter, managing editor of the Charlotte Observer: "Think of narrative journalism as a way you get at the messiness of truth" and you'll be fair...

How Orwellian... insert a message into the story... for the sake of fairness?

One has to love "the messiness of truth" and how news workers have an obligation to be so fair as to assign the roles of hero, villain, and victim.

Note to conservatives: if you walk like a lamb into the tender mercies of the educated journalists, there is a very good chance your assigned role will be neither hero nor victim.

What say you?
$

Oops, missed that one

How embarrassing should it be for the GOP to have the Tea Party movement bubble up and around what used to be a conservative party?

Maybe some GOP maverick on the inside could create an Anti-Republic conservative movement?

What say you?
$

The Ant, The Grasshopper, and the subtext

Like most conservatives, I adore the fable of the Ant & the Grasshopper. Winter comes and the hardworking ant is prepared while the lazy grasshopper suffers. The message is so clear, pure, and strong; and so commonly known, well, it's a wonder that conservatives ever lose elections!

Say, do think its time we figured out why this perfect message is not helping? Polls show US voters do not like liberals... they just vote for them. Ouch. With this in mind... please allow me to suggest how the A&G fable fails us.

First, the whole thing is clearly an agenda piece, so many will ignore it altogether while others will not trust it. Note to conservatives: in general, agenda pieces work only INSIDE our echo chamber - so we will not collect many new votes!

Next, the ant is supposedly a christian, and "there he goes again" judging and probably withholding. What a hypocrite, love your neighbor... as long as they follow your rules.

This may be most important: The ant-way is to work hard & tally & horde. The grasshopper would comment (if he were not so kindhearted & free spirited) that seriously, if you have to ask your accountant if you are having a good time -- then you are not having a good time! Ant's never have a good time and they never really "live" at all, not compared to the "live in the now" grasshopper!

By the way, every ant and every grasshopper will eventually be desperate and will eventually die... but at least the Grasshopper would not give you a lecture, and he would share what he had in the unlikely event he had accumulated enough to share.

The LOGIC of the fable is conservative, but the IMPRESSION of the fable is liberal.

So, my good conservative compatriots... won't you please be a dear and connect the dots? Let's craft our messages for the public to BEGIN with the IMPRESSION, and leave the logic of it all for later.


What say you?
$

Show & feel

Conservatives want to win more elections, and so we need to communicate more effectively. Most voters watch a lot of TV. But it can be hard to sell concepts using a visual medium. Consider commercials for automobiles. Cars move, of course, but even though the scenery passes by they do not display moving parts other than their tires calmly spinning. How do the marketeers craft a TV pitch for conspicuously visually-boring products?

This car will define your persona as being (successful, cool, caring ...)

This car will make you feel (happy, energetic, smart)

If conservatives want to communicate on TV, we need to show people how conservatism will define their persona and make them feel special.

What say you?

Impressions

To win more elections... we must understand the nature of the difference between how US liberals and conservatives think. Conservatives tend to be linear thinkers, favoring connect-the-dots thinking. Liberals tend to be more visual. Consider this metaphor:

Even though Rembrandt was a far "better" painter than was Van Gogh, I prefer Van Gogh because his paintings make me feel something special. Rembrandt is accurate, but Van Gogh achieved a sort of super-real.

Liberals tend to be impressionistic. The conservative will argue that we must be logical so we can get the best outcomes... but liberals want to "live in the now" and are not greatly influenced by our A-B-C arguments. Conservatives argue better thinking makes for better living, but to the liberal the notion of spending one's life connecting dots is hardly living at all. Neither group is wrong -- this is a supremely personal choice.

Liberals make political decisions the way Van Gogh painted. If we want to communicate with well intentioned people who think visually, well, we better figure out how to express our message using impressions instead of dots.

And... if we are so smart with our dots... why didn't we figure this out before the election?

What say you?
$

Hypocritical Irony

Conservatives are continually flummoxed at how our moral peccadilloes' so easily damage the GOP. Consider the irony: Liberals easily tag conservatives as hypocrites even while they don't care when their members do the exact same things.

We bring this on ourselves! Until our leadership develops a true understanding of this mechanic, we will suffer.

What say you?
$