Jon Stewart on Crossfire
In today's class, we got into a fabulous discussion on Jon Stewart's reframing on the Crossfire show. If you haven't see it, *DO*
(tx Lisa Rein)
(tx Lisa Rein)
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Contributors
moral politics
politics.technorati.com
apophenia
napsterization
Previous Posts
- class 8 notes
- Why are Post-Modernists/Deconstructionists considered to be the Left?
- New Lenses for Your Frames
- Class 7 notes
- George W. Bush :: Keeping America Scared
- Class 6 notes
- Giving People Information to Get Them to See
- probability
- putting the Bush daughers on a leash
- Notes from Class 5
2 Comments:
Hi,
I finally got to hear the Crossfire clip - what a fantastic job at re-framing.
I have another question (sorry if I am intrusive). "Moral Politics" goes into quite a lot of detail about the way Nurturant Parents raise their children of both sexes. However, the chapter on Strict Father only talks about the methods and consequences of raising sons (http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/10/femiphobia.html).
How does a Strict Father family raise daughters? What is the effect of it? And, related to this, what accounts for the existence of two types of conservative women. The first type is a "submissive wife" who votes Republican because her husband (or father, or brother, or boyfriend, I've seen all combinations recently) tells her to do so. The second type is a vocal fiery conservative. What accounts for the existence of Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly?
I am also in the process of analyzing a number of interviews (and debates) given by Democrats over the past year or so, concentrating on John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards. Once I am done, I will write a post on my blog about it, but the first impressions are that Elizabeth is a master re-framer. She re-phrases every question before answering, with the interviewer never seeming to notice what has just happenned. Has anyone else done such an analysis? John Edwards seems to be a natural re-framer (explaining his great primary numbers with conservatives and independents), but makes occasional mistakes revealing he does not re-frame purposefully (http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/08/edwards-legacy.html). Elizabeth seems to combine a natural ability with a learned method (perhaps she read Lakoff). John Kerry, and especially Teresa, seem never to notice when the question is based on a conservative frame and keep falling into traps or, alternatively, appear not to answer the question. Howard Dean, who actually read Lakoff, is just as bad as Teresa. Sharpton was a fantastic re-framer in the primaries' debates, too! Others were clueless.
How is your analysis of Dems' speeches coming along ????
Post a Comment
<< Home