Category: language

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Want to buy a scientist?

When you find a scientist who claims to show that human-caused catastrophic climate change either isn’t real or isn’t a problem or doesn’t really exist, you usually find a money trail leading to one of the worst polluters (usually, oil giant ExxonMobil, sometimes, petrochemical magnates and right-wing darlings Koch brothers).

But ultra-right-wing think-tanks play in this sandbox too. Friday, TriplePundit posted leaked secret anti-climate-change strategy documents from Heartland Institute; they actually have the chutzpah to put $100,000 toward developing a K-12 school curriculum to

…show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

Oh yes, and they’ve also set aside $18,000 a monthly to fund pundits who present the climate-change-is-not-a-problem viewpoint.

Hmm, that sounds a lot like the attempts by creationists to throttle the study of evolution and biology. When science can’t back up your position, influence young kids with the Big Lie technique that was so beloved by Nazi propagandists. And the get television news commentators to present a “fair and balanced” approach, pitting your purchased experts against objective scientists as if they were equally credible, and sow doubt in the public mind.

To climate skeptics, I say “look out the window.” In my own area of Western Massachusetts alone, we’ve experienced the following just since June 1:

None of these events are the normal weather pattern around here.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, language, Politics Tagged with ,

Who would have expected this ad from quiet, quirky Ron Paul? It’s edgy, active, engaging and very young-seeming. And it makes a very bold promise.

His son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s influence, perhaps?

NOTE: sharing this ad is not in any way an endorsement of Dr. Paul or his drastic remedy. While I actually agree with about 20 percent of his positions as he’s expressed them over the years (particularly the parts about cutting military spending), that leaves 80 percent where I strongly disagree. (And concerning Rand Paul, I’m not aware of a single point of agreement.)

Living in a state that will go big for Obama without any help from me, I’ll probably vote Green Party.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, National Conference on Media Reform, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Publishing, Social and Economic Justice, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Oregon judge ruled that blogging is not protected as journalism under the state’s journalism shield law. If allowed to stand, this sets a truly terrible precedent.

Here’s what the law says:

No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by … a judicial officer … to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]

Notice—there is nothing here about working for a recognized mainstream media outlet. By my reading, a guy in a clown suit standing on a milk crate in the park and haranguing a crowd of random passers-by would not have to disclose sources.

Yet here’s what U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez wrote:

. . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law

Hello! Since when does being a journalist require working for mainstream media? This country has a history of independent writers serving a journalistic role going back to those 18th-century “bloggers” Tom Paine and Ben Franklin—those guys didn’t write for the London Times, but started their own publications. Are you going to tell me that Daily Kos, Huffington Post, RedState, Drudge Report, Washington Spectator, and even the legendary I.F. Stone’s Weekly of the 1950s and 1960s have no place in the world of journalism? That the thousands of indy-media-istas who attend the National Conference for Media Reform are spitting in the wind?

And meanwhile, investigative blogger Crystal Cox is facing a $2.5 million judgment because she would not disclose her sources. Out-bloody-rageous!

Shame on you, Judge Hernandez!

Abraham Lincoln said, “It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest.” I am protesting. And I hope voices with more clout than mine, such as FreePress.net, the National Writers Union, Authors Guild, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, National Coalition Against Censorship, and opinion journalists working for mainstream media (like Rachel Maddow) jump in and protest as well—with amicus briefs filed for the appeal.

 

Kris Miller Law is a respected and trusted  criminal defense attorney ready to help you with your legal needs.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Copywriting, Green Business, language Tagged with , , ,

Remember those old ’30s movies where some cigar-chomping newspaper editor screams into the phone, “Get Me ‘Rewrite!'”

Today, I followed a link to a webpage that made ME want to scream, “Get Me ‘Rewrite!'”

Try to digest these three paragraphs (the first two are next to each other; the third is a few paragraphs down) and tell me what you think they mean:

The Danotek high-speed PMG system’s attractiveness to investors is based on a uniquely efficient stator-rotor configuration, as well as its existing relationships with wind industry manufacturers and developers such as Clipper Windpower and DeWind.

The BWP low-speed PMG system’s attractiveness is based on an innovative PMG concept that gets away from expensive rare earth metals and creates efficiencies that BWP says can make wind power competitive with traditional sources of electricity generation without the need for incentives…

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of the BWP PMG design is that its magnets are part of an axial flux air core machine which operates at relatively low temperatures and are made with a rare earth metal called neodymium. More commonly, PMG magnets are part of iron core radial flux machines like Danotek’s, operate at relatively high temperatures and require a rare earth metal called dysprosium.

OK, what is the writer trying to say? He talks about “stator-rotor configuration” and “axial flux air core machine” as if we automatically know what these things are. He says this new technology is a move away from rare-earth metals, except that it actually isn’t; it just uses a different kind. I don’t believe in dumbing things down, but I do think a reasonably intelligent person ought to be able to understand the gist of a piece of writing.

The “translator” acquaintance who posted the original link summarized it as “they can do unsubsidised wind for cheaper than coal.” (Thank you, Ian Gordon.) I guess we can extrapolate that from “make wind power competitive with traditional sources of electricity generation without the need for incentives.”

So why didn’t they say so in the first place?

The purpose of written communication, IMHO, is to communicate. While I’m not a techie or an engineer, I am reasonably familiar with the concepts of alternative energy; I’ve been reading about it for more than 30 years after all. And this one left me scratching my head.

In fairness, this appeared on a green technology trade journal website, where, presumably, many of their readers will be familiar with at least some of the jargon. But I think this one is over the top. Someone just beginning to research the field ought to be able to read the article and have some idea of what it’s about. Without Ian’s help (or five or six readings), I would have very little clue. Someone new to the field would be lost entirely.

Get me “Rewrite.”

(If you’re struggling to create a piece of writing that’s understandable without talking down to your reader, I’d be glad to help. I do that for a living, at reasonable prices. Contact me here.)

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, General Commentary, language

A friend sent this article about brain behavior, irrationality vs. rationality, why we often go against our actual interests, the Left-Right split, and how we look at facts in ways that reinforce our existing beliefs.

He asked for feedback, and this is what I wrote:

It has often been a question in my mind how people can get swept up in mass irrationality, why they so often act against their own interest, and how to shift that.
I don’t pretend to have the answer, but one piece of the puzzle is to meet people where they are, agree on the areas where you have commonality, and then nudge the conversation forward a step at a time–while external forces are pushing much harder and faster. Excruciatingly slow, but it does seem to work. We saw this when GWB, in an attempt to block the momentum of the gay marriage movement, actually ENDORSED civil unions. He would have never done this without the pressure of the marriage movement making a formerly-seen-as-extreme step seem measured and rational. But I think he also had to be met on the ground of “family values” to be able to recognize that families are not just a husband, wife, and kids.

And what do you think about it?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, General Commentary, language Tagged with , , , , ,

The other night, I went to Candidate Night for the upcoming town election. And what struck me most of all was how uncomfortable with public speaking most of the candidates and the debate moderator seemed to be. This was not a huge stadium filled with thousands of people; it was a high school cafeteria with maybe 150 or 200 town residents, and most of the candidates personally knew a good chunk of the audience.

And yet…nine out of nine speakers hid behind the podium…I think everyone except the moderator read their remarks…and all but one candidate seemed quite ill at ease. Their speeches mostly emphasized the wrong things, and the debate left little impression of what most of these people actually stood for. One candidate for Town Meeting Moderator–which mostly involves chairing a meeting twice a year that brings out as many as 1100 local voters–actually said he’d never addressed such a large group and wasn’t used to public speaking. If he’s so nervous with 150 people, how is he going to handle a large Town Meeting?

Communication, both oral and written, needs to be effective. A speaker or writer needs to get across point of view, plan of action, intent, and both emotional  and rational appeals. Most of this group flunked the test.

When my parents were students in the 1940s, effective speaking and writing were part of the school curriculum. I think they should be still. And I think a few other things should be part of the curriculum:

  • Critical thinking skills
  • Media literacy: the ability to evaluate news and advertisements for their content, their biases, and their spoken or unspoken agenda (my grandfather used to read all seven New York daily papers in order to extrapolate the truth; my son once had a media literacy class that involved looking at the same stories through the eyes of Fox on the right, Democracy Now on the left, and a mainstream newspaper; why don’t more schools require this?)
  • Learning at least one foreign language to the point where you can have at least a simple conversation
  • A health education program that includes Alexander Technique, yoga, and vision therapy, as well as the usual calisthenics and sports
  • Basic literacy in arts and culture

I think our democracy would be better for it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies

In an attempt to regain control over e-mail, I’ve been unsubscribing from dozens of publications.

And I notice—a LOT of them thank me for this!

As a marketer, I find this puzzling. It makes a lot more sense to me to thank an unsubscriber for having been a subscriber, not for leaving. Still, I’d rather be thanked inappropriately then to get a gruff, cold “you have been unsubscribed.”

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Considering their enormous and deep understanding of marketing during the campaign, it’s hard to understand why the Obama administration is so bad at marketing itself as a governing force. Obama’s advisors need to take some lessons from George W. Bush. He was a terrible president, but he was extremely skilled at marketing himself and his accomplishments—and all my years observing politics, I’ve never before seen a team that was as good at staying on message. Better even than Reagan, if you ask me.

With just over a month left before the election, it’s time for the Democrats to go deep and hard on their marketing: to create a message that will resonate with the American people and cut the floor out from under the Republicans.

If I were running the national Democratic Senate and House campaign committees, I’d do it like this:
You voted for “Yes We Can”—But the Republicans Gave You “No We Won’t”

Two years ago, you, the American people, voted for change. You said it was long past time to focus the economy on Main Street…to get out of the illegal and unwinnable Iraq war…to begin once again to stop behaving like a “rogue state” and take our place among nations as the most powerful and inspirational democracy in the world…to once and for all rein in runaway corporate power and massive environmental devastation.

We’ve done a lot in the short time we’ve had to reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. Here’s a list of 91 different things the Obama administration has accomplished.

But most of those 91 accomplishments didn’t require approval by Congress. The Republicans have decided, as a bloc, to vote against almost anything we propose—even if they proposed it first. If it comes from the Democrats, they vote no, end of story. How much more progress would we have made without their tantrumy-two-year-old behavior? How much better shape would the economy and our carbon footprint be in—if, for instance, the green Jobs package hadn’t been so watered down?

You didn’t vote for “No We Won’t” in 2008. You voted for “Yes We Can! Vote Democratic and get the change you wanted all along.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Right-wing bloviators spewing bile and calling it “news” have been a fixture on the political scene for quite a few years now. And they’ve had influence far beyond the numbers of “true believers.”

While it’s hard to understand why anyone would pay attention to these mouthy masters of misrepresentation (take that, Spiro Agnew!), we see their influence in the raucous but marginal Tea Party gatherings, in the intransigence of the “Party of NO” in moving any policy agenda forward, and in such incidents as the forcing out of the amazing Van Jones as Obama’s Green Jobs advisor and the defunding of a national community organizing group based on the actions of a couple of idiots (even though most of those approached in the sting refused to go along)–by that logic, we could have defunded Congress centuries ago.

So it’s with gladness that I report that as soon as it became obvious that the widely circulated video of black official Shirley Sherrod making what sounded out of context to be racist remarks–and which forced her unwilling resignation–turned out to be just the opposite–a story of how she overcame her internal racism and did the right thing to help a white family–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made a public apology and offered her a job again.

The hatemongers lose this round. Now…how aobut revisiting the Van Jones incident.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, language, People Helping People, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , ,

My friend Ken McArthur blogged about his internal struggle in not confronting racist remarks from his substitute barber. I gave him this advice:

It’s not too late. Go back and find him. Tell him, in a respectful, not angry way, “Ever since you cut my hair, I’ve been thinking about some of the things you said and how much I disagree with them. I’ve been beating myself up for not challenging your racism when you expressed it. So today, I’m going to stop beating myself up and tell you that I didn’t appreciate your put downs of those who look different from you, and I’ll not have you cut my hair again.” Then stand still and listen for dialogue. It may be quite vitriolic, but you may be able to go deeper. And you owe him that much.

You do this, not for his soul, but for yours. But there may be a side benefit of reaching his, too (maybe not right away).

Thanks for being brave enough to share this post. I look forward to the follow-up post about what happened when you went back. And how lucky you are that you have the opportunity to “undo the not doing.” I can remember a couple of incidents in my teens where I failed to interrupt racism or sexism on the street and never knew the identities, never had the chance to back and make it right. 40 years later, I still feel guilty.

Mind you, I’m no saint. I have successfully confronted oppressive behavior at times, left it unchallenged at times, and confronted the behavior without effecting any change at other times. Once I got an obscenity-laced tirade directed at me by name and religion, and that was scary (she later called up to apologize). But I’ll always be proud of the time I intervened with a child whose mother was about to lose it over his tantrum in the supermarket (I got the kid laughing by quacking at him)–and always be ashamed that I did nothing to intervene years earlier when a man was verbally abusing his girlfriend on the streets of New York.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail