When I was attending classes there, the linguistics graduate program at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), offered two options for is MA candidates: One was the thesis track, the other, the general track. Early on in my studies at CSUN, I had opted for the thesis track. I had been working on an idea for many years, thanks in large part to my interest in politics, but especially, the use of language in politics, inspired in me by George Lakoff's "Moral Politics".
I had begun listening to a lot of political talk radio, specifically, conservative political talk radio. Actually, there is little getting around conservative political talk radio: According to Talkers.com, a website which bills itself as "The Bible of Talk Radio and the News Talk Media", and a tracker of talk radio rankings, the top twelve talk radio shows in the US are almost all political talk radio. There are several ties; for example, there are five shows tied for sixth place, however, of the political talk shows, which make up the majority on the list, the majority of those are conservative political talk radio. Rush Limbaguh is number one, followed by Sean Hannity then Glen Beck and Mark Levin are tied at fourth. You might be aware of who Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are, but you might not be aware that Levin was once a speech writer for Ronald Reagan.
Political talk radio, specifically, conservative political talk radio, dominates the US AM airwaves. US airwaves, especially AM, not only belong to the American public, but they are, in the case of AM radio, the "voice of America" as well. It's often been said, that when you are young and poor, you vote Democrat, but when you are older and rich, you vote Republican. This seems to be born out by statistics which show the demographic make up of the two political parties: Democrats tend to be younger, ethnically more diverse and female, whereas Republicans tend to be older, less ethnically diverse and male. This demographic is reflected in talk radio, a media arena that fewer and fewer younger generations pay any attention to: Talk radio is dominated by political talk radio, which is in turn dominated by conservative political talk radio, which is in turn dominated by wealthy white men who vote Republican, as outspoken in their support of the GOP as they are in their criticism of the Democratic party.
What this all means is that a large majority of Americans are listening to AM, conservative political talk radio, and most of those are wealthy, white, male Republicans.
One of the things which piqued my interest, and the thing I attempted to create my thesis on, before giving up out of panic and frustration and opting for the general track at CSUN, was the way in which messages could be said, by not saying them.
What I mean is, for the most part, the hosts of those conservative political talk radio shows cannot say or do anything too outrageous for fear of losing advertising sponsors and/or, their shows (just ask Rush Limbaugh and Don Immus, respectively). However, what they can do, is let their listeners who call into their shows do the outrageous for them.
The recent agreement between the US, its partners, and Iran, on Iran's nuclear program is a case in point. The Obama administration, along with China, France, Russia, the UK and the EU (otherwise known as P5+1, which, honestly, sounds like a K-pop boy band...) were able to bring Iran to an agreement regrading its nuclear program, by using the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, of which Iran was an early signator, but backed out after the Shah was deposed in the Islamic Revolution. That Treaty, agreed to by the US in 1969 and put into effect by the US in 1970, was signed by President Richard M Nixon with the full support of the US Senate and Congress. Nixon, it should be pointed out, was a Republican.
No matter. What matters is the it was the Obama administration which was able to bring Iran to the table, as it were, and it was the Obama administration which was finally able to get Iran into some sort of an agreement regarding its nuclear program. And if there is one thing that Republicans can agree upon, its their complete hatred of all things Obama.
Getting back to Sean Hannity: Mr. Hannity has not only the number two talk radio show in the entire US, he also has the number one political talk "news" show, on the number one, cable, "news" network-Fox News, or FNC for short. Hannity, like all of his contemporaries and colleagues, has saturated the US media market: Best-selling books, the afore-mentioned radio and television shows, concerts, speaking tours and a website which also hosts a discussion forum.
Navigating to The Sean Hannity Show website, a viewer is greeted by a billboard at the top of the page with a revolving list of political "news" items; all penned by Hannity or FNC columnists. A recent trip to Hannity's website showed me a link to this item: "Confederate Flag Debate", which seems, on the surface, to be an essay about the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag. The essay even begins with language suggesting that that is indeed what it is about:
"The dialogue in America has shifted away from the tragedy in Charleston and to a debate over the Confederate flag.
Perhaps the greatest untold story to unfold in the wake of the shooting in Charleston are the incredible family members of the victims. In many cases, their willingness to forgive the person who killed their loved ones in cold blood represents an awe-inspiring amount of faith. They are incredible human beings and we keep them in our thoughts and prayers."
Notice the clever use of the collective pronouns, "we" and "our"; my sociolinguistic professor taught me about the use of those.
However, not too far down into the essay, a reader will come across this:
"But at the end of the day, this sick young man did not kill those good Christian souls because of a flag. Nor did he kill them because of South Carolina's gun laws. He killed them because he was of a depraved mind. There were many signs that this was a troubled young man, and yet nothing was done."
Which seems, on the face of it, reasonable enough. Until you remember that the GOP sells itself as being of Christian morals and values and is pro gun and anti-gun law. Then, very cleverly, the last paragraph ends the essay with this:
"Nonetheless, tragedies such as this will be used for political gain. Whether its removing the Confederate flag or passing new gun laws, American politics has become a pattern of jumping on crisis moments in order to pass pet legislation. Even if the two events are not directly linked or related. Politics has become therapy for political activists who want to be seen as doing something; it's more of a feel-good exercise than a coherent political agenda."
Any good academic, or English teacher, will tell you that what is at the beginning and end of an essay is of the utmost importance; these are the words which guide the reader and make impressions upon them. The famous quote, "Always leave them wanting more" is nowhere as appropriate as it is in academic writing and especially, politics.
What has very cleverly been done to the reader, is to have left the indelible impression that there are direct links between the Confederate flag and those who want it removed, with gun laws and those who want guns taken away.
As any good political analyst or politician will tell you, Republicans are all about liberty and Democrats are all about equality. Which is basically true. However, Republicans have done a far better job at weaving the myth of liberty into the so-called "American Dream" and the very notion of what it means to be an American. When they begin talking about "pet legislation" and "political activists", they are referring to liberals and to Democrats. And when Republicans do that, they are framing the message in very much an "Us v. Them" monologue. And when that argument rests squarely on their frame of Democrats wanting to take away our freedoms and Republicans trying to protect those freedoms.
But they rarely, if ever, have to actually say it because they've done such a fantastic job of weaving it into their narrative. And this is how I segue back to political talk radio and my abandoned thesis.
Many times, talk show hosts, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, will turn to their listeners who call into their show and let the callers voice their opinions. And unless those callers state something against the narrative, the hosts will let those callers say nearly anything they want to say. Things the hosts cannot, or should not, say. Other times, however, the host will make an outrageous claim, only to immediately go to commercial break, thus leaving in the minds of their listeners, the outrageous claim, or the unverified and unchallenged comments of the last caller.
Which always leaves 'em wanting more.
I had begun listening to a lot of political talk radio, specifically, conservative political talk radio. Actually, there is little getting around conservative political talk radio: According to Talkers.com, a website which bills itself as "The Bible of Talk Radio and the News Talk Media", and a tracker of talk radio rankings, the top twelve talk radio shows in the US are almost all political talk radio. There are several ties; for example, there are five shows tied for sixth place, however, of the political talk shows, which make up the majority on the list, the majority of those are conservative political talk radio. Rush Limbaguh is number one, followed by Sean Hannity then Glen Beck and Mark Levin are tied at fourth. You might be aware of who Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are, but you might not be aware that Levin was once a speech writer for Ronald Reagan.
Political talk radio, specifically, conservative political talk radio, dominates the US AM airwaves. US airwaves, especially AM, not only belong to the American public, but they are, in the case of AM radio, the "voice of America" as well. It's often been said, that when you are young and poor, you vote Democrat, but when you are older and rich, you vote Republican. This seems to be born out by statistics which show the demographic make up of the two political parties: Democrats tend to be younger, ethnically more diverse and female, whereas Republicans tend to be older, less ethnically diverse and male. This demographic is reflected in talk radio, a media arena that fewer and fewer younger generations pay any attention to: Talk radio is dominated by political talk radio, which is in turn dominated by conservative political talk radio, which is in turn dominated by wealthy white men who vote Republican, as outspoken in their support of the GOP as they are in their criticism of the Democratic party.
What this all means is that a large majority of Americans are listening to AM, conservative political talk radio, and most of those are wealthy, white, male Republicans.
One of the things which piqued my interest, and the thing I attempted to create my thesis on, before giving up out of panic and frustration and opting for the general track at CSUN, was the way in which messages could be said, by not saying them.
What I mean is, for the most part, the hosts of those conservative political talk radio shows cannot say or do anything too outrageous for fear of losing advertising sponsors and/or, their shows (just ask Rush Limbaugh and Don Immus, respectively). However, what they can do, is let their listeners who call into their shows do the outrageous for them.
The recent agreement between the US, its partners, and Iran, on Iran's nuclear program is a case in point. The Obama administration, along with China, France, Russia, the UK and the EU (otherwise known as P5+1, which, honestly, sounds like a K-pop boy band...) were able to bring Iran to an agreement regrading its nuclear program, by using the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, of which Iran was an early signator, but backed out after the Shah was deposed in the Islamic Revolution. That Treaty, agreed to by the US in 1969 and put into effect by the US in 1970, was signed by President Richard M Nixon with the full support of the US Senate and Congress. Nixon, it should be pointed out, was a Republican.
No matter. What matters is the it was the Obama administration which was able to bring Iran to the table, as it were, and it was the Obama administration which was finally able to get Iran into some sort of an agreement regarding its nuclear program. And if there is one thing that Republicans can agree upon, its their complete hatred of all things Obama.
Getting back to Sean Hannity: Mr. Hannity has not only the number two talk radio show in the entire US, he also has the number one political talk "news" show, on the number one, cable, "news" network-Fox News, or FNC for short. Hannity, like all of his contemporaries and colleagues, has saturated the US media market: Best-selling books, the afore-mentioned radio and television shows, concerts, speaking tours and a website which also hosts a discussion forum.
Navigating to The Sean Hannity Show website, a viewer is greeted by a billboard at the top of the page with a revolving list of political "news" items; all penned by Hannity or FNC columnists. A recent trip to Hannity's website showed me a link to this item: "Confederate Flag Debate", which seems, on the surface, to be an essay about the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag. The essay even begins with language suggesting that that is indeed what it is about:
"The dialogue in America has shifted away from the tragedy in Charleston and to a debate over the Confederate flag.
Perhaps the greatest untold story to unfold in the wake of the shooting in Charleston are the incredible family members of the victims. In many cases, their willingness to forgive the person who killed their loved ones in cold blood represents an awe-inspiring amount of faith. They are incredible human beings and we keep them in our thoughts and prayers."
Notice the clever use of the collective pronouns, "we" and "our"; my sociolinguistic professor taught me about the use of those.
However, not too far down into the essay, a reader will come across this:
"But at the end of the day, this sick young man did not kill those good Christian souls because of a flag. Nor did he kill them because of South Carolina's gun laws. He killed them because he was of a depraved mind. There were many signs that this was a troubled young man, and yet nothing was done."
Which seems, on the face of it, reasonable enough. Until you remember that the GOP sells itself as being of Christian morals and values and is pro gun and anti-gun law. Then, very cleverly, the last paragraph ends the essay with this:
"Nonetheless, tragedies such as this will be used for political gain. Whether its removing the Confederate flag or passing new gun laws, American politics has become a pattern of jumping on crisis moments in order to pass pet legislation. Even if the two events are not directly linked or related. Politics has become therapy for political activists who want to be seen as doing something; it's more of a feel-good exercise than a coherent political agenda."
Any good academic, or English teacher, will tell you that what is at the beginning and end of an essay is of the utmost importance; these are the words which guide the reader and make impressions upon them. The famous quote, "Always leave them wanting more" is nowhere as appropriate as it is in academic writing and especially, politics.
What has very cleverly been done to the reader, is to have left the indelible impression that there are direct links between the Confederate flag and those who want it removed, with gun laws and those who want guns taken away.
As any good political analyst or politician will tell you, Republicans are all about liberty and Democrats are all about equality. Which is basically true. However, Republicans have done a far better job at weaving the myth of liberty into the so-called "American Dream" and the very notion of what it means to be an American. When they begin talking about "pet legislation" and "political activists", they are referring to liberals and to Democrats. And when Republicans do that, they are framing the message in very much an "Us v. Them" monologue. And when that argument rests squarely on their frame of Democrats wanting to take away our freedoms and Republicans trying to protect those freedoms.
But they rarely, if ever, have to actually say it because they've done such a fantastic job of weaving it into their narrative. And this is how I segue back to political talk radio and my abandoned thesis.
Many times, talk show hosts, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, will turn to their listeners who call into their show and let the callers voice their opinions. And unless those callers state something against the narrative, the hosts will let those callers say nearly anything they want to say. Things the hosts cannot, or should not, say. Other times, however, the host will make an outrageous claim, only to immediately go to commercial break, thus leaving in the minds of their listeners, the outrageous claim, or the unverified and unchallenged comments of the last caller.
Which always leaves 'em wanting more.
