Q2. Dr. Stother also mentioned that "Pictures can change the world." Would the Drs. Heath be able to account for this in their SUCCESs criteria? In other words, does it, as they seem t0 imply, have to be verbal to stick?
Q3. Dr. Stother also told us that to be successful in getting your message across, you need to choose words that communicate with the people you are, in effect, targeting. He stated, 'you need to talk with them, not take pride in talking above them.' If a candidate is using mirco-targeting to learn how to best package messages to different groups to enhance their understanding of policy decisions, would this still be ethically (which is where I think the class discussion was heading on Wed.) dubious?
Posts
2 comments:
In response to question 1, it seems like the daisy ad uses many of the elements of the SUCCESs strategy. It seems to me that two of those concepts stand out more than the others: unexpectedness and emotional. The ad obviously takes a turn for the worse that people at the time may not have seen coming. Also, the emotional impact of the effects of a WMD (using the parlance of our time) on children would scare the living daylights out of parents everywhere. While I don't have kids, I would be pretty on edge after watching that regardless.
Question three is an interesting one and while I feel that micro targeting can be a useful and ethical tool in the perfect world, it seems that keeping messages simple is something that we as scholars may have issue with. We are use to complex ideas, lengthy articles that explain many related concepts, and conversations that are highly above the conversations the common voter may have. However, we make up the minority in this regard and I am sure that many many people would and do look down upon this kind of thinking. Keeping messages simple and easy to understand seems to be a must of any candidate running for office in a country and world that is both extremely illiterate and simple thinking.
Simple
Unexpected
Concrete
Credible
Emotional
Stories
http://www.npr.org/templates/common/image_enlargement.php?imageResId=5242054
It is very simple. It is also unexpected. You've seen vultures and you have seen children, but you don't expect to see one stalking the other and waiting for the inevitable. Is it concrete? Certainly, it is a physical manifestation of the suffering in Sudan. It is personal and vivid. Is it credible? In a horrible and tragic twist the photographer chose to leave the child to die so the authenticity of the photo could be maintained. He later won the 1994 Pulitzer Prize and soon after took his own life. In any event, it certainly classifies as "seeing is believing" credibility. Is it emotional? Obviously.
So can a picture be a story? That is the real question. I think all pictures that change the world are stories. You may not know the exact plot or story, but that doesn't mean you don't have a story to go with the picture. What is the story of this picture? What about the soldiers raising the flag over Iwo Jima? Ryan, what would Dr. Rowland say about narrative elements in a picture?
Post a Comment