ALSBTALK:

Sometimes an email deserves a broader audience.  Based on the reaction I
have received because of it, I will dare to think that the email below is
one of those emails.  My sister Kate Lahey has authored a novel entitled
"The Pinball Paradox".  "DoD" refers to the Department of Defense.  This is
an email I sent to Kate and other family members.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kate:

(Other family members, when Kate announced her award for the "Pinball
Paradox" she also expressed doubt about its value in the context of today's
travails.  I am responding to a quizzical reaction Kate had to a line in my
reply email, in which I told Kate I saw an --increased-- importance for her
book.  If she doubted my appraisal, I urged Kate to talk to any English
professor who teaches the pop culture course on Elvis and Madonna, and
which radio talk show hosts label as "worthless".  I said that prof soon
would be under DoD contract.  The DoD contract comment made Kate
quizzical.)

The DoD respects effectiveness (because it is not just a phrase to them,
lives do hang in the balance).  The DoD engages in propaganda.

To be effective propaganda the message must be "tuned" to the audience.

Today's apparent proliferation of media outlets comes in two forms:
broadcasters (which amount to little more than redundant direct
competitors) and narrowcasters.  Narrowcasters, especially, offer the
opportunity to communicate to a fraction of the demographic whole.
(Increasingly "broadcasters" are becoming narrowcasters of a particular
stripe.  As the fragments of the whole use narrowcasters more and more do
so exclusively, these portions of the fraction of the whole do not visit
the realm of the broadcast.  As a result, the broadcast is a narrowcast to
those that use the broadcast, but not to the whole of the demographic.)
The "best" narrowcasters demonstrate limited spillover to other sectors of
the demographic whole (e.g., MTV and Wall Street Week).  The relative
profitability of narrowcasters turns on the disposable income of the
demographic fraction as well as the effectiveness of the commercial
propaganda it peddles.  This is why cable channels often are single topic
channels.

Effective DoD propaganda will need to identify and use the iconography that
is most effective to stimulate emotive decision making as contrasted with
rational decision making.  Rational decision making involves facts and
debate.  Right and wrong is more grey and far less palatable.  Emotive
decision making is visceral.  The emotive decision must be stimulated in
terms of:
     [1] being emotive;
     [2] generating a decision;
     [3] generating the "correct" decision;
     [4] generating a decision that spawns action; and
     [5] the action needs to be of the kind and magnitude desired.
The emotional state of the audience determines the difficulty of and
probability of stimulating the desired emotive decision making.  Generosity
and active anger sprung naturally from the aftermath of the WTC terror.  As
part of their job, Bush et al. have attempted to "manage" the current
emotional state.  But, they have fumbled badly the avoidance of misdirected
animosity (e.g., attack USA Arabs as contrasted with "those" Arabs).  Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson fumbled it so badly that they may be permanently
damaged.

The effectiveness of iconography is reduced if its use is obvious.  Muzak
is not "muzak" if you are aware of the song being played.  The clothing of
the emperor was very obvious on Falwell and Robertson.

The pop culture professors have the largest pallet of icons and are the
most adept at painting a compelling iconography for the stimulation of the
desired emotive decision making.

Did you think Ronald Reagan was the great communicator because of his
acting experience?  True, but not the whole truth.  He starred most often
in DoD films during WWII.  Michael Deaver is a master iconographer and
Reagan was a consummate practitioner.  Together, they were the Great
Communicator.

Before you pooh-pooh this, (assuming you have a sense of history) let me
ask one question:  "How many savings bonds do you own?"  Regrettably,
iconography has become the mainstay of high money electoral politics since
"The Selling of the President" Nixon.

++++++++++++++++++++

Comments?

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department
College of Business Administration
Roskens Hall 502
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha  NE  68182
[log in to unmask]    (402) 554 - 2823 voice