DOCSLIB.ORG

Getting the Message Right

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Getting the Message Right 32 POLICY & SCIENCE Getting the message right How can climate communicators drive the behavioural changes that are needed if the planet is to avoid climate-related catastrophe? By Chris Rose, Director, Campaign Strategy Ltd it fell to the meteorologists. Do an internet search for ‘Inter-governmental Panel on ommunications expert Frank Luntz Climate Change’ (IPCC) and ‘World wrote a book in 2007 called Words Meteorological Organization’ (WMO) and CThat Work. Luntz popularised the use you find this explanation: of those widgets you see on TV where a live “In 1988, through a UN General audience turns a dial to say whether they like Assembly resolution entitled ‘Protection what a politician is saying or not. Political of global climate for present and future tacticians then use the audience’s response generations of mankind’, WMO and the to fine tune political messages. It’s at once UN Environmental Programme established both the crudest and most sophisticated sort the IPCC with the goals to: of communications design. And it generates O Assess available scientific information on the type of key insights that the scientists climate change in charge of climate communications have O Assess the environmental and socio- failed to adopt. economic impacts of climate change Luntz has become rich by advising lots of O Formulate response strategies”1 Fortune Top 500 companies. Who has been more successful at getting what they want in No mention of communication. Nor communications. It’s not for want of advice. recent decades: the climate community or does it seem that they anticipated what Thousands of blogs, articles and studies big business? would be required to achieve this intensely have shown why macro and micro-scale Scientists can be forgiven for apparently political task. communications intended to do something ignoring the insights of modern effective about climate could be better. communications research, even knowledge Communications science? For instance, do climate scientists talk that was already old when climate change I doubt that they teach much about about the fate of their children when they sprang onto the global political scene in cognitive psychology, advertising, marketing speak of the fate of the planet? Probably the late 1970s. Professional advocates and or politics at weather school. Things not. Do they seem worried or professionally campaigners have less excuse. But, largely like heuristics, framing and values. Not detached? In general they lack congruence: by accident, it was scientists who got put in surprisingly, the climatologists have proved they announce Armageddon but are not pole position. fabulously ill-equipped to deliver effective even packing their bags. Of all the people to be gifted with the climate communications. Unfortunately, the Luntz’s subtitle was It’s Not What You poisoned chalice of informing the global UN system has not moved on from the need Say, It’s What People Hear. He was right of population that humanity had finally over- to establish the science (which it did fairly course. If a scientist refers three times to stretched the ability of the planet to cope well) to the need to create the reaction. uncertainties, people conclude that she or with our activities – that our destruction of Would you ask the likes of Frank Luntz to he is uncertain. Would you act on uncertain forests, our pollution of oceans and, above create a climate model, let alone tomorrow’s advice? Well, no. When a research scientist all, our burning of coal, oil and gas meant local weather forecast? Of course not. Yet is asked what needs to happen next, and she that mass extinctions, droughts, storms, climate scientists seem to think they can or he says ‘more research’, do you conclude floods, death and disaster were on the way – ignore even the most basic rules of public it’s time for action? Well, no. CLIMATE 2020 POLICY & SCIENCE 33 © Spencer Platt/Getty Images Platt/Getty © Spencer This, fundamentally, is why so much Change (UNFCCC), institutionalised Activists protest against the influence of billionaire and Republican financier David Koch, whose company, communications effort intended to spur a frame of action waiting for scientific Koch Industries Inc., has provided strong financial action has not been as effective as it could uncertainty to be resolved. As scientific support to climate sceptic groups and lobbied congress have been (and disastrously so). Most knowledge is always provisional, this was a against climate action. The sceptic lobby has had a far more professional approach to communications climate communications have not been recipe for procrastination, unintentionally evidence-based: they have been amateurish. underpinned by ‘good practice’ in science Luntz is notorious among climate and in the media. Scientists are trained not conducted between 2011 and 2015 in 15 campaigners for his 2003 memo to the to make definitive claims. The BBC was so countries including China, the US, the climate-sceptic US Bush administration: devoted to the principle of balance that until Philippines, Brazil and Russia shows that “Voters believe that there is no consensus 2014 it had a policy of presenting climate this is no longer a real issue, even if it still about global warming within the scientific change as an undecided, open scientific preoccupies the media in countries like the community. Should the public come to question in which there were two sides. US and UK. believe that the scientific issues are settled, The fossil fuel industry exploited this In these surveys, people responded to their views about global warming will framing by funding climate sceptics to feed the statement ‘Climate change – I don’t change accordingly. Therefore, you need the instincts of institutions like the BBC. believe in it’ with a one-to-five scale from to continue to make the lack of scientific They did not need to win any arguments, ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. In all certainty a primary issue in the debate.”2 merely to extend the uncertainty. 15 countries, climate believers outnumbered This strategy proved devilishly effective. One legacy is the fixation of pollsters, sceptics, and in no country did ‘strong The UN system, in which the IPCC fed media and politicians with whether or scepticism’ (strongly agreeing) reach more scientific advice to the politicians in the not the public believes in climate change. than 16 per cent. In eight countries, people UN Framework Convention on Climate Recent analysis of representative surveys were also asked if they had noticed the CLIMATE 2020 34 POLICY & SCIENCE National attitudes to climate change: ‘I don’t believe in it’ 90 80 70 60 50 % disagree 40 agree neither 30 20 10 0 US UK SAF India Brazil Japan China Kenya Russia Turkey Thailand Australia Indonesia Argentina Philippines © Chris Rose/Greenpeace The blue bars represent ‘believers’, orange the It was segmented by motivational values, fuels (where is the summit on that?), ‘sceptics’. In all 15 countries surveyed belief in climate change far outweighed scepticism classifying responders as settlers (security for negotiating away carbon stockpiles driven), prospectors (esteem driven) and (resources and reserves) or stimulating pioneers (inner directed). major technologies (like electric cars or climate changing. In each case a majority These groups were then subdivided carbon capture and storage). Leaving these said yes. into 12 ‘values modes’. These real but to civil society and the markets alone is Such questions are not answered invisible groups have three different sets of overly optimistic. analytically but intuitively (distinguished by unconscious values and three versions of At a human level, climate-relevant Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel what is really true (and, therefore, common communications needs to be thoroughly Kahneman as System 2 – hard, analytical – sense). In all 15 countries, just two values professionalised – to reach the level of, and System 1 – easy, reflexive, unconscious). modes lead the climate believers and those say, the cosmetics industry. Have you seen This explains how many of those who said ready to act, while another two with opposed adverts in which 97 per cent from a sample they had noticed the climate changing also values are champions of scepticism and of 86 women say this hair or skin product said they did not believe in climate change. reluctant to act. works? Why do we need such scant analysis The same surveys asked about increasing In short, opinion about climate change to support such choices? Because we want to renewable energy as the main source of is not driven by the facts and analysis that believe. Nobody wants to believe in climate electricity. In all eight countries where scientists are (rightly) trained to deal in but catastrophe but many want to believe in the questions were asked, a majority agreed (in by deep human needs for safety, belonging solutions. most cases by over 70 per cent). and identity (settlers), for esteem of others Climate communicators need to forget So why are so many pollsters, the media and self-esteem (prospectors), or for ethics, about explaining climate change (people and even campaigners still focused on the holism, universalism and self-direction already agree) and instead use professionals belief question, even though sustaining that (pioneers). Where offers or propositions to drive behavioural change that delivers frame only helps their opponents? Perhaps match people’s underlying values, people real-world results, such as conversion to because one of the last global hold-outs of support them. Where they don’t, people electric cars. Climate scientists are not the climate scepticism is in the small goldfish ignore or reject them. Communicators need people to do this. Nor are politicians, but pond of the US Congress. Recent surveys to take account of this reality. they can provide the context, incentives show most Republican congresspeople and and resources. activists are still climate change sceptics, Where do we go from here? It’s time for a psychological makeover of even though their voters are not.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear
    ï . •,";,£ CASL M T. ^oÛNTAE À SUL'S, REVITA 1ENT, HASSLE- NT_ MAIN STR " \CCOUNTA ;, INNOVAT MLUE, CASL : REVITA JOVATh IE, CASL )UNTAE CO M M XIMEN1 VlTA • Ml ^re aW c^Pti ( °rds *cc Po 0 ^rof°>lish lu*t* >nk Lan <^l^ gua a ul Vic r ntz °ko Ono." - Somehow, W( c< Words are enorm i Jheer pleasure of CJ ftj* * - ! love laag^ liant about Words." gM °rder- Franl< Luntz * bril- 'Frank Luntz understands the power of words to move public Opinion and communicate big ideas. Any Democrat who writes off his analysis and decades of experience just because he works for the other side is making a big mistake. His les sons don't have a party label. The only question is, where s our Frank Luntz^^^^^^^™ îy are some people so much better than others at talking their way into a job or nit of trouble? What makes some advertising jingles cut through the clutter of our crowded memories? What's behind winning campaign slogans and career-ending political blunders? Why do some speeches resonate and endure while others are forgotten moments after they are given? The answers lie in the way words are used to influence and motivate, the way they connect thought and emotion. And no person knows more about the intersection of words and deeds than language architect and public-opinion guru Dr. Frank Luntz. In Words That Work, Dr. Luntz not only raises the curtain on the craft of effective language, but also offers priceless insight on how to find and use the right words to get what you want out of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Communication in Late-Night Comedy Television
    Fordham University Fordham Research Commons Student Theses 2015-Present Environmental Studies Fall 9-14-2020 Live From New York, It’s Environmental Science! Climate Change Communication in Late-Night Comedy Television Serena A. Ingram Follow this and additional works at: https://research.library.fordham.edu/environ_2015 Live From New York, It’s Environmental Science! Climate Change Communication in Late-Night Comedy Television Serena A. Ingram Abstract This thesis explores why traditional climate change communication often fails in the mainstream news media and how late-night comedy television circumvents these problems. These late-night shows provide humorous news coverage that holds politicians and the press accountable for enabling denialist rhetoric. The first chapter sources data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication to outline the issues of climate change and public understanding of climate science. The second chapter describes how rhetorical analysis can identify effective or ineffective climate communication strategies. It also discusses the emotional factors that surround climate change, and how humor strengthens communication and unifies individuals toward a common goal. The third chapter addresses the issue of politically spun news and information biases in climate reporting. It details how political figures influence news coverage of climate change and spin the news to reinforce their own agendas. The fourth chapter provides examples and analysis of climate change related segments from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, and Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update.” The fifth chapter applies the principles of late-night comedy and climate change communication to potential government policy and more mainstream television news.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Killers” in the News: Allegations Without Verification
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, JUNE 2012 “Job Killers” in the News: Allegations without Verification STUDY AUTHORS1 Peter Dreier, Ph.D. Christopher R. Martin, Ph.D. Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics Professor and Interim Head Chair, Urban & Environmental Policy Department Department of Communication Studies Occidental College University of Northern Iowa Phone: (323) 259-2913 FAX: (323) 259-2734 Phone: (319) 273-6118 FAX: (319) 273-7356 Website: http://employees.oxy.edu/dreier Website: http://www.uni.edu/martinc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “Job Killers” in the News: Allegations without Verification “…there’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again…and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.”2 -- Frank Luntz, Republican pollster A comprehensive study analyzes the frequency of the “job killer” term in four mainstream news media since 1984, how the phrase was used, by whom, and—most importantly— whether the allegations of something being a “job killer” were verified by reporters in their stories. The study’s key findings include the following: • Media stories with the phrase “job killer” spiked dramatically after Barack Obama was elected president, particularly after he took office. The number of stories with the phrase “job killer” increased by 1,156% between the first three years of the George W. Bush administration (16 “job killer” stories) and the first three years of the Obama administration (201 “job killer” stories). • The majority of the sources of stories using the phrase “job killer” were business spokepersons and Republican Party officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Role of Political Language in Rhode Island's Health Care Debate
    1 THE RHETORIC OF REFORM: EXAMINING THE ROLE OF POLITICAL LANGUAGE IN RHODE ISLAND’S HEALTH CARE DEBATE A dissertation presented by Kevin P. Donnelly to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Public and International Affairs Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts August 2009 2 THE RHETORIC OF REFORM: EXAMINING THE ROLE OF POLITICAL LANGUAGE IN RHODE ISLAND’S HEALTH CARE DEBATE by Kevin P. Donnelly ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public and International Affairs in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Northeastern University, August 2009 3 ABSTRACT Political language refers to the way in which public policy issues are portrayed, discussed, and ultimately perceived by the community at large. Focusing specifically on two case studies in Rhode Island—the efforts of two policy entrepreneurs to enact comprehensive health care reform, and Governor Donald Carcieri’s successful pursuit of a Medicaid “Global Waiver”—this thesis begins with a description of the social, political, and economic contexts in which these debates took root. Using a “framework of analysis” developed for this thesis, attention then centers on the language employed by the political actors involved in advancing health care reform, along with the response of lawmakers, organized interests, and the public. A major finding is that the use of rhetoric has been crucial to the framing of policy alternatives, constituency building, and political strategy within Rhode Island’s consideration of health care reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Journalistic Ethics and the Right-Wing Media Jason Mccoy University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Professional Projects from the College of Journalism Journalism and Mass Communications, College of and Mass Communications Spring 4-18-2019 Journalistic Ethics and the Right-Wing Media Jason McCoy University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/journalismprojects Part of the Broadcast and Video Studies Commons, Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Critical and Cultural Studies Commons, Journalism Studies Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Other Communication Commons McCoy, Jason, "Journalistic Ethics and the Right-Wing Media" (2019). Professional Projects from the College of Journalism and Mass Communications. 20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/journalismprojects/20 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Journalism and Mass Communications, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Professional Projects from the College of Journalism and Mass Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Journalistic Ethics and the Right-Wing Media Jason Mccoy University of Nebraska-Lincoln This paper will examine the development of modern media ethics and will show that this set of guidelines can and perhaps should be revised and improved to match the challenges of an economic and political system that has taken advantage of guidelines such as “objective reporting” by creating too many false equivalencies. This paper will end by providing a few reforms that can create a better media environment and keep the public better informed. As it was important for journalism to improve from partisan media to objective reporting in the past, it is important today that journalism improves its practices to address the right-wing media’s attack on journalism and avoid too many false equivalencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Center for Humane Technology | Your Undivided Attention Podcast Episode 30: the Courage to Connect
    Center for Humane Technology | Your Undivided Attention Podcast Episode 30: The Courage to Connect Tristan Harris: A day before the presidential inauguration, political pollster Frank Luntz asked a small group of voters to describe the United States in one word. Frank Luntz: Jim. Jim: Divided. Frank Luntz: Lisa. Lisa: Deceased. Frank Luntz: Deceased, oh my god. Lisa: Amen. Frank Luntz: Stephanie. Stephanie: Lost. Frank Luntz: Spencer. Spencer: Delusional. Frank Luntz: This is awful. This is awful. Tristan Harris: This is actually the polite part of the conversation. Speaker 7: You have people who have chosen to completely ignore facts and reason for fantasy and wild delusion. Tristan Harris: If you listen closely, you'll hear voters on the left and the right agree, yes, delusion is the problem. Speaker 8: Absolutely right. Speaker 9: 100% agree. Tristan Harris: And then you'll want to cover your ears. Speaker 9: Somebody please explain what facts you have that has not been [crosstalk 00:00:54]. Pamela: Well, you're not even listening. [crosstalk 00:00:57]. You're just blabbing. You're not even listening to anybody's response. [crosstalk 00:01:03]. You're not listening to anybody's response. [crosstalk 00:01:08]. Frank Luntz: Everybody stop. default_tc (Completed 03/04/21) Page 1 of 21 Transcript by Rev.com Center for Humane Technology | Your Undivided Attention Podcast Episode 30: The Courage to Connect Pamela: Did you go and listen to the Georgia hearing? Frank Luntz: Pamela stop. [Camile 00:01:16], everybody stop. [crosstalk 00:01:17]. Pamela: ..
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding American Politics and Public Opinion in 2019
    Understanding American politics and public opinion in 2019 A presentation by FRANK LUNTZ, one of America’s foremost political analysts and public opinion experts Using video and polling data, Frank Luntz will explore American attitudes and opinions on politics, economics, diplomacy, and culture. What: Talk & discussion When: Tuesday, June 18, 2019, 6:30 p.m. Where: Amerika Haus, Friedrich-Schmidt-Platz 2, 1010 Vienna R.S.V.P.: [email protected] Frank Luntz is one of the most experienced communication professionals in America today. The “Instant Response” focus group technique pioneered by Mr. Luntz has been profiled on 60 Minutes, Good Morning America (on Election Day), and on PBS’s award-winning Frontline. He has been a guest on virtually every talk show in America, including multiple appearances on The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher, as well as Meet the Press, Nightline, The Today Show, The PBS News Hour, and Face the Nation. He also was an Election Night commentator on CBS in 2016, having held similar responsibilities for Fox News and MSBC in previous elections. Dr. Luntz has written, supervised, and conducted more than 2,500 surveys, focus groups, ad tests, and dial sessions in more than two dozen countries and six continents over the past 20 years. His political knowledge and skills are recognized globally. Outside the U.S., he has served as an election consultant and commentator in Canada, Britain, Ireland, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Australia, Venezuela, and Ukraine. Frank Luntz is the author of the New York Times Best Sellers Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say it’s What People Hear, What Americans Really Want … Really, and WIN.
    [Show full text]
  • Educate, Involve & Mobilize for Peace and Justice
    Home Get Informed Actions & Events Get Involved News Room http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4241&method=full Calendar Flyers GOP to Bush: Keep Denying Climate Science Join SBM REPUBLICANS AIM FOR SOFTER, GREENER ENVIRONMENTAL Support SBM TALK About SBM South Bay Mobilization The New York Times, March 2, 2003 480 North First St, Suite 205 WASHINGTON -- Over the last six months, the Republican Party San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 998-8504 has subtly refocused its message on the environment, an issue Map to Office that a party strategist called "the single biggest vulnerability for the Republicans and especially for George Bush" in a E-mail: sbm@ memorandum encouraging the new approach. southbaymobilization.org Parking: The Republicans, as the memorandum advised them, have softened - On Empire St, or - If after 5pm, then park in their language to appeal to suburban voters, speaking out for the parking lot behind protecting national parks and forests, advocating investment Legal Aid Society Bldg. Park there anytime on in environmental technologies, and shifting emphasis to the weekends & holidays. future rather than the present. In interviews, Republican politicians and their aides said they agreed with the strategist, Frank Luntz, that it was important to pay attention to what his memorandum, written before the November elections, called "the environmental communications battle." In his memorandum, Luntz urges that the term "climate change" be used instead of "global warming," because "while 'global warming' has catastrophic communications attached to it, 'climate change' sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge." Also, he wrote, "conservationist" conveys a "moderate, reasoned, common-sense position" while "environmentalist" has the "connotation of extremism." President George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Our American States | an NCSL Podcast
    Our American States | An NCSL Podcast The Our American States podcast— produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures —is where you hear compelling conversations that tell the story of America’s state legislatures, the people in them, the politics that compel them, and the important work of democracy. You can subscribe through iTunes or Google Play. Frank Luntz, Polling and Politics | Episode 8 | April 27, 2017 Welcome to Our American States, a podcast of meaningful conversations that tell the story of America’s state legislatures, the people in them, the politics that compel them, and the important work of democracy. For the National Conference of State Legislatures, I’m your host Gene Rose. In this episode of Our American States, we’re going to take a look at national and state politics from the viewpoint of someone who has been in the trenches through several elections, and someone who is not pleased with the current condition of government relations. We’ll discuss the results from a national poll he has conducted regarding the public’s faith in government at various levels, his advice for candidates running for public office, and what the public’s expectation is for federal and state officeholders. We’re joined today on “Our American States” by renowned national pollster, Frank Luntz, who is the news analyst and contributor to CBS News and the Fox News Channel. That alone, Frank, is quite an accomplishment, where people’s viewpoints on the media are as polarized as their political viewpoints. Frank: It’s sometimes tough, but if your focus is on the facts and on the truth, and your responsibility is to analyze public opinion, it’s not as difficult as it might sound.
    [Show full text]
  • Frank Luntz Pollster and Communications Expert
    Frank Luntz Pollster and Communications Expert Frank Luntz is one of the most honored communication professionals in America today. "The Nostradamus of pollsters,” said Sir David Frost, while Time magazine named him one of “50 of America’s most promising leaders aged 40 and under,” and Newsweek magazine identified him as No. 24 on their American Power Elite survey. He finished 87th in a Time magazine global poll of the “most influential people in the world.” Frank was named one of the four “Top Research Minds” by Business Week, “the hottest pollster” by The Boston Globe, “pollster extraordinaire ” by the BBC, and was a winner of The Washington Post’s coveted “Crystal Ball” award for being the most accurate pundit, and “the person you turn to for the truth” by Bloomberg News. His focus groups have become so influential that Barack Obama had this to say following the PBS presidential debate: “When Frank Luntz invites you to talk to his focus group, you talk to his focus group.” More media outlets have turned to Dr. Luntz to understand the hopes and fears of Americans than to any other political pollster. The “Instant Response” focus group technique he pioneered has been profiled on 60 Minutes, Good Morning America (on Election Day), the BBC, and on PBS’s award-winning Frontline. He has been a guest on virtually every talk show in America, including multiple appearances on Meet the Press, Nightline, The Today Show , HBO, The PBS News Hour, Face the Nation, Good Morning Britain, and Bill Maher. For more than a decade, Frank was the “Focus Group Czar” for Fox News.
    [Show full text]
  • Informational Materials
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 01/28/2021 3:48:52 PM 01/06/21 Wednesday This material is distributed by Ghebi LLC on behalf of Federal State Unitary Enterprise Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, and additional information is on file with the Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia. Trump Calls on Protesters to Stay Peaceful as US Capitol Building Stormed by Mary F. US President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on protesters to stay peaceful after they stormed the Capitol Building to protest against the Electoral College certification process, which would definitively establish Joe Biden as the next president of the US. "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" Trump tweeted Wednesday after both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate went into a recess after Trump supporters breached security barricades and entered the Capitol. According to Reuters, Trump issued the tweet urging protesters to remain calm after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) urged Trump to release such a statement. In a separate video message, Trump called on protesters to respect law and order and go home. However, in his message, Trump still claimed that the election was fraudulent. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6. 2021 Trump has yet to concede to Biden, restating during a Wednesday rally outside the White House that he would never concede due to alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election. "We will never give up, we will never concede. You don't concede when there's theft involved," Trump said.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion, Thinly Sliced and Served Hot
    International Journal of Communication 9(2015), 21–45 1932–8036/20150005 Public Opinion, Thinly Sliced and Served Hot GORDON R. MITCHELL University of Pittsburgh, USA Perception Analyzer dial-meter technology has been increasingly deployed to track and display aggregate plots of focus group members’ real-time responses to argumentation in televised political debates convened in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere. This article examines data cited to establish the Perception Analyzer’s reliability and validity; traces the tool’s historical roots to a Cold War machine nicknamed “Little Annie”; explores recent public controversies surrounding the tool’s use; and reflects on how real-time dial metering shapes the political terrain through a hidden curriculum that teaches contestable notions of public debate spectatorship and citizenship. Keywords: Theodor Adorno, argumentation, debate, dial meter, Frank Luntz, Perception Analyzer, political communication, presidential elections, public argument, public opinion polling, public deliberation, social psychology, rhetoric On June 3, 2007, as part of an ambitious pilot test of advanced communication technology, the Cable News Network (CNN) online broadcast of the Democratic primary presidential debate in New Hampshire enmeshed its audience in a visual cornucopia. Below the live video feed carrying the candidates’ remarks, Internet surfers saw an aesthetically gripping graph purporting to show audience reactions to the argumentation as it unfolded, in real time. This novelty proved popular with viewers and television executives alike, fueling expanded use of continuous response measurement (CRM) overlay technology in the 2008 and 2012 U.S. presidential election cycles (see Figure 1; Schill & Kirk, 2009, pp. 158–159).
    [Show full text]