 |
| Hillary Clinton, left, and Donald Trump (NY Times, Associated Press) |
Our current presidential campaign cycle has exhausted and grated the nerves of many Americans, with coverage of major party candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton occupying talking heads on television and radio in a 24-hour news cycle. Repetition of those sound bites made me consider not only the speeches and speaking styles of the two candidates, but political speech in general in the digital age. The essay I will submit for my final will be researched and exploratory, and is intended to start a conversation rather than come to any hard and fast conclusions about the state of political speech today or its media coverage and reception by the public. Criticizing linguistically and in the contexts of history, political climate, party, and more, I will call out the tropes and tactics of political rhetoric today and the fact that little has changed since the 20th century.
 |
| Photo: NPR |
-Media literacy and politics: information push vs. information pull
-Ambient news: Several studies have found that Americans come across news while they are online doing other things, rather than seeking it out
“Online debates become personal, emotional, and irresolvable almost as soon as they begin.” -Andrew Sullivan
 |
| Cartoon by Joe Heller |
From Politics and the English Language, George Orwell (1946):
"Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."
Seeing as we are post-election I think it would be useful to compare the speeches Clinton and Trump made during the days leading up to the 4th. What were their last words, or phrases, or stories they used to resonate with their crowds so that they would vote for them. In addition Trump received a lot of votes from the Latino community and woman around the country which generated a lot of surprise, what did he say to garner their support? Hillary's concession speech is definitely something to look into!
ReplyDeleteAnother idea is to see how media outside of news networks and providers interpreted the speeches and the conclusion as to where they want to steer its viewers. Look through talk shows and other pseudo-political platforms.
ReplyDeleteSince we are post election, it may be a good idea to analyze Hillary's concession speech or even Trump's victory speech which had a very different tone than his previous speeches. I found that interesting since he spoke about unity instead of his usual hateful rhetoric.
ReplyDelete