I thought I sent this, but it hasn't shown up, so if this is a re-post, sorry.
--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Esentialy we seem to agree on the facts and how > things have played out. What > we disagree on was the appropriatness of the actions > that were taken concerning "spin". > > As such I would like to continto focus more closely > on this part, if you don't mind. <rubs hands together gleefully> Talking about talking? Oh, goody! > What I find amazing is that I am allways on the > other side of this dicotomy > when it comes to person-to-person communication. You touched upon this in an earlier post. > At times I wish people would just get the Gist of > what I other mean and not > pick apart the details which are often due to > misspeaking. It's not allways > that one don't know, sometimes one might just pull > out the wrong words. What I notice about email, as much as I enjoy the List, is that as _conversation_ it is lacking ~1/4+ (I am _so_ guessing this figure!) of the communication that occurs in face-to-face interactions. Body language, facial expression and tone-of-voice can enhance, reinforce, shade/nuance, and even reverse or negate the words spoken. Emoticons are a pale shadow of this vibrant non-verbal signaling. For me especially, both by nature (I have 'always' been empathic) and training (observation is vital to medical personnel), this void hampers my ability to understand what is actually *meant* rather than just what is being *written.* And of course reading posts while sleep-deprived or stressed-out doesn't help either. :P Somewhat tangentially: regarding your 'opposite-sidedness' in person-to-person communication: how are you at interpreting the desires/intentions/forthcoming actions of domestic animals (dogs, cats etc.), whose communication is of course totally non-verbal? (but not non-vocal) Or getting them to understand yours? > At the same time, I hold no negative assment of Bush > et. al. for spinning as I > see spinning a requirment to communicate with and > perswade the American > public. The emergent properties of this appears > controdictory. "Listen to > what I mean not what I say" "Listen to what I say > not what it sounds like I > mean". The key to the differnece is in the use of > logic and recognizing > mistakes rather than recognizing spin. As you said earlier, many people seem to be too lazy, distracted or uncritical of what they hear and read. I don't know how to correct that except by teaching critical thinking in school (I suppose some private schools do this). So one question is, should our government look upon its constituency as PT Barnum would, or as sheep to be led, or wolves who are content to follow-the-leaders but might turn upon them and tear them up if sufficiently angered? Transparency and accountability lessen the State's predatory abilities; both of these principles have been under attack by the current admin, IMO. Which in turn has led to my distrust of their motives in just about every arena. One of the dangers to 'the spinners' is that if *enough* people become aware of excessive manipulative spin, they might revile and attack those who twist critical truth. Or disbelieve *anything* the spin-mongers say because of the prior perceived manipulation(s). In looking at health-related studies, one has to be aware of the bias(es) of the investigating group or institution, who funded it, and what agenda(s) they have. Of course we don't call it "spin," but those who attempt to suppress data or retrospectively change parameters of their study are castigated if/when the misdirection is discovered. As well they ought to be. So one of *my* fundamental precepts is that in matters of great import, presentation of data and conclusions therefrom needs and ought to be unbiased, with interpretation(s) clearly stated as such. <wry aside> Working with a law office has been...interesting. (and these are non-advertising, 'take a case only if it's clearly winable' kind of guys) ;} Now in non-vital matters, "white lies" and "spin" are to be expected -- frequently I still find it annoying, but must admit to using both! > I am interested in your take on person to person > comunication, what you think > would have been the most appropriate action taken by > Bush et. al., and how > the spin doctors from their oposition could have > been delt with without > resorting themselves to any degree of "spin"/ First part: answered, at least partially, above. I do think that a certain degree of "white lying/spin" is necessary to keep social interactions smoother. Frex: a friend, obviously pleased with her new purchase, asks you at a party how you like her new dress. Do you say , "All those ruffles - I'm thinking: "potato chips," and that shade of yellow makes you look like a zombie!" or "Oh, so Victorian is back "in" now? You know, I think that green&blue scarf of yours would *really* contrast nicely with the yellow..." But if you're shopping with her, you can say when she tries it on, "Mmm, I don't think it does anything good for your shoulders....nah, not a keeper." Yup, spin is needed here fer sure! ;) Second part: I've given my 'ideal actions taken' in several prior posts; in "DebbiWorld" things would have been done much more diplomatically from the beginning of his Admin! ;) <serious> After 9-11, there was so much goodwill and sympathy for the US; here was a chance for Bush to reverse his prior arrogance and isolationism, to say 'we need your help - your ideas, your intelligence - to make sure this doesn't happen again to any country.' Now that does have some spin, particularly WRT the "not again" part -- because terrorists will strike (and have struck, frex Bali) in the future. Under-the-table arm-wrenching might have convinced France, Germany, Russia to be more supportive - or at least stand aside. I think there would have been a reasonable chance for this to work, given the fact that a good resolution *did* get passed despite the hostility these countries had towards the Bush Admin last fall. If it didn't, then report how their economic interests in Iraq have contributed to major suffering for the Iraqi people and others (although perhaps that wasn't done because of the backfire potential WRT US involvement/support of Iraq in the '80's [1]). Or state with noble conviction that 'now we understand all too well what you in Europe/the Middle East/wherever have suffered from terrorist attacks; we did not, before. And we will not allow a few to keep us -or you- in the role of victim. Our strength will serve as a bulwark between those who support terrorists, and the innocent of the world. We will go were they hide, and root them out..." etc etc etc, enforce the Resolution etc <grimace> But I still haven't seen convincing evidence that Iraq was a direct threat to the US. Third part: I'm truly not trying to cop-out here, but I didn't hear what groups like ANSWER (was that it?) said, except for snippets on this List, so I can't address this adequately. If anyone knows a site listing the major 'spins,' I'll at least read it. Offhand, showing one's nobility, self-sacrifice and concern for the 'innocent of the world' ought to go a long way to countering unfavorable spin. But having hospitals looted while the Ministry of Oil was protected does *not* help WRT the 'Blood for Oil' angle! Debbi who can spin as well as the next person... ;) [1] I'm still surprised that no-one (IIRC) commented on my posting Congressional Hearing evidence of US support of the Iraqi bioweapons capability, including training an Iraqi scientist at the CDC... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
