Conversations in Communication

sadly very true

2006-11-21T08:05:00.000-08:00

stupid emo kids

2006-11-21T08:04:00.000-08:00

Fox 'news' yeah right.... news... bahahahah

2006-11-12T20:59:00.001-08:00

F*** Fox News

2006-11-12T20:59:00.000-08:00

Dr Sevigny wrote about the concentration of the media in the hands of a few large, multinational corporations (Sevigny, 1). Being a political science student, I could not help but think of Fox News. I feel that Fox News clearly exemplifies this type of corporation. From my own personal experience I find Fox News is clearly bias toward the Republican party* and President George W. Bush. There are many video clips on Youtube which show the ridiculously bias nature of Fox News, but I chose one which on the surface appears to be very legitimate. It depicts a well mannered and seemingly intelligent Fox News reporter interviewing what appears to be a female with mental disabilities. I feel this clips shows in two regards just how bias this particular media outlet is.

Firstly, there is obviously a mismatch in terms of intelligence and possibly sanity between the reporter and the interviewee. A legitimate news outlet would have only competent and qualified guests who can properly articulate their arguments. The lady interviewed is anything but. Her credentials and educational background are not stated and for all the viewers know she could be anyone. She appears to be either delusional or mentally ill. The interviewer on the other hand, appears to be at least university educated and very knowledgeable. He appears exceedingly rational and deliberate. It seems to me there is no competition between the two. On any different subject, the host would easily out maneuver the guest mentally and rationally. It appears as though the matchup has been constructed to reinforce Fox News’ ultra conservative, pro Republican views.

Secondly, the presentation of the clip suggests extreme bias. It is presented to the viewer in a strictly rational, deliberate and serious way. Fox news would have you believe it is the epitome of investigative journalism and a model for cable news. It is, in reality, a mockery. The piece is so obviously bias and skewed toward the views of the Republican party* that is laughable. An example of this is the host referring the interviewee as ‘nuts’. This alone suggests that this story is certainly not newsworthy and should instead belong on Jerry Springer or other ‘reality’ based daytime TV. It also doesn’t help Fox’s case that Dick Cheney requests Fox News to be on every TV which is in his presence.

* In accordance with Dr. Sevigny’s point, Microsoft Office reports that ‘Republican party’ should have an uppercase P in party. It offers no such correction for ‘Democrat’ or ‘Democratic’ party.

Sevigny, Alex. “Lecture NO 15” Communication Studies 1A03. McMaster University. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~sevigny/lecture11.2004.rtf (November 12, 2006, 2006).

the proof!

2006-11-05T17:54:00.000-08:00

The "In Crowd" or is it? (CCB 3)

2006-11-05T17:23:00.000-08:00

MTV, the ubiquitous American television network, is currently promoting a new show entitled “The In Crowd”. The program showcases the lives of a group of trendy, popular teenagers who live in New York City. I find its title misleading, as in reality it is not about a crowd at all. This can be shown quite clearly when analyzed using the concepts introduced by Le Bon and Dr. Sevigny.

Watching MTV’s trailer on YouTube gives the impression that the people featured are part of a broader social class, with many members and a set ideology that is embraced by all its members. According to LeBon, this would likely be considered a crowd, if it were true (Sevigny 1). Its own tagline of ‘What would you do to get in?’ makes it fairly clear that for entry into this crowd, you must embrace its cultural and social norms and forego your own. MTV seems to imply that because these people associate with each other, they constitute a crowd. According to Le Bon, this notion is utterly false. It takes more than just association to make a crowd (Sevigny 1).

Further missing from this group of people is a collective set of “emotions, sentiments and ideas” (Sevigny 1) taking one direction. According to Le Bon, this is essential in order for them to be considered a crowd. It’s obvious from the trailer that these people operate with a fair degree of autonomy. Just looking at their diverse appearances indicates they have a high level of personal choice, something which is not found in crowds (Sevigny 1).

The way the show is presented to the audience shows quite obviously that this ‘crowd’ is not one at all. Each cast member is given equal time by the producers. What this implies is that there is no suggestibility involved. It makes it clear that there is no leader, no ‘star’ and it tautologically follows that there is no mental unity between members, something LeBon states is necessary for them to be considered a crowd (Sevigny 1). As each member is making their own decisions, they are not susceptible to suggestion. This is a key trait found in crowds.

When examining this show critically, it becomes obvious what is going on. MTV is attempting to induce a real crowd by falsely portraying an individualistic group as some sort of cohesive crowd. They are simply playing on the social notion of the ‘in crowd’, and perpetuating an absurd cultural construction. Their show is not about a crowd at all, but rather a group of ordinary people.

Sevigny, Alex. “LECTURE NO 12” Communication Studies 1A03. McMaster University. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~sevigny/lecture12.rtf (November 5, 2006).

STAY THE COURSE !@#$

2006-10-29T19:16:00.000-08:00

Language and domination

2006-10-29T18:51:00.000-08:00

In lecture, Dr. Sevigny talked about the idea of language being used to dominate certain people (Sevigny, 1). This idea, originatinig from Fairclough, is something I notice every day. Two examples of this spring to mind immediately. The first (and most natural, considering I am a poli-sci major) is the language used by George W. Bush. His language tactics are nothing new when you examine politicians of days gone by. His use of rhetoric is frequent and its efficacy is considerable (assuming you are part of his neo-conservative fanbase). The story today which caught my eye was this one. Bush's use of language is central to his efforts to control the United States of America. I mean, people wouldn't be voting for him if he was saying "it's goin' really well, goin' really well..." in regards to the war in Iraq. Nor would they vote or endorse him if he was saying that Iraq is essentially in a state of civil war. Bush knows this, and chooses his words accordingly. Time points this out in their article. I feel his change in language from "stay the course" to "constantly changing tactics to meet the situation on the ground." is based soley on his desire to have his country behind him, supporting him and allowing him to control them. It makes him sound smart, competant and on the ball in regards to a situation that in all reality he knows marginally more about than the average person.

The other instance that I notice this profoundly is when I'm out at the bar. Specifically, I was in London this weekend and went to several bars and parties. I didn't know a whole lot of people, so naturally you tend to make assumptions and judgements when you meet them in large part based on their language. I was also acutely aware of the fact that they were likely judging me on the same thing. In my opinion, I felt that the people I met who were in college or not in university had 'poorer' language than those that were. I felt superior to them and got a vibe that they respected me, based pretty much on the type of language I was using. The words that were used, the structure of the dialogue and the tone of voice all played a factor. While I can't speak precisley about them, I can speak precisley about myself. I found myself drawn to people who were using 'better' language. By better, I mean more formal, with correct sentence structure and without the heavy use of vernacular. Every conversation I had was discreetly an excersize in control
control, one way or the other. It's interesting how much more I notice it now that I have been
consciously made aware of it.

An excellent communicator!

2006-10-25T12:04:00.000-07:00

2006-10-22T17:32:00.000-07:00

I was reading Melina's blog today and was interested by her last post. She wrote about social engineering, which is something I have seen done first hand. When I saw it, it was used by computer hackers. They would call corporate IT departments asking for confidential information. By simply sounding official, they would usually succeed. This is very similar to the question posed by Dr. Sevigny. He asked “How would you know when your telephone is broken, that the man who comes to your front door is a representative for Bell?”(Sevigny 1). Simply put, you do not.

In the case of social engineering, it is simply manipulating one's communication to achieve a goal. It relies on a precise understanding of the communication protocols and conventions used. Melina wrote about how people who social engineer just talk to each other. I think this can be taken a step further. They communicate in accepted and expected fashion on a number of levels. Last week we learned about non-verbal communication. From my own experieince, this plays a crucial role. Someone who is social engineering does not want their voice to be shaky or nervous sounding. They also don't want to be sweating buckets when they talk to a security guard in an office building. I think that to be a successful social engineer, you need to communicate in the 'proper' way, on all different levels of communication.

But if this is the case, how can you stop it? I do not believe you can. If there is any trust put into a human in the communication channel, it is prone to be socially engineered. But as all social engineers are communicating themselves, by using critical thinking, we can catch on to all but the best. By looking at their communication, both verbal and non-verbal, we get cues as to their real intent. Not using the correct phraseology, terminology, voice inflection or even body language are dead giveaways. I find it interesting that I am able to look at this in this light. It's interesting to see the course concepts very precisely accounting for communication phenomena that I have seen in the past. I feel that with this example, the course has taken my level of comprehnsion about the topic to a new and more comprehensive level.

Here are some interesting links and commentary about social engineering:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1527
-Excellent article on social engineering , from a hacker perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2c1hKowfg
-Another university student's perspective on social engineering

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Waz8Nmc7zps
-A humours take on when the communication process goes askew while social engineering

2006-10-16T18:59:00.001-07:00

2006-10-16T18:59:00.000-07:00

After watching him talk on television, I decided to do my next blog on the language used by George W. Bush. To be more specific, I decided to contrast the language he uses when communicating with his ‘equals’ or peers, with the language he uses to address the general public. The two clips I chose to use were of Bush talking privately to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and of Bush talking to the public after the attacks of September 11th.

Many of Dr. Sevigny’s points can be clearly seen in Bush’s speech, for example the use of symbolism and emotive language to convey a message (Sevigny 1). When Bush is addressing the nation, he uses alot of each. Words and phrases such as ‘evil’, ‘enemy’, ‘bravery’, ‘great people’ and ‘foundation of America’ are laced with symbolism and designed to evoke emotion. His language portrays the aura of calm determination, while at the same time appealing to people’s emotions for support. His reference to America being like a building and quoting from the Bible are deliberate linguistic ploys, designed to make people agree with him by playing to their emotions. It is also worthwhile to point out that he carefully uses the words ‘we’ and ‘I’. He primarily uses ‘we’, as he is appealing to people as one of them. He wishes to be considered a member of their group. He uses the word ‘I’ when he is seeking to show power, trying to establish control and convey ownership for what he has done.

Contrasting this with the other clip is very interesting and serves to validate Dr. Sevigny’s assertions, namely that language conveys affiliation and responsibility. When he talks to Tony Blair, his speech is much less formal and not nearly as symbolic, indicating they are already affiliated as peers. He is not looking for acceptance but instead just making conversation with his peer. His use of slang rather than formalities demonstrates this too. I feel he is deliberately using this to convey a message of unity and cooperation between the two leaders and avoids using ‘I’ because he fears it will inflame tensions and be divisive.

Bush is a master at using different language on different people. He has to be to be successful as a politician. For me I don’t buy his act. I think that to win me over, he would need to use the same language he uses for his peers with me. This way I could get a sense of who he really is, not just who he wants me to think he is.

Sevigny, Alex. “Lecture NO 5” Communication Studies 1A03. McMaster University. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~sevigny/lecture5.rtf (October 15, 2006).

2006-10-15T17:55:00.000-07:00

2006-10-15T16:45:00.000-07:00

After I prepared my presentation on non-verbal communication, I came across an excellent example of where paying attention to non-verbal communication was very helpful. I was watching a clip on CNN of Dennis Hastert. He is the Republican House Majority Leader who is under fire after one of his subordinates sent inappropriate messages to a congressional page. The reporter questioning him was asking about what he knew of the scandal and when he knew about it. It was amazing to me to see how many different channels of expression Mr. Hastert was using. When I compared Mr. Hastert’s non-verbal communication with his verbal communication, I came across completely contradictory messages.

Dr. Sevigny describes these contradictory messages as one of the functions of non-verbal communication (Sevigny 1). If you look closely at the video, you can see that Mr. Hastert’s non-verbal communication is seeking to undermine his verbal communication. For example, Mr. Hastert’s posture is very poor. He is slouched over, looking almost downward as he speaks. He looks uncomfortable and awkward, almost like he is nervous or tense. This seems to contradict his message that he has done nothing wrong and that he is comfortable with his decisions. The non-verbal communication displayed by his face and eyes also seems to verify this. He has a hard time looking at the camera and shows little expression in his face, almost as though he is trying to hide something.

Two other notable types of non-verbal communication serve to undermine Mr. Hastert’s message. His speech is unnatural and forced. It seems to project the idea that Mr. Hastert has prepared many of his responses in advance, possibly with his lawyers or PR people. This is further emphasized by points of disfluency. While most of his remarks appear rehearsed, he is caught off guard by a select few questions. This seems to indicate that he is having to lie or measure his words somewhat, which is contrary to what he is saying. His use of time seems to project the same type of message. Mr. Hastert claims to not remember certain key events or not know when exactly they happened.

While Dennis Hastert’s verbal communication seems to indicate that he is a fine, upstanding senator who had no idea there was a large scandal going on under his supervision, his non-verbal communication exposes what I consider to be the truth. That he did in fact know of the scandal, that he possibly did not do enough to stop it and that he is lying to the public. Thanks non-verbal communication!

Sevigny, Alex. “Adler Chapter 5” Communication Studies 1A03. McMaster University. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~sevigny/lecture9.rtf (October 15, 2006).

2006-10-08T09:01:00.000-07:00

On Norms in Groups

2006-10-08T08:28:00.000-07:00

After I heard the lecture on groups, I could not think of an example more current and compelling than the Amish people of Pennsylvania. In the world I live in, groups is a tough thing to define. Dr. Sevigny has highlighted some of the
traits of groups in his lecture but I find that in my life, my social groups don't exactly fit any of his categories. Or at least it is hard to see sometimes. I find that I am in many groups, most in the real world and some online or virtual. I am in communication with friends who live hundreds if not thousands of miles away. I dont talk to them face to face, nor do I speak to them on the phone. Instead I email, text message or MSN. I often find myself 'communicating' through reading people's MSN away messages, their forwarded gag emails or other tacit type communication. For me, the idea of the group is very fluid, dynamic and virtual.

But when I saw the Amish in the news, the idea of the group really hit home. They exhibit so many of the traits talked about by Dr. Sevigny and they are all so vividly clear. The video clip at the top of the page really reinforces this idea to me. It talks about the 'group attitude' of forgiveness. In all the media coverage of this tragic and senseless event, I have yet to hear one member stray from the norm of forgiving. I have seen coverage from CNN, BBC, NBC, FOX and the CBC. All did their own investigative work, speaking to different sources. And yet all the different members, despite their role or position in hierarchy, all had the same message:
Forgiveness.

This adherance to the social and procedural norms of the group was very striking and much different than in my own life. To me when I see the Amish interacting and communicating like this it appears to me as being a simplified example. Simplified perhaps, but still very much working and functioning. Very efficient. It helped me better understand some of the groups I'm in. Family (it is thanksgiving after all), Friends, Business Partners, Romantic... the list goes on. Despite the different shape some of the norms and factors in my group take compared to the Amish, they do still occur. Maybe we are not unlike the Amish.... however strange that sounds.

The Importance of Critical Analysis when Communicating

2006-10-01T16:59:00.000-07:00

Communication can often be confusing and subtle, with the true message lying below the surface and requiring human interpretation to decipher. It is important to critically analyze all communication in order to determine its relevant message. As different forms of communication can contain multiple messages or their single message may have very different meanings to different recipients, critical analysis is essential in order to work out just what the correct message is.

This idea can be vividly illustrated when looking at the field of steganography. Steganography is the practice of hiding a communication inside of another communication (Johnson and Jajodia 1). This includes such things as invisible inks, microdots (nearly microscopic pieces of film with messages on them) and more recently, digitally imbedding messages inside of picture files on a computer. Digital steganography is a shining example of how critical analysis is essential to determining the correct message.

When one employs digital steganography, a message is encoded into a seemingly unrelated piece of communication using special software. Commonly this is done by placing a message inside of an image file. When the file is opened, an uncritical viewer sees only the actual image, say of a cat or dog. The intended recipient does something completely different. Using a software decoder, the recipient loads the image and the ‘real’ message appears. To a political dissident or potential terrorist this real message is vital and missing it would be to suffer a complete communication failure. Without critical analysis, the dissident does not receive the message, nor does law enforcement find the hidden message on the terrorist’s computer. Without critical analysis, it would be impossible to communicate with a high degree of efficacy.

Johnson, Neil and Sushil Jajodia. “Exploring Steganography: Seeing the Unseen”. IEEE Computer February 1998, vol. 31, no. 2: 26-34.

test

2006-09-25T21:09:00.000-07:00

test