Saturday, January 24, 2004
1/24/04
RE: Rhetorically Incompetent Howard Dean Coverage
To the Editors,
i.e., Dear Rhetorically Incompetent Press (RIP):
Howard Dean's -- and America's -- only problem
is a media that is incompetent to mediate
the public conversation -- rendering a
nation of citizens unfit for democracy.
BOKE
Santa Monica, CA
BIO: BOKE has written a thousand rhetorical sonnets
since the 2000 election fiasco, and is currently
attempting to finagle himself a spot on Showtime's
"American Candidate" reality-tv presidential contest.
NOTE: The 1000 sonnets may be one-click software-
verified to be of correct Shakespearean sonnet form
at www.boke.com You may auto-verify your own
www.artistofideas.com Yes, your own! {smile}
A LONGER VERSION OF THIS LETTER FOLLOWS BELOW "CONTEXT" NOTES
=== CONTEXT OF THIS LETTER ===
NOTE 1: I write this as an expert in Rhetoric and
someone who has written a thousand
Shakespearean-form rhetorical sonnets
since the Election 2000 fiasco (and
an A.I. web program to one-click verify
their compliance with correct form --
should proof be needed that "thousand"
is not just hyperbolic noise. {smile} )
NOTE 2: Within the field of Rhetoric
"bullshit" is a formal term which contrasts
with "lies." Where "lies" are false, "bullshit"
is a matter of selecting and emphasizing
fragments of facts to lead hearers
to a false conclusion. (E.G. The Bush
administration is usually careful to
transmit "bullshit" rather than "lies.")
NOTE 3: Since Newspapers do not
currently allow the word "bullshit"
to appear in print, it would follow
that journalists cannot mediate it.
Hence, our current national problem:
a citizenry unfit for democracy -- due to
a "rhetorically incompetent" press.
=== THE LETTER (LONG VERSION) ==
Dear Rhetorically Incompetent Press (R.I.P.)
Dean's only problem is journalists who
are not educated sufficiently in Rhetoric
to mediate bullshit.
Let me rephrase that: America's only problem
is a media that is incompetent to mediate
the public conversation -- rendering a
nation of citizens unfit for democracy.
When John Quincy Adams initiated the
Boylston Chair of Oratory and Rhetoric
at Harvard, there was some understanding
of what those words mean.
Now, the Boylston Chair is merely a
professorship reserved for poets
(artists of language without meaningful
public consequence).
My point? If even Harvard doesn't
understand what Rhetoric means, it is
not surprising that journalists don't.
UNFORTUNATELY, journalistic analysis of
"rhetorical events" (and that is what
election campaigns are made of) is
framed as reporting of the facts --
but without rhetorical competence,
the coverage I see is mostly bullshit.
My most sincere recommendation
is that you send your poorly-educated
young journalists (especially ones from
ivy league universities, because they
are more arrogant in their ignorance) to
get some advanced training in rhetoric.
In the meantime, have them start composing
rhetorical sonnets. Not poetry -- but straight
talk in Shakespearean sonnet form. Attempt
to compress their story into 14 lines, 140
syllables. The constraint will increase both
their rhetorical skill -- and expand their
imagination: a necessary component if
you want truly expert analysis of the
rhetorical events that dominate the news.
(Their attempts may be verified as
conforming to correct form {smile/no joke}
at http://www.artistofideas.com/ -- without cost.)
{smile}
BOKE
=== THE LETTER (SHORT VERSION/REPLAY {smile}) ==
Dear Editors:
Howard Dean's -- and America's -- only problem
is a media that is incompetent to mediate
the public conversation -- rendering a
nation of citizens unfit for democracy.
BOKE
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Rhetorically incompetent JOURNALISM:
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES TO THE LOS ANGELES TIMES... ... ...
|
BULLSHIT-SPREADERS FOR BULLSHIT-EATERS
|
Thursday, January 15, 2004
A "strange" suggestion from an ORATOR ...
Posted by forensicpoetry on January 15, 2004 - 09:01.
(This is not a classroom exercise, but something to suggest to your students as an effective process for "inventing" their speeches ...)
PREAMBLE: {smile}
Once upon a time (not long ago) I would have considered the following suggestion as insane, {smile} BUT as someone whose CA vanity licence plate reads "ORATOR" (and means that as Cicero would) I hereby share with you my own method of rhetorical preparation.
SUGGESTION:
To wrap your mind around the topic you've chosen to speak on, write some Shakespearean form sonnets of "rhetorical verse." (NOT poetry. Rhetoric.)
EXAMPLE: "why speak in sonnets"
MANY MORE EXAMPLES: {smile} BOKE/ RHETORICAL SONNET INDEX
NOTE (MORE WHY): Take a look at this "as-he-approached-death" argument by former National Federation of the Blind president Kenneth Jernigan who used sonnet- writing to organize his thinking for both writings and speeches: [ON SONNETS AND MENTAL DISCIPLINE]
QUOTE FROM JERNIGAN (ABOVE): "So what does all of this have to do with mental discipline and writing speeches and articles? If I have to tell you, it probably won’t do any good. To those who say that I have gone over the edge and lost touch with reality, I reply that I have not forgotten how to engage in combat or street fighting and that I still know how to relate to the members at the National Convention. It can be put to the test. To those who say that madness is indicated, I respond that everybody has (or probably should have) at least a touch of insanity. If (assuming you choose to do so) you want to remember me in the future, think of the sonnet, for of such is the stuff of life-at least, of my life."
SOFTWARE ASSISTANCE [ONLINE/FREE ACCESS] :
Of course, if you have to be an expert on sonnet writing to suggest this, it would be horrifying {grin/no joke} ... so I wrote an online program to verify strict compliance with Shakespearean sonnet form. SONNET ADVENTURE?
(NOTE: Although my web sites are dot-coms, they there are NOT commericial sites. My purposes are rhetorical, not commercial. {big smile})
BOKE
P.S. I will happily entertain arguments as to why this suggestion is stupid... as long as you put it in sonnet form. {smile/no joke} No, I am not being "cute." The only way to understand WHY, is to try it.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
