Great story here on the Diane Rhem show on NPR.
Excerpt: "Spy the Lie" by Philip Houston, Michael Floyd, and Susan Carnicero (with Don T...
COMM 3150 Final Assessment
Respond to the three stems below after careful research of each context; Cuba and the Kennedy/Nixon presidential campaign, the Bain controversy, and Coach Paterno’s role in the disastrous findings of child sex abuse in Penn State’s football program.
Save and send your responses as a PDF document to comm3150@gmail.com no later than Thursday, July 19, 2012, 11:00a. No responses will be accepted after that deadline.
1. During the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon presidential campaign, one of Kennedy’s platforms was endorsing US intervention in Cuba by supporting anti-Castro exiles. Kennedy asserted that these exiles received no support from his administration. Running against Kennedy, Vice-president Nixon knew that these exiles were being trained and prepared for an invasion of Cuba, but Nixon couldn’t reveal this without undermining America’s security.
Instead, Nixon attacked Kennedy’s proposal to support these Cuban exiles as irresponsible and reckless, the antithesis of what Nixon actually believed.
Was this lie justified? If you disagree, justify your position. If you agree, justify your grounds.
2. Lots of clash happening in today’s presidential campaign having to do with Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. Obama’s campaign asserts that Romney was complicit in outsourcing jobs to foreign markets where Romney claims he wasn’t associated with the firm at that time.
Google the issue and cite the first six headlines and stories that deal with this story. Which, in your opinion, distort or misrepresent the issue and which have more credibility for you? Does your own political bias have an effect on how you evaluate the veracity of these articles?
3. How could the image of Joe Paterno below be mislabeled? How might it be manipulated?
(If you’ve been living under a rock lately, research Paterno before you frame your responses.)
Save and send your responses as a PDF document to comm3150@gmail.com no later than Thursday, July 19, 2012, 11:00a. No responses will be accepted after that deadline.
1. During the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon presidential campaign, one of Kennedy’s platforms was endorsing US intervention in Cuba by supporting anti-Castro exiles. Kennedy asserted that these exiles received no support from his administration. Running against Kennedy, Vice-president Nixon knew that these exiles were being trained and prepared for an invasion of Cuba, but Nixon couldn’t reveal this without undermining America’s security.
Instead, Nixon attacked Kennedy’s proposal to support these Cuban exiles as irresponsible and reckless, the antithesis of what Nixon actually believed.
Was this lie justified? If you disagree, justify your position. If you agree, justify your grounds.
2. Lots of clash happening in today’s presidential campaign having to do with Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. Obama’s campaign asserts that Romney was complicit in outsourcing jobs to foreign markets where Romney claims he wasn’t associated with the firm at that time.
Google the issue and cite the first six headlines and stories that deal with this story. Which, in your opinion, distort or misrepresent the issue and which have more credibility for you? Does your own political bias have an effect on how you evaluate the veracity of these articles?
3. How could the image of Joe Paterno below be mislabeled? How might it be manipulated?
(If you’ve been living under a rock lately, research Paterno before you frame your responses.)
Public Deception - Rubric
Read, research and write about the ethics in public lies for the benefit of the people. Being in an election-year cycle there's much to choose from, such as the recent Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare Act. With the Court's ruling there's much rhetoric involved on both sides of the isle, most of which may be questionable.
Description
Find an artifact, a speech, a press conference, a talk-show appearance, something both verbal and non-verbal. Break it down in terms of the issue's content and analyze how the rhetoric was spun to put that issue out to the people.
Then analyze the delivery of the rhetoric. Identify oculesic, paraliniguistic, kinesic, or proxemic tells that may make one suspect the "truthiness" of the content.
Finally, answer how was the truth manipulated.
This is due, Wednesday, July 18th. All claims, including the source of the artifact will be cited APA or MLA style, your preference,along with embedded hotlinks to your web sources. Submit your work as a PDF to comm3150@gmail.com.
Point Total: 300
Rubric
You identify a valid artifact intended for public consumption. Preferred is a YouTube post where one can review the artifact. 50 points.
You analyze the rhetoric of the artifact, what's true about the issue versus what the rhetor would have the audience believe. This will require research and/or background knowledge on your part of the issue. Be sure to be well-versed on the subject. 100 points.
You determine nonverbal and verbal tells of the rhetor, citing points in their delivery where they've tipped their hand. This could be in eye-movement and blink rates, in semantic aphasia, in delayed emblems, illustrators or regulators, or perhaps in the body language of the subject. 100 points.
You postulate how the truth was manipulated. 50 Points.
Description
Find an artifact, a speech, a press conference, a talk-show appearance, something both verbal and non-verbal. Break it down in terms of the issue's content and analyze how the rhetoric was spun to put that issue out to the people.
Then analyze the delivery of the rhetoric. Identify oculesic, paraliniguistic, kinesic, or proxemic tells that may make one suspect the "truthiness" of the content.
Finally, answer how was the truth manipulated.
This is due, Wednesday, July 18th. All claims, including the source of the artifact will be cited APA or MLA style, your preference,along with embedded hotlinks to your web sources. Submit your work as a PDF to comm3150@gmail.com.
Point Total: 300
Rubric
You identify a valid artifact intended for public consumption. Preferred is a YouTube post where one can review the artifact. 50 points.
You analyze the rhetoric of the artifact, what's true about the issue versus what the rhetor would have the audience believe. This will require research and/or background knowledge on your part of the issue. Be sure to be well-versed on the subject. 100 points.
You determine nonverbal and verbal tells of the rhetor, citing points in their delivery where they've tipped their hand. This could be in eye-movement and blink rates, in semantic aphasia, in delayed emblems, illustrators or regulators, or perhaps in the body language of the subject. 100 points.
You postulate how the truth was manipulated. 50 Points.
Paralinguistics and Language
- Mirroring the accusation
- Lack of contractions
- Vagueness, indirect
- Colorful, unnecessary description,
- Decoy descriptions
- Auto fill
- Third-person
- Pronoun usage - denial in lying, emphasis in truth
- Distancing language, euphemisms, switching possessives, definite and indefinite articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)