The Word Lab........the 'art' of persuasion.

[Dover]

Republicans hire advertising consultants to sell their message.
Frank Luntz utilizes language...learning what we want to hear and framing policy accordingly. Does it work or is there a disconnect when the words don't match the reality?
I think they have raised the level of suspicion and mistrust so much that NO advertisers or message mongers will, in the future, be able to sell their wares.

If Luntz is a pollster, is his use of language in polls manipulative?
Are his polls reliable?

NICHOLAS LEMANN

The New Yorker, 16 October, 2000. pp. 100-117.

George W. Bush devoted a whole section of his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention to making fun of Al Gore for his habit of putting down various Bush proposals through the use of the phrase "risky scheme." ("If my opponent had been there at the moon launch, it would have been a 'risky rocket scheme,' " Bush said.) That shut Gore up-he hasn't called anything a risky scheme lately. But then Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her first debate with Rick Lazio, accused him of proposing "risky tax schemes." Coincidence? Bits of language ricochet around in the political world these days. They reappear across wide expanses of time and space, leaping from campaign to campaign.

You could be forgiven for supposing that somewhere in the country (a refitted underground missile silo on the Great Plains?) each party maintains a secret Word Lab. There purposeful young people in gray uniforms sit in front of computer screens, trying out different linguistic combinations. When a magic grouping of words is achieved, bells ring, lights flash, the purposeful young people give each other high fives, and then a directive goes out to all the party's thousands of candidates: it's not "affirmative action" anymore; it's "preferences."

Admittedly, there is no Word Lab per se. There are, however, virtual Word Labs, which generate phrases and rhetorical strategies that are deemed to be politically effective, and then put them into the hands of candidates. Probably the most elaborate one has been run by a Republican pollster named Frank Luntz, who has produced two rhetorical guides for Republicans running for office this year. One is a pocketsize pamphlet called "Right Words," the other a five-pound,
four-hundred-and-six-page loose-leaf binder called "A Conversation with America 2000," which includes speech texts on many subjects.

Luntz advises his candidates to say "Department of Defense" instead of "Pentagon," "opportunity scholarships" instead of "vouchers," "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts," and "climate change" instead of "global warming." The terms "Washington" and "I.R.S.," Luntz says, always play as super-negative and should be attached to any policy you want to turn people against. "Prosperity" is super-positive. In general, words starting with an "r" or ending with an "-ity" are good-hence "reform" and "accountability" work and "responsibility" really works. Negative is over. (In 1996, Luntz got Newt Gingrich to give him a
written pledge that he would never attack President Clinton by name, but Gingrich fell off the wagon after only eleven days.) Calling your opponent a liberal is over, too, although you may call him a politician, or, better yet, a Washington politician. You can attract female voters by using the words "listening" and "children" a lot. ("Why do you think Hillary Clinton went on a 'Listening Tour' of New York?" Luntz asks.) Specifics are better than generalities-that's why Al Gore, who Luntz says definitely reads his stuff, reframed George W. Bush's tax cut in his acceptance speech as a Diet Coke a day, rather than $1.3 trillion. If you're going to attack, do it through rhetorical questions-that's why Rick Lazio often says, on the campaign trail, "Can you name one single thing that Hillary Clinton has ever done for New York?"

I first encountered Luntz in person the day before the Republican Convention opened, in Philadelphia. Luntz recently decided to get out of politics to concentrate on corporate and media clients, and made a deal with MSNBC to run opinion-research sessions during both conventions, in which he would demonstrate how swing voters were reacting to the show. This was the first session. Thirty-six real people filed into a hotel function room near the Convention hall and seated themselves in three rows of folding chairs, the Leaning Republicans on one side, the Leaning Democrats on the other, the True Undecideds in the middle. Jammed into what little space remained in the room were members of the national political press corps, there to cover the MSNBC coverage of the real people. Luntz bustled in, playing the part of a pollster / geek / minor celebrity. He is a boyish, manic, perpetually mussed man, with a mop of dirty-blond hair and pouty lips. There is usually a gleam in his eye and a mischievous suppressed smile on his lips, as if he'd just got a cosmic joke that h was now going to let everybody else in on-very slowly. He says he sleeps three hours a night, non-consecutively. This helps him get a lot of work done, but it leaves him with a jazzed, pouchy appearance.

...cont'd

http://www.stedwards.edu/bss/farrall/SOCI1301/Document/WordLab.htm

[KharmaTrain]

1. Luntz Is Worth A Study

I hate to admit it, but this guy knows his shit. He understand that it's not what said as opposed to how it's said. Not that people are stupid, but there are certain cause/effects that words generate and can be measured. Many who attempt to master this crazy science (and yes it is a science) can easily attempt to draw conclusions or manipulate the results for a pre-determined position. Luntz lets the data come to him and then finds what he needs within.

Luntz is a student of McLuhan and Wilson Key...men who did a lot of of study into how people react to language and visuals...subliminal and non-subliminal...and their works not only are the foundations for a lot of modern advertising and have been used in politics by people like Lee Atwater and Luntz.

Agree or not, but there are proven studies as to how words can and do affect the way people make decisions and create impressions...and the GOOP has one of the best ever in Luntz.