READING RESPONSE PAGES 147-176

Page 159
#2
Why does Cross believe that it is necessary for people in a democratic society to become
informed about the methods and practices of propaganda? What is her advice for dealing with
propaganda?
When Donna Woolfolk Cross discovered how many people do not realize how much
words have an effect on us as a whole, American population, she wanted to change that, so she
wrote Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled. In that essay she reveals exactly how and why
is it very necessary and important for us, a democratic society (or even others in such a culture)
to understand the methods and practices of propaganda, good and bad. She tells us that not all
propaganda is evil, that some, like giving to charity, stopping pollution, and being caring to our
fellow citizen is a very good form of propaganda, or persuasion. But nevertheless it all plagues
our daily lives, we see it on television, hear it on the radio, and read about it on the internet or in
a newspaper/magazine/article. Cross continues by saying that propaganda is directly involved in
the decisions we make, we choose health or body care products based on infomercials, we beg
our loved ones to see movies with us based on a trailer we saw or heard about for a specific actor
or actress, and we vote for a politician based on the commercial his or her campaign aired during
our daytime show. These types of advertisements, in a way, change our opinions about things
and emotions, they trick us by distracting us with a pretty face or sparkly product. She says that it
is very important to understand how the media and its users influence us because of the way it
makes us alter our attitudes and feels on everything from the small stuff like shampoo to the big
things like the next president. We need to see that it is affecting our society, even if it a positive
influence, it still isnt always good. When everyone agrees, no questions why or how and then
we all end up like the lemmings, following one another to our death without knowing how we
got to that point.
Cross does give some advice for dealing with such propaganda. She names 13 big
elements that everyone should question to make sure they are making the right choice when they
believe propaganda. 1) Name Calling: Is the name itself attached with any merits of the ideas
presented? 2) Glittering Generalities: Are there any values that are true of that generality that is
being made? 3) Plain-folk Appeal: What does the person/company stand for? Are their best
interests the same as mine? Or are they just after my money/support? 4) Stroking: What does this
person/ charity/ etc. stand for? Are their ideas the same as mine? 5) Argument to the man: Do
the personal qualities of the person being discussed have anything to do with the issues being
presented? Leaving him/her aside how good/bad is the idea? 6) Guilt or glory by association: Is
there really a real connection that links the two people/subjects together? What is the value of the
idea by itself? 7) Bandwagon: Where is this headed? Is this best for me? 8) Faulty cause and
effect: Is there enough evidence to prove what this person/company is saying? Could there be
another cause for that effect? 9) False analogy: Are the two things alike in significant ways? Are
there more differences? 10) Begging the question: Is this statement assumed? Is it reasonable?
Does it need more proof? 11) False dilemma: Are these really the only two options? Are there
alternatives that need consideration? 12) Card stacking) Is some information being left out?
What other questions should people be asking about this situation? 13) Testimonial: Does this
person/company know any more than we do? What makes them an expert? Should we trust what
they have to say? These are just a few of the questions that should be asked when viewing any
sort of propaganda so we can make sure we get the whole story and are not fooled by the media
and its masses.


Page 159
#6
In her discussion of the bandwagon appeal (23-25), Cross uses the analogy of the lemmings.
How does the analogy work? Why is it not a false analogy? How do analogies help you, as a
writer, explain your subject to readers?
When Cross uses the analogy of the lemmings, the small rodent like creatures in the
arctic that occasionally commit mass suicide altogether for no reason other than that are
following each other, she is referring to how we humans can be like that in a sense. We dont
follow each other to our deaths, be we follow each other for no reason other than that it sounds
good. We do not fact check for ourselves, we tend to instantly believe what we are being told,
like the lemmings are being told to drowned themselves, we are being told to vote for a certain
politician or to purchase a certain brand of soap. And we end up doing just as we are told, until
one person says, Hey, why are we doing this again? they lead the next pack of free thinkers or
the next pack of followers and the cycle continues. But the point is we need to not be like the
animals who do not question the leaders motives or backgrounds, we need to ask why, how,
when, where, who, what and so many more specific ideas before we make a decision. Analogies
help writers, like us, explain our subject to readers by putting into a story or way that they can
relate to it. Maybe the reader cannot see what the author means by a follower, do they literally
mean a train of people? Or do they mean metaphorically as in a group of people who do not
think for themselves? In this situation the author used the first definition to give us a visual
image and explain the second definition. It essentially uses another idea that the reader might be
more familiar with or might identify more closely with and then they will be able to understand
what is being described. I immediately think of how we explain things to children. When
someone talks to child they have to use ideas that the child can relate with rather than something
only adults understand. And that sort of thinking follows through in our older developed minds
that we need to convey our ideas in a way that others can understand it too.






Page 174
#1
In your own words, summarize Orwells argument in this essay. Do you agree or disagree with
him? Explain.
George Orwell is arguing that Americans use so many unnecessary, foreign, metaphor,
phrases, meaningless words, and they do not need to. He says the English language is perfectly
fine as it is and does not require any big inflated words. But Americans seem to think that
using foreign words and clichs, long words and extra phrases is the way to sound important and
have a better attitude about you. Orwell states that these are completely ineffective and have the
opposite effect, he gives 6 rules that will cover most cases
1: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print
2: Never use a long word where a short one will do
3: If it is possible to cut out a words, always cut it out
4: Never use the passive where you can use the active
5: Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday
English equivalent
6: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous
I think there are some of these things that I agree with him on, and some that I do not
agree with him on. I think clichs are acceptable in certain situations, they help your reader
understand what you are trying to tell them if it is something they have heard before (a clich)
they will be more likely to see what you are saying. I do agree that if a words can be cut out, you
should cut it out. Why have it there if it doesnt need to be? It will only confuse the reader. I had
never thought about always using the passive voice, but that is something that I would really
consider trying now. I dont know why, maybe to make the reader feel like they are there and not
in the past. I do not think that everyone has to avoid foreign phrases, scientific terms in exchange
for everyday words. Using big words can show off your intelligence, why do we have such
words if we cannot use them? There are a lot I do not agree with Orwell on but there are a few
things I do agree with him on, nevertheless he makes very good arguments for his point of views
and opinions.

Page 174
#7
Orwell says that one of the evils of political language is question begging. What does he
mean? Why, according to Orwell, has political language deteriorated? Do you agree with him
that, the decadence of our language is probably curable? Why or why not?
When Orwell says question-begging I believe he is referring to how politicians
leave their followers and the media still wanting more answers, or begging for one question.
They are always wrapping their stories in vague metaphors and non-direct answers. He says that
political language has deteriorated because no one speaks up about things like people violence in
foreign countries, robberies here in our hometowns, inmates not getting a fair trial. Its not like it
was when the constitution was written, they arent upholding their side of the deal, to help and
protect America, and all they care about is being a famous politician and maybe president one
day, it has deteriorated.
Im do not think the decadence of our language is probably curable in saying that
people will stop miss-using words and phrases that are clich or inflated or metaphorical.
Because even if a whole bunch of people made it their mission to spread the word about not
using such language, there is always going to be those rebellious type people who have the
goal of doing exactly the opposite of what people tell them. And then there are those who will try
to do that, but have no will power or wont keep trying to avoid those phrases and words. Im
sure there are many other instances of people who will not help to cure our language but those
are only a few. Orwell did live in a very different time and might be really appalled at the
language used today (for example, selfie being added to the dictionary) he probably would want
to cure language but he might realize at this point, it could be impossible.