Insanity with Colmes
In a three part series called Interpreting Media, Youtube auteur adampants2007 analyzes the neurolinguistic programming techniques used
by Fox News' Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity interviews controversial University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett about his Islamic
Studies course that includes 9/11 conspiracy theories. The bias becomes apparent in Hannity's techniques of repeatedly interrupting and
discrediting Professor Barrett and even verbally linking him to terrorists and anti-Semites. The video also points out Hannity's possible use of
the OK sign to signify 666, a neural-linguistic programming hex on the interviewee. As the video's annotations point out, this is not just about Fox News but about media literacy and idenitifying manipulation and bias, both liberal and conservative.
Creative Commons image: "Untitled" by your pal Matton Flickr
Tweet- 9-11-08
- Erin Shaw's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
NLP is not occult paranoia
I have some very serious reservations about some, but not all, of these accusations.
One, I absolutely agree with the over arching theme, which is the bullying and manipulative linguistic tactics used by many in the media, and Sean Hannity most definitely. He's probably the worst in the mainstream and personally, I really detest the guy for that. We can agree there is extreme manipulation here and these manipulations can be modeled by lingistics, NLP or otherwise.
However, the interpretation of the 666 as sorcery and the insertion of a 'magical war' I don't think is warranted by the evidence given, nor is the ok symbol argument convincing to imply such a reality. Sure, we can find dual meaning in communication, but's it more than just 'dual'. It's multilayered and potentially there are numerous interpretations of reality, all of which can used mutually shared language.
The ok symbol can also mean 'oh la la...I am so smooth and powerful'. Sean Hannity is simply being a politician, just like most of us who wish to manipulate or control the point of view of others, either from the left or the right or from simple 'damage control' amongst a social group. It is entirely unconscious learned behavior most likely evolving over thousands of years. Highly symbolic? YES. Conscious? NO! occult conspiracy? very doubtful in these terms presented.
If there is a magical war, it's not just between FOX news and MSNBC, it's internal in all of us, and if anything, adampants2007 is doing what all of us do, projecting our inner conflict onto the world outside of us. I definitely recommend understanding things like NLP and deconstructing semantics, but I also think we can call out paranoia where we see it and as individuals, we are likely to succumb to projecting our inner psyche onto the outside world just as much as the next guy on Fox news. Magick indeed. http://www.highintelligence.com
NLP? I dunno
Anyway... to pick it apart a little more. In the very beginning, the interviewer says "in what context?" and makes a gesture to his left. Adampants reads this as placing the professor's ideas in a "leftist" context. In fact, our placement of sensory representations in general do not conform to left/right political notions, but rather to very individualized neurological associations. It is questionable whether that leftward gesture on the interviewer's part signified what Adampants suggested - maybe, but not definite - and it is even more questionable whether a viewer (who would see that gesture going to the right, anyway) would make that association. More likely the gesture related to the interviewer's own representation of this concept in terms of internal dialog or some specific submodality association unique to him.
The interviewer's constant interruptions do indeed attempt to make associations with some of what the professor says - however, again, these seem more like the kind of simple badgering and rudeness that one would except from a hostile interviewer.
Some of his questions "are students required to regurgitate that?" do indeed fall into the category of "sleight of mouth patterns"... but as the Adampants does point out, it's pretty much just name-calling.
Hannity's "yes or no" trap is a "double bind"... one of Adampant's good catches here.
And so on. In general, I think it's a great idea to dissect these broadcasts. Mostly, Adampants is right about the manipulation... but mostly it is obvious badgering and not something that requires NLP knowledge to identify. It's more about power games than linguistic subtlety. I do think that learning NLP as a tool to understand what mass communicators are doing is a fantastic idea... but as Bubblefish pointed out, it helps to separate out your own paranoia first.
In short, the media makes a lot of use of "hostile interviews"... that is, if you hold a non-conservative political opinion, expect to be abused by interviewers on a conservative talk show. It's their turf. They can edit, cut, interrupt as necessary for their own purposes. They are going to make sure that you never accurately make your point in the short time you have. The viewers are their fans and will allow it... the rest of us either growl or turn the idiot box off.
Ehhhh
This isn't overt manipulation, it is, however, extreme paranoia. This video is trying to forge connections where they do not exist based on a pre-formed world view. I don't buy it.
" If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."
NLP is not always overt
Hannity is good. Not good
For instance, I was listening to him (I listen to Smerconish in the morning and I the station was on while I was leaving work), and he was comparing things that Ayers had said to things that Obama had said (OMG they have things in common! Obviously, they are the same guy!!!). Anyway, he pointed to something Obama said to the effect of, "... so that all the people behind you can have a chance at success as well". He called it communism. To be fair, he called it Marxism and avoided the baggage that communism brings with it.
Here is another instance where Hannity makes a mistake that Colmes calls him on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da4N-CTTRI.
Although, I think the video is over analytical about Colmes, I agree with many of your points on Fox News in general.