• The Copywriter

  • Recent Posts



  • Recent Comments

    • Taylor: Couldn’t agree more. I am actually doing a project for my Writing class on how male steriotypes effect...
    • A Random Vegan: Not all vegans associate with PETA. I sure as shit don’t. And while you may think all vegans...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Walter, This is one of those ‘you killed it’ posts I hope everyone including me follows....
    • mark: If this guy really has expertise then shooting questions at him over a recorded phone call will probably start...
    • Walter: Didn’t even come close to making it right, Kyle. Sadly, our favorite coffee company is another...
    • Kyle McFarlin: As a HUGE fan of Starbucks and someone who is considering the very card you speak of, I hope they make...
    • Tom Humes: Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you. Tom Humes
    • henrry134: Great place to clarify our doubts with the internet marketers. It sounds great that they are virtually...
    • Kyle McFarlin: Good luck winning the contest. Once you have Infusion, I think you’ll find out about cousins you...

  • Twitter Connect


    follow WalterTerry at http://twitter.com

  • ROI Tip Jar

    Enjoying the content? Then feel free to drop in a couple of bucks and buy me a Starbucks Grande Americano! Click to donate »

    • « Top 10 Things I Learned From Bill O’Reilly | Home | Copywriter Whacked By Law Of Unintended Consequences! »

    Selling The Reverend’s Ideological Pinata

    It’s 1984 . . . do you know where your real-facts are?  pinata_boy

    I came across this little rant while on a research project and decided to address it here because it is after all, about marketing. In this case, it’s the marketing of ideological opinion as fact.

    Sure, it’s an editorial from a small town newspaper, later reposted on a community blog. So why in the world would someone with an international subscriber base think that was worth commenting on?

    Simply this, it is a textbook case of stating opinion as fact with no corroborating data to back it up. And increasingly, this is happening with media coverage of national and world events — we get very little hard news.

    And therefore, his microcosmic example perfectly mirrors macrocosmic events.

    You see, it’s very difficult today to get the facts of the news events without a overpowering sideorder of that organization’s ideology.

    It’s also important to note how stating one’s case armed only with invective opinions reduces

    the weight of the argument. A “learning experience” if I’ve ever seen one.

    But don’t take my word for it, click here* to read it for yourself and see what prompted me to respond, then come back here to finish the piece.

    What troubled me about his editorial (sent to several Seattle-area papers) was that the blog’s owner chose to present this man’s opinion as ” . . . some very astute observations.”

    Wow. But hey, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, right? 

    Obviously what I wrote was too long for their short Comments field, so here’s the full version that evolved

    . . .

    We should always exercise due caution when treading such waters.

    Before we can accurately assess the Reverend’s claims, shouldn’t we first want to know his definition of “imperial presidency” and what evidence he (or anyone, for that matter) has of the President’s ”hidden agenda?”

    Heck, why stop there when a smorgasbord of rhetoric was laid before us, garnished with such rich chemical trigger-words as “finagled,” “bamboozled,” and “frightened to death.”

    Easy to say, harder to prove.

    Personally, when I see someone stringing those buzzwords together, it is usually a sign of ideological opinion masquerading as fact, and when that happens the intent is usually incitement, not enlightenment.

    More often than not, it reminds me of someone blindfolded and flailing wildly at a piñata, desperate to hit anything before time runs out.

    Of course, the maraschino cherry on top is always the old chestnut “military-industrial complex.” And let’s not forget “multinational corporations,” that one never goes out of style. The only buzzword left out of the mix was “neocons.” Combine those with ‘imperialists’ and I’m suddenly waxing nostalgic for the ’60s and ’70’s!

    Slicing Through The Illusions

    Personally, I like to debate and weigh the validity of others’ arguments based on what facts are at hand.

    It may be that the Reverend has access to information few of us possess, and if so he should cite it. But just going off what he wrote and given that he didn’t cite credible sources, it’s difficult to say how accurate or inaccurate his claims may be.

    As a copywriter and marketing strategist I routinely blog about how opinions are marketed as facts, and nowhere is this more prevalent than the political arena. It reminds me of when a client and prominent LA plastic surgeon said she could walk through a crowd and with a glance, instantly spot who’s “had work” and who hasn’t.

    I suffer from a similar affliction when others seek to market and advertise ideological positions as facts — I see the seams, the nips and tucks where opinion morphed into something else and frequently wonder why everyone doesn’t see what appears so obvious?

    Blinded By The Ideological Prism

    But we face a larger issue because as a culture, we no longer have access to shared facts. Unless you are very careful, it’s all too easy to be spouting something that is actually another’s opinion shot through an ideological prism — theirs or someone else’s.

    So, with all due respect, Steve — with the Reverend’s talk of “imperialism” and “hidden agendas,” I found very little “astute” about what he had to say. In fact, the Reverend looks like he cherry-picked his sources catering to an existing ideology and then molded them as he saw fit.

    Big deal, right? In part, I agree because we are after all, entitled to our opinions. And as the saying goes, “Opinions are like . . . . necks, everyone has one.”

    But the larger concern is when this kind of thing happens in our media and news sources, then every story is viewed as an attack or defense in a partisan, ideological war.

    Since the Reverend called for readers to “reclaim our power, and create a better future!” then to that end, I respectfully suggest it is wise to deal only in facts because his “observations” only serve to whip people into a chemical frenzy and keep them isolated in ideological zones.

    And with everyone isolated in their separate ideological camps, how can we ever reach enough common ground to work together?

    Btw, didn’t William Bramley write an entire book about the strategy of keeping people isolated (so they don’t unite) by miring them in ideological wars? Check your bookshelf, I’m sure its there <wink>.

    P.S. And as per my post earlier this week, the good Reverend didn’t even get close to Rule #6.

    **UPDATE**

    * = I removed the hyperlinks to the blog in question. If you’re really curious, then you know how to Google it to get there. As for myself, I’m not going to help him get more publicity.

    Like what you read? Then click here to buy me a coffee.

    By Walter |

    Topics: From The Trenches, Marketing Mishaps, Pet Peeves |


    To Read More Like This, See . . .

    Comments