Dumbest Assignment Ever...

[Guest Walter Sobzak]

So I'm in this Media Writing course at school, and last Thursday, the day after that statue fell, I'm getting ready to go in and endure a 90-minute hateful anti-war/anti-US/anti-capitalism/anti-Bush rant in lieu of an actual lesson. In fairness, it ended up only being about 40 minutes, but it ended up with my class being assigned what I feel to be the most ludicrous paper I will ever have to turn in, and here it goes:

 

PUBLIC RELATIONS WRITING ASSIGNMENT

 

Assume US lost war w/ Iraq. You are President Bush's media advisor/Pr person. What plan do you propose (3-4 ideas) to allow the President's image to survive re-election

 

In other words, "Hateful Commie asshole's anti-American hate/ wishful thinking," forced upon me, the student, who paid money to get a degree, and instead has to endure the ramblings of some delusional far-left buttlick who wants another Vietnam.

 

Any ideas?

[Guest snuffbox]

the assigments will only get dumber my friend...

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Here's what I would do:

 

Do the paper, but make partisan jabs regarding your mock opponents (and prof) while writing. You may not get the grade you deserve, but sometimes pride is more important.

 

Example: (And I'm thinking off the top of my head here) Mention that although the war in Iraq "failed," the US was able to find and destroy a bunch of nukes Iraq had aimed at NYC *if your prof can make stuff up, so can you regarding this assignment*, and mention that while you lost a lot of soldiers, that at least America is still protected. Run part of your campaign mentioning that your opponent (whomever he/she might be) would still be trying to have UN inspectors do their thing, and that if this idea would have continued that NY would be wiped out. I'm sure you can come up with some ridicule for certain institutions you might find deplorable on your own.

 

And yes, it only gets worse (This coming from someone w/ a journalism degree)...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Actually, that's a relatively genius assignment. It may have a little bit to do with your prof's hopes, but if you can spin that... you can spin anything.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Yeah, that really smacks of being a shithead.

 

Any President ever would just strengthen up their domestic policies, attend a bunch of funerals, and not speak extensively of the matter at any press events.

[Guest EricMM]

I dunno, like Tyler said, it's certainly a situation that would make Bush's chances of reelection sink faster than anything else, and it's a media relations class..

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Thinking about this at lunch, and I firmly stand with my initial hunches: Seriously. Wouldn't the burden for explaining these sorts of events to the press/public lay on the shoulders of Rumsfeld and Franks and stuff? That's what they're there for.

 

Bush saves face merely by going to funerals and calling the situation a tragedy a few times.

[Guest CanadianChris]

Dat's fucked up.

 

I can't even comprehend the sequence of events that would lead to the US losing the war, let alone how to spin it afterward.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

It is something any PR person would have to do, maybe not on THAT big of a scale. But here are 4 ideas:

 

Keep focus on domestic problems. That is a given.

 

Spin the blame to the miltary. The president can only do so much talking, the arms have to back it up.

 

Call for a massive upgrade of Miltary to "prevent" another problem like this from happening.

 

Listen to public opinion and find something of major issue and ride that until reelection. Weather it be a fuelcell cars or keeping the wetlands safe. Something to get the heat off of any wars.

[Guest I'm That Damn Zzzzz]

"... unconditional support for the new Maximum Leader and all around nice guy Sadaam and the president will faithfully serve the man who is chosen by Allah and for the religion of peace, Islam, will ensure all infidels will submit. Allah Akbar. Sadaam Akbar. Stalin Akbar. Clinton Akbar. (Random pinko cause) Akbar. (Random extreme, hatefilled, meanspirited, bigoted, antichoice Leftist cause, like Social Security and Medicare) Akbar..."

 

...or turn in something written in Arabic.

[Guest phoenixrising]

The assignment may be fucked up and inspired by leftist hatred but if you're a speechwriter you do have to write speeches for the bad times too. Not every speech is a victory speech.

 

I suppose if I had to do it, I'd start by pointing out the positives of the war. If you can make info, the part about destroying ICBM's aimed for New York is golden. While you do want to shift most of the blame onto the President's advisors and the military, the President would look like a jackass for not taking any of it. As the saying on Truman's desk said, "The Buck Stops Here". So you may want to write in an apology to the American people for making the decision, but keep pointing out positives. That way you can say that those that died didn't die in vain. To me the worst thing about Vietnam was ultimately the thousands of Americans that died there died for nothing, and you don't want that vibe. Focusing on domestic issues is good as well.

 

Just re-read the post and it's general ideas rather than a speech. So in a nutshell...point out what went right, get new advisors (trust me the advisors responsible would have resigned already), and focus on domestic issues rather than foreign policy.

 

Oh and if you have the time, start digging up dirt on your potential opponents. Not such a bad idea to drop them a notch or two.

[Guest MrRant]

You could do something really outrageous like blame it on gays, other races and..... WOMEN.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

FALWELL!!!!

 

*marks out*

[Guest Powerplay]

Also, try to shift some of the blame onto the Peace Protestors, claiming that they caused the drop in troop moral that aided the Iraqis in defeating us. Say it was this vocal minority (Try to emphasize minority as well) that helped thwart the war effort and cost the lives of many American troops. But after that, just do what everyone else said with the Domestic issues and such.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

By saying it was the vocal minority's fault is to encourage the further erosion of our rights to free speech, as it will likely cause more self-censorship.

 

Of course, it's just an assignment.

[Guest Powerplay]

By saying it was the vocal minority's fault is to encourage the further erosion of our rights to free speech, as it will likely cause more self-censorship.

 

Of course, it's just an assignment.

It doesn't encourage anything. Where does it say that "Oh, we are going to take away their rights"? Everyone has their right to an opinion and a right to blame someone, and it's just as right as a peace protesters right to protest the war. Also, it's shifting the blame, and probably in this scenario would have been a factor on the troops morale and it's a great spin by saying "Hey, we would have won had you supported our troops".

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Sure, and then in future conflicts, people will be discriminated against for protesting.

[Guest Powerplay]

Sure, and then in future conflicts, people will be discriminated against for protesting.

Oh please, give me a break. Many people dislike protesters for not supporting our troops anyways (Unless you believe in the paradox of supporting the troops but not what they are doing), and I highly doubt there will be any more discrimination against them as there is today.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If the official position is to discourage protest... I'm not sure why you're even in America.

[Guest Powerplay]

If the official position is to discourage protest... I'm not sure why you're even in America.

It's not the offical position to discourage protest, Tyler, it's assigning blame where blame might be due. Where the hell did I say I was discouraging protest? Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh, so by blaming the protesters, you're ENCOURAGING protest?

[Guest Powerplay]

Oh, so by blaming the protesters, you're ENCOURAGING protest?

I neither encourage nor discourage it. I simply say that they could be easily be blamed in a losing scenario for having a severly adverse effect on our troops morale. I no longer have the right to say this?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It shouldn't be an official position. You, as a regular citizen, have every right to say "Them damned protesters are hurting the war effort!"

 

The moment it becomes policy, though, is the moment where our patriotic DUTY -- to protest something we see as unjust -- begins to erode.

[Guest Powerplay]

It shouldn't be an official position. You, as a regular citizen, have every right to say "Them damned protesters are hurting the war effort!"

 

The moment it becomes policy, though, is the moment where our patriotic DUTY -- to protest something we see as injust -- begins to erode.

Tyler, is there a law against saying "Hey, they hurt the morale of our troops thereby making it so they could no longer fight as effectively as they once could"? We are not putting a law against protests. We are not restricting them in any way. We are just saying that they hurt the war effort. IT'S POLITCAL SPEECH, NOT CENSORSHIP. We aren't forcing people to be patriots or be gung-ho, but WE ARE telling them the very real consequences of their actions. I've talked to a few Vietnam vets who absolutely hated protesters because it underminded all their actions in SV. Protesting can and does hurt troop morale. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it does nothing good for the troops fighting over seas.

 

The entire idea of this speech is to change someone's opinion. We aren't forcing it upon them in anyway as you would love to believe. If the President states that "The Protests hurt the war", how many of those protesters (Who were generally more anti-Bush than Anti-war) would listen to him? They'll just continue to go along their merry way saying Bush is a war criminal or whatever they choose to believe. If someone says "Hey, maybe I shouldn't have protested", that's their choice, their opinion, and they have the right to change it. Politicians are supposed to try and change peoples minds and I don't see stating things that are legitmate facts could somehow 'hurt' free speech.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If you make it policy that says "Our troops died because you spoke out", what's the next step? It's a dangerous tool because frankly, people ARE going to start pushing for legislation to limit such activities. To place the blame solely on something is a GRAVE thing to do, and you know that. You're saying it is a good tool to shift blame from the president (which it is), but it's a damned terrible thing in the long run. It encourages self censorship by the people and state-run censorship is the next step on that road.

[Guest Powerplay]

If you make it policy that says "Our troops died because you spoke out", what's the next step? It's a dangerous tool because frankly, people ARE going to start pushing for legislation to limit such activities. To place the blame solely on something is a GRAVE thing to do, and you know that. You're saying it is a good tool to shift blame from the president (which it is), but it's a damned terrible thing in the long run. It encourages self censorship by the people and state-run censorship is the next step on that road.

I never said to wholly put the blame on the protesters. I said shift some of the blame on them, which is a great idea if you want to spin it. I didn't say the "Troops died because you spoke out", I said "The Protests hurt troop morale". Very different wording, very different meaning. You can take it that way, other people will take it other ways.

 

Legislation like this won't pass the Senate in any way. I'm SURE of it. A hardliner may, but it would either get Filibustered, or if passed, nailed down in the Supreme Court for violation of Freedom of Speech. No worries.

 

Self-Censorship? That's their choice and their opinion. You can't fault Bush for trying to change opinions with his words; that's his job. If someone decides that his words ring true and change their opinion, that's Bush's success. This doesn't at ALL lead to State Censorship. It would never stand in the courts, nor Congress.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Oh man, I would mock the Iraqi Information Minister..and then explain that you were using the guise of Propaganda to try and make Joe Average Media Consumer believe that the US didn't lose the war, they just haven't won it yet and will eventually win the war if Bush gets re-elected.

[Guest Powerplay]

Oh man, I would mock the Iraqi Information Minister..and then explain that you were using the guise of Propaganda to try and make Joe Average Media Consumer believe that the US didn't lose the war, they just haven't won it yet and will eventually win the war if Bush gets re-elected.

Actually, this is the best suggestion yet.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Oh man, I would mock the Iraqi Information Minister..and then explain that you were using the guise of Propaganda to try and make Joe Average Media Consumer believe that the US didn't lose the war, they just haven't won it yet and will eventually win the war if Bush gets re-elected.

Actually, this is the best suggestion yet.

Thank you...I'll be here all week..

[Guest Some Guy]

PUBLIC RELATIONS WRITING ASSIGNMENT

 

Assume US lost war w/ Iraq. You are President Bush's media advisor/Pr person. What plan do you propose (3-4 ideas) to allow the President's image to survive re-election

Idea #1: Give out tissues so your prof and others like him can clean up the semen in their underwear.

Idea #2: Rip up all current laws of the country, economics, and logic and switch to socialism.

Idea #3: Give solemn speech claiming America is a failure because we are imperialistic, greedy, evil, Christian men who hate Blacks, Jews, and Muslims and dicriminate against women all the while ignorign the fact that our enemres are actually those things and we aren't.

Idea #4: SHINING HAPPY PEOPLE HOLDING HANDS!

 

I think your techer would like that.