The Presence and Tone speaks loudly

When Caitlin talked about being talked to a certain way makes us believe that someone knows what they are talking about, it made me think of how we talk to dogs, in that we can say anything in an excited voice, whether it is bad or not, and the dog gets excited.  I know my family would do this to my dog; we would say "bad dog" in an excited voice and he would get all riled up and excited himself.  Dogs do not understand us, but it is our presence and tone of voice that they respond to.  Now I am not by any means saying that we are like dogs, but if we do not pay attention to or understand what someone is saying, it is the presence or tone of voice that we respond to like thinking that Stephen Colbert is a serious reporter if we do not pay attention to what he is saying.  Here is a video of a dog responding to the tone of the owner's voice; at one point she says "bad boy" in a cute voice, but the dog does not respond until she says "bad boy" in an angry voice.

sneaky techniques

I just finished watching Steven Colbert's White House Correspondents Dinner. Aside from being ridiculous and silly, his speech also had some hidden messages in it. Something I caught was how he would say things in an ironic and slightly insulting way, but he would say them in a professional, business-like voice so that if you weren't paying attention to his words, you might think his speech was actually serious. This reminds me of the media and how they use the same tactic to send us information. Especially with news & politics (which was what Colbert was spoofing), the information is handed to the public in a very professional manor which makes it sound much more factual. When I am spoken to this way, I know that I relate this approach to fact. So regardless of if the news (or whatever else) is speaking the truth or just beating around the bush, this type of media has done a good job brainwashing me, unless I'm paying real attention, into believing much of what is presented to me.

The pull of controversy

I agree in full about the whole controversy=money concept. Where there is controversy, there is press and media hype, and where there is media hype there are people there to see just what all the fuss is about. One example of this theory was a few years back (I think it was in 2004), and was centered around a movie that was to be released; "The Passion of the Christ."
According to this news clip that I found,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/earlyshow/leisure/boxoffice/main595101.shtml,

much of the controversy stemmed from the film's visually graphic and violent scenes, from the fact that it was a religious story, from the Pope's reaction to it, and also from some critics saying that the film was anti-Semitic. The news clip also mentioned how many of those critics who were criticizing the film hadn't actually seen it.

"The Passion of the Christ" was released as an independent film. Usually when films are independent, they don't get as much publicity or money. Yet, for this film, this was not the case. Because of all of the controversy the media and press were making over it, people came to see it not only because of their religious affiliation, but also because they wanted to see what what was so controversial. Mel Gibson (the film's creator) must've known this too. Not once did he try to reason with the press about how his movie wasn't graphic or anti-Semitic. He just let the controversy take its course, bringing in more viewers all the while, because where there's controversy, there's money.