The Prime Place to Sort Out the Subprime Mortgage Mess

As part of an in class discussion about visual analysis and how visual rhetoric can supplement our previous written risk communication projects, the class viewed The Shock Doctrine, a film by Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein.  It is powerful, shocking, economic, and to the point.

It begins with an old fashion movie countdown in black and white, almost preparing you for the shock of the controversial subject matter – 1940 electro shock methods, which “wiped clean” the mentally ill allowing doctors to “imprint” a fresh, new start.  Doctrine introduces shock as a physical act resulting in internal effects.  Physical shock to a person changed their internal, emotional being into an obedient state.  Doctrine transitions into the second shock when Naomi jumps to the 1960s and the CIA. The CIA was interested in how shock (physical and mental) could be used to break down prisoners to reduced adults in a childlike state. Interrogation manuals were recycled and manipulated in Doctrine to further drive home the idea that now the government used shock to manipulate people for power. Naomi pauses and draws the shock idea further from the physical to the purely mental.  The iconic 9/11 image engulfs the entire screen, although at first only the plane is visible. The anonymous nature of the plane in the blue sky highlights how anyone can be shocked and manipulated, just by being controlled with he/she sees.  It is only one second before the plane flies into the Twin Tower is the building disclosed. In one second we realize that what we are seeing is 9/11, although everyone has seen the same image numerous times.  While this image is depicted in the movie, Naomi introduces how whole societies can be shocked.  She states generally that we, too, become childlike and follow leaders that we believe are going to protect us [government].  Next, she introduces legendary economist, Milton Freidman.  He believed that profit drives the economy and that deregulating prices and elimination government intervention would yield a stable economy, which is pointed out in the movie to be “unpopular.” Naomi goes on to say that Freidman advised to government to push all “painful” policies through legislation immediately after a crisis. He coined this, “economic shock”, the secret history of the free market.  Naomi applies “shock doctrine.”

The movie cues the viewer from past to present via color.  In the background information montages like the 1940s electroshock and Freidman segments, black and white color scale is used.  When Doctrine jumps to more recent events like 9/11 and tsunamis, color emerges.  Furthermore, one could argue that the color scenes are the examples of the Shock doctrine in everyday life, in which she highlights.  She encourages us to reflect on some tragic events over the past 20 years and how, according to Friedman, the government manipulated its people by reducing us to a childlike state in times of shock and devastation. Historic events were flashed in the screen in rapid rates with commentary and quick facts, almost in a cause and effect fashion.

• China massacre –> thousands die, jailed tortured, china embraces free market,  china becomes sweatshop to the world, $1/day
• Russia –> new billionaires created, 72 million people impoverished
• NY terrorists attacks –> war on terror” privatized, department of homeland security spends 130 billion on private contractors, pentagon increases budget for contractors by 137 billion per year.
• Invasions in Iraq –>  the most privatized war in modern history, U.S. decrees 200 Iraqi state companies will be privatized, thousands killed and displaced
• Natural disasters (Siri Lanka) –> 35,000 dead, coastline handed over to hotels and industry, fishing people forbidden to rebuild homes by the sea.

All of this comes at you so fast, that it shocks you.  In order to catch everything, one must go back and watch the movie a second or third time. After this realism segment, Doctrine returns to the electro shock man on the table to remind us what the government is doing, here.  Then, Doctrine posts a Friedman quote (white on black background) to summarize the explicit and implicit messages, thus far:  “Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change.”  Crisis, change, crisis appears again after this quote, but in larger, block letters, almost in a disorienting manner. Doctrine concludes by stating that shock is only a temporary state, which wears off.  The only defense against manipulation is to prevent the duration of shock by constantly orienting yourself in the greater context around you. This is done by education. At this point, the viewer sees promotions for the book, website, etc.  Interestingly, Doctrine utilizes the same scare tactics to manipulate the viewer via shock (e.g. flashing images, high contrast colors, limited text) in the same way it condemns the government for doing so.  In my final assessment, I feel that it was highly effective in risk communication, getting the “message out there”, and leaving the viewer with enough information and questions to seek further knowledge in Klein’s book. 

Florida’s foreclosure rate has increase by 70% just in the last year. Throughout the country, including Miami, conventions and seminars have been held to educate and assist the weary borrowers. Education can only go so far in a housing market that has sunk so deep.  Southern Florida is doing something about it the subprime crisis, though.  West Palm Beach is set to open up a foreclosure center.  The center will provide credit repair assistance, mortgage renegotiation help, and give monetary aid (sometimes $10,000). This is a hopeful leap in the right direction for Florida and it’s nice to see someone reaching out a helping hand. I was especially interested when they were going to help pay the loans AND help rebuild the borrower’s credit history, which is key.  It is one thing to pay off a loan, but to help boost a credit history is great. That means that possibly in the borrower’s future, he/she could become eligible for a lower interest rate, prime rate, etc. West Palm Beach seems to be looking at the big picture.

CNN West Palm Beach article.

Subprime Myths

In Carl Prine’s Tribune Review article The subprime mortgage mess: 5 myths put to rest,he takes a stab at what the common folk think is true about subprime. After working with the topic from a risk communication perspective, this article perfectly relates to its target audience and hones in on what they think they know and what they want to know. The setup of the article lends itself to an easy read.  The beginning sets up the credentials of the interviewers and contributing experts.  Interestingly, the questions asked tell a lot about the anticipated audience and what they believe is true.  For instance, the typical subprime borrower is assumed by the author to be misunderstood by the general public. He goes on to give statistics about who mortgaged what type of home. Furthermore, his use of narrative to explain the boom and bust of the adjustable rate mortgages actively engages the readers that might not be able to grasp the extent of the financial market in formal economic terms.  Prine’s down to earth rhetorical style is especially effective when describing the bank’s role in subprime mortgages. He uses dramatic quotes from experts to spell out the basics and then goes into a paraphrase section with suggestions.

“Their primary goal in banking is to collect the monthly payment so that their investors are happy because they’re getting cash flow. People leave the problem until it gets so no one can do anything about it.”

Milton’s advice: If you get a first notice that you’re late on your mortgage, call the bank immediately to arrange a payment plan. The Federal Reserve recently slashed interest rates to make borrowing money cheaper.

All in all, the article is a nice starting point that one can expound upon. By further audience analysis, the author of the risk communication effort can become more centered on specific topics based on demographic variables of a certain sub-target audience. This article definitely made me rethink my audience and how I approach my writing based on their knowledge. It made me think, “If people really believe these myths, where are they getting their information from?”