Seeking to create a non-partisan committee, I sought out professors, scholars, and writers from a broad spectrum of academic approaches and political perspectives.

In fact, when I edited our first book (Language and Public Policy, NCTE, 1974), which I thought was a very well balanced collection of essays about political language, published during that Watergate era, I got hate-mail for my choice of contributors, from both the Far Left ("you dirty fascist" ) and the Far Right ("you dirty communist"). It was a valuable learning experience for me: people see what they want to see!

For over 25 years, in addition to the books and academic articles written by its members, the Committee scoured the news and gathered hundreds of examples of "doublespeak" sent in by contributors. These were printed in the Quarterly Journal of Doublespeak, primarily edited by Professor William Lutz, later by Professor Harry Brent. From these examples, the Committee voted a Doublespeak Award (an ironic tribute) every year and also an Orwell Award to recognize contributions to "honesty and clarity in public language."

My own self-appointed work on the committee primarily focused on creating simple teaching aids which other writers and textbooks could freely incorporate within the existing curriculum.

I used the Institute for Propaganda Analysis "List" of 7 common propaganda techniques (Name-calling, Glittering generalities, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain folks, Card stacking, Bandwagon) as my starting point. Here was a simple device created by an earlier ad hoc academic committee (clyde Miller and others) in 1937, in reponse to Hitler's use of modern media (film, radio) and advertising; lasting until 1942, when the US entered World War II, and adopted such techniques in earnest.

During the post-war generation, if a textbook (English, Speech, Social Studies) even discussed persuasion (less than 10% did), the IPA List was the most commonly used teaching device incorporated. But, I found the IPA List to be cross-categorized (overlapping), incomplete and very inadequate to deal with modern television ads. Simple, but also simplistic.

After examining some 40 different lists (logical fallacies and fragments of advice) in English, Logic, and Speech textbooks, and taking notes (1 item per page, on thousands of 3x5 cards - before home computers - and software "tag" programs!) for two years watching many, many, many TV ads, I created a taxonomy from my observations, which I called the "Intensify/ Downplay schema."

In 1976, after I sent out the draft to over 100 language scholars for their feedback, and it got very positive responses, I submitted it to the members of committee who endorsed it as a useful teaching aid. Later, that group honored me with the Orwell Award for "distinguished contributions toward honesty and clarity in public language."

This Intensify/Downplay schema is much more comprehensive than any previous list or model, and deals with many more techniques (including nonverbals and omissions) and the new media (including television, and now the internet). This systematic schema, elegant in its simplicity, starts with the basic premise: in persuasion, you can observe that --

People intensify their own good (by means of repetition, association, composition) and downplay their own bad (by means of omission, diversion, confusion).

From this basic idea, I derived many other useful teaching aids to analyze persuasion. For example, when teachers first used my schema (which is non-directive), they told me that it was so inclusive, so comprehensive, that they didn't know where to start. My intent had been to replace the IPA list with a better teaching aid which could be used, free and freely, in many kinds of different textbooks.

Thus, I created two teaching aids, very closely patterned on the original taxonomy, with some 200 very specific prompter questions: "Questions You Can Ask About Advertising" and some 200 very specific "Questions You Can Ask About Political Language." You need not follow all of these trails, but they suggest a variety of different approaches, and you can see the overall relationships among them.

But, again, some teachers wanted something simpler, some more explicit directions. ("I need something, now, for next Monday!")

Therefore, in 1982, I became very directive. I recommended that the simplest and easiest way to start teaching about persuasion was to start with the basic patterns of advertising, using my 1-2-3-4-5 fingertip formula of "the pitch."

After distributing some 50,000 one-page freebies of a teaching aid "The 30-Second Spot Quiz" to teachers at conventions, I published my book, The Pitch (1982,1991) to elaborate the details supporting it. During the 1980s, I spoke at many academic conventions (NCTE, SCA, CCCC) and remained active in the NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak.

Scholars may recognize this 5 part pattern of "the pitch" as being akin to the AIDA formula (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) often taught in advertising schools; or Speech Communication students may see similarities with "Monroe's Motivated Sequence."

However, my basic sources were from classical rhetoric. Cicero first identified the basic pattern of the oration (from exordium to peroration) which still remains the underlying superstructure for the senders of rational persuasion.

In my model, I adapted these ideas for the average receivers of nonrational persuasion. Thus, for wider popular audiences, I inserted Aristotle's ethos (# 2: "Trust Me"), added cartoon balloons, used a mnemonic device (the 1-2-3-4-5 "fingertip formula"), and reduced the jargon.

In 1984, I published The Pep Talk, a book also based on the original Intensify/Downplay schema, about a common 4-part pattern often used in the rhetoric of "cause groups " (and in some political rhetoric).

In 1999, just before retiring and leaving the campus of Governors State University, I uploaded this website containing much of that earlier writing. In the 2003 editing process, I added two new sections (The ABCs of TV Ads; (for younger students); A Companion to Composition (for college freshmen & HS AP) also based on the framework of the schema. In the latter, I've added my opening lecture to my own college course, "Thinking About Thinking" together with an appreciation nod to Newman.

In 2004 and 2005, I focused more on political rhetoric, adding examples from the 2004 election and the Iraq war. In 2008, I'm gradually weeding out some of the dated political examples; considering other ways to keep up with current examples (e.g. www.prwatch.org); vaguely wishing for technical help to include examples of 30-second spots (links, embeds, analysis); but mainly interested in content, thinking about the "pep talk" patterns as seen in the rhetoric of religious zealots, here and abroad. Technology changes are accelerating and I have limited time and skills, but I would like to leave a coherent draft. Although I failed to hit a home run, I think there are a lot of solid singles here. I've tried to simplify without "dumbing down." I've tried to write for the many, not the few, in the spirit of Jeffersonian democracy.

I've borrowed ideas from many: from Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslov, Benjamin Bloom, Ed Corbett, Jim Kinneavy, and so many other colleagues to whom I owe gratitude. I've had much help from my students at Governors State University. Once a year, I taught a class in which my students were invited to analyze (i.e. rip apart, mercilessly) the earlier drafts of these one-page teaching aids, and I owe much to their candid and honest criticism, done in the spirit of helping others better understand the impact today of the professional persuaders.