Bailey Parnell
ENG 520
Prof. Colleen Derkatch
Tuesday, March 25th, 2014
A Rhetorical Analysis: Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and the Case For Net Neutrality
When we think of those skilled in the art of rhetoric, we often jump to those we know are trying to convince us of something, like politicians, salesmen, lawyers, etc. We do not always consider corporate CEOs part of that group though Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, would have us believing another thing. On March 20th, 2014, Hastings published an article titled “Internet Tolls And The Case For Strong Net Neutrality” on Netflix’s official blog. Just under a month before the blog was posted, Netflix settled a deal paying Comcast, America’s largest cable and Internet service provider (ISP), for faster and more reliable service to Comcast’s subscribers (Cohen and Wyatt). These “internet tolls” go against the culture of net neutrality in America, which in its essence is when no piece of information is prioritized over another on broadband networks. Hastings took to their blog to advocate for net neutrality and against abusive ISPs. Whether he was conscious of his rhetorical finesse or not, he wrote quite convincingly thus turning this blog into an excellent rhetorical artifact. Reed Hastings’ blog post aims to convince American Internet consumers that strong net neutrality is important by appealing to their values of choice, frugality and empathy while simultaneously making ISPs seem ill intentioned and Netflix seem honorable.
Rhetorical analysis is often quite broad. One rhetorical artifact can frequently exhibit traits of all occasions, modes of appeal and numerous elements of argument. This paper will analyze those that are most prevalent in Hastings’ blog. Consequently, this arti...
... middle of paper ...
...“plights” smaller providers. These are strong ideals, which are hard to argue against ergo making it remarkable rhetoric in his case for net neutrality.
As one can see, Reed Hastings is quite proficient in the art of rhetoric whether it is intentional or not. He employs various topoi that all use different rhetorical elements. His most prevalent tactic is his pathos where he appeals to the audience’s emotions by giving them good and bad guys in Netflix and ISPs respectively, while simultaneously appealing their values of choice, frugality and empathy. Through his strong arguments, he is successfully able to create a rhetorical artifact that advocates for net neutrality to his audience of average American Internet consumers. After Hastings’ blog, one might certainly start thinking of corporate CEOs as part of that group of those skilled in the art that is rhetoric.
Heinrichs had previously worked as a journalist before becoming a full time writer and advocate for rhetoric. He utilizes illustrative examples to convey rhetorical concepts. Furthermore, chapter four reveals the most valuable logos and pathos tactic. Lastly, this book’s use should be continued in this course.
Palmer, William. "Rhetorical Analysis." Discovering Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Writing, and Style. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2012. 268-69. Print.
...o engage in destructive rhetoric are held to task, rhetoric cannot simply be attributed to some state of affairs, while the rhetorician from whose lips the rhetoric emerges is held to no ethical standard. Certainly it is conceivable that rhetoric can have destructive consequences. Rhetoric seems to have played a central role in the deterioration of people’s faith in their systems of government, or the electoral process by which they choose their representatives. A view of rhetoric in which the rhetorician is accountable for the effects of the change they inflict upon the world could lead to less destructive rhetoric and a society which operates on the solid ground of personal responsibility.
Though rhetoric is an art, and though effective rhetoric demands attention to style, timing, and knowledge, there are other elements that require attention. There are numerous ethical and emotional dimensions that function within rhetoric. These dimensions are immeasurably important, particularly given the epistemological and relativistic nature of rhetoric.
The emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web brought upon a medium of communication with a range of opportunities for the world. However, this medium is, in due course, subject to the control of a few major companies. The enigma of information flow is the central concern of net neutrality. Consumers, competition and network owners would benefit directly from the regulation of network neutrality because it would provide a positive impact to those parties as well as provide equality.
The traditional method is incredibly contextual, meaning, it looks deeply at the source, message, and audience as they interact within a give time span. Furthermore, this method is a critique of the assumed interaction between a speaker, text, or artifact and its intended audience. In contrast, a narrative criticism examines all facets of any rhetorical artifact for its form, structure, and pattern, treating it as a dramatic story that unfolds and reveals itself for a certain purpose. Additionally, narratives are primarily utilized as a cognitive instrument for comprehending significance.
In order to get readers to agree, writers use rhetorical devices to persuade them and appeal to their ideation. In the columns, “Now or later, the Clintons are toast,” and “What the WikiLeaks emails tell us about Hillary Clinton,” both authors use a variety of rhetorical devices to convince readers to comply with their positions on the issue. The news article, “Emails Related to Clinton Case Found in Anthony Weiner Investigation,” is an unbiased piece which explains the concerns of Hillary Clinton’s email enterprise. Though the columns are opposing in viewpoint about the same topic, they differ in tone, diction, and the usage of different rhetorical techniques.
ISPs, including ATT, express concern about the proposed rules of Net Neutrality that would prohibit it from slowing competitors’ web traffic or accessing content (Shatz). By not allowing the ability for ISPs to regulate its network and the bandwidth that moves through it, it can cause a variety of problems that un...
Imagine having to pay an extra $10 a month just so Netflix would stream fast enough for you to watch movies, or being an app developer and having to pay AT&T millions of dollars just so your customers can access your app on their network. These are the types of things that are prohibited through Net neutrality regulations. Net neutrality is the principle that all the traffic on the internet must be treated without discrimination, be it commercial or political. On December, 14, 2017, The Federal Communications Commision voted to implement chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to end Net Neutrality, removing the regulations that protect us from the shady profit seeking ways of powerful telecommunication giants. The protection of these regulations is imperative
The concept of Net Neutrality is one with large amounts of controversy behind it. The idea that the internet would give certain types of traffic priority, such as web page requests over video streaming, is necessary to support network growth while others stake the claim that giving this priority undermines the established internet principles of free speech and non-exclusivity. The Federal Communications Commission has put policies in place to strive to a more neutral internet, one such policy being the Open Internet Order. There is heavy debate over whether the internet should be neutral and around whether or not there should be regulations in place to dictate what contents can travel faster than others can. We will be working for Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) in support of net neutrality. Markey argues that net neutrality law is the “Declaration of Independence for the Internet,” where restrictions set on certain types of content on the internet do not limit freedom of expression.
In this paper I am going to discuss the rhetorical appeals, as well as the argumentative structure, audience and purpose set forth by George W. Bush in his September 27 speech in Flagstaff, Arizona. More specifically I will refer to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and explain how they are used to gain the support and attention of the audience and further the further the purpose of the speech. As I explain these appeals I will also give an insight into the argumentative structure and why it is apparent in this particular speech.
Net Neutrality is the pinnacle of security and privacy on the internet worldwide. It is what enables us as humans to find a safe haven of non-discrimination and judgment. Imagine a world where everything you do isn't judged by anyone. Now imagine if that were changed and you were judged based off of sex, religion, or race. That world doesn't seem very pleasant, does it? If the net neutrality rules that are currently in place were to change then that world of privacy would crumble.
The battle for a free web is back again with ISPs trying to privatize the internet. An ISP is an internet service providers that provides you access to the internet, primarily who you buy your cable from ie: Verizon or Comcast. Net neutrality is the concept that ISPs treat everyone’s data equally whether it be a professional downloading, a scholarly article, or a teenager watching their favorite show on Netflix.
Net neutrality has been around the common people for many years. To begin, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should enable all access to the contents on the internet, usually with a set charge. In addition, this idea had sparked the idea of social-media neutrality, which media sites should allow every individual’s post to be distributed equally. Unfortunately, the net neutrality protection law has been repealed recently by the FCC. Now, the internet service providers may charge a fee for each individual sites that an individual utilize, and if the bill hasn’t been paid for a certain site, such as Netflix, the content of that site would be blocked by your ISP. The question that is debating now is should we bring back net neutrality?
Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix headquartered in Los Gatos, CA, began the company’s operations in 1997 after receiving an enormous late charge from a movie rental he returned long overdue. However, Hastings had the desire to be different than traditional movie outlets; whereas, customers had to drive to the location, pay a certain amount for each movie they rented, and were given a deadline in which to return the movie. Instead of using a method established by other video markets “to attract customers to a retail location, Netflix offered home delivery of DVDs through the mail” which eventually led to a booming business towards streaming forms of entertainment (Shih, Kaufman, & Spinola, 2009, p. 3). Today, Netflix exists along with several competitors; however, offers the most streaming content available for viewing, and continues to grow its subscriber base both domestically and globally. Although, direct and indirect competitors, acquisition costs, and several barriers present a financial threat for Netflix, the company has managed to grow with the acclamation of partnerships, expand to international territories, and vastly increase its price in shares of stock.