Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How the media affects politics
How the media affects politics
How the media affects politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
One of the methods commonly used by Carter in his writings in analogy. In his article “Today's Politicians Could Use More Hollywood Style,” describes the politics and government proceedings of “The West Wing” -- a popular show that ran during both the Clinton and Bush administrations -- as being more civil than our own. Carter starts off by summarizing an episode from the show’s finale season where the republican presidential candidate is approached about a rumor of someone burning a flag in the white house during his daughter’s birthday party. The candidate deflects the questions saying that it is a private matter and that “politics is being ruined by putting such matters center stage.” Carter states that he “[finds himself] nostalgic for the program’s serious, pragmatic and respectful politics,” in which politics today are lacking. This comparison shows a major shift -- and problem -- in today’s times. Instead of focusing on and attacking the issues, politicians today …show more content…
By doing so he voices his personal opinions on the topics he writes about, but he also includes himself in with the reader when he makes generalizations about society. In the aforementioned article “Today's Politicians Could Use More Hollywood Style,” Carter talks about seeing C.J. Cregg -- the actress who played the beloved press secretary, Allison Janney, on “The West Wing” -- appeared at a White House press correspondents to weigh in on the upcoming election. He said he was “delighted when, for a happy moment, C. J. Cregg took the podium to remind us of a time when, even in our fictional selves, we aspired to more.” He includes his emotions because they help to solidify the point of his argument that modern politics need to make a readjustment. This is effective to the audience because the use of the word “us” is meant to make them think about the state of modern politics and how society as a whole has gotten to this
Both works provide valuable insight into the political atmosphere of American society, but vary greatly in their intended message, usage of persuasive method, projected audience, and choice of tone. One can see resemblance, however, in the fact that the authors of both articles strive to spark a reaction in their readers and encourage change. In that regard, while Hedges’
Jordan first utilizes pathos to relate to her audience. “I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton left me out by mistake… I have finally been included in “We, the people.” Jordan begins her speech with an extremely personal statement. She tells her audience that she, as an African American woman, felt excluded when the preamble was first written. This forces her audience to feel sympathy for her;
In chapter one, Fiorina begins with a powerful quote from Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, “There is a religious war…a cultural war as critical to the…nation…as the cold war…for this war is for the soul of America” (Fiorina et al. 1). Using several other quotes, he illustrates the belief that the nation is torn between personal morals and extreme conservative notions. He then states his belief that these sentiments are complete nonsense, and exaggerations. There is no culture war according to Fiorina, no war for the soul of America. Describing the culture war as a myth caused by lack of information, misrepresentation of facts by activists, and selective media coverage. He suggests that Americans are essentially bystanders avoiding the cross fire between the left and right wing activists. Furthermore, he contrasts that it is the American choices that are polarized due to politicians, thus creating the appearance of a politically polarized society. Finally, he concludes the first chapter by outlining his argument in the following chapters. Fiorina does an exceptional job hooking the reader with his first chapter, the quotes and various examples of how America is portrayed as polarized are effective in swaying the audience to agree and then he shocks the reader by debunking all previous statements with his personal beliefs and outline for how he plans to prove his argument.
To apply this rhetorical strategy, she incorporates several crucial phrases and words to which one can appertain. One example of Thatcher’s use of diction occurs in line twenty-three of her eulogy when she refers to Reagan as “Ronnie.” While to the reader, this name is but a sobriquet Thatcher uses for Reagan, one must identify her use of diction to understand her intention for using this name. After analyzing the word’s connotation instead of its denotation, the reader can discover that she incorporates this word into her eulogy to give the reader a thorough comprehension of the friendship they shared. For the reader, this diction permits him or her to identify Thatcher’s credibility, and for Thatcher, she strengthens her claim by validating her relation with Reagan. Thatcher, however, goes beyond reinforcing her claim through credibility; upon analysis of her eulogy, one can recognize her use of diction to depict historical occurrences surrounding Reagan’s presidency. The reader can identify an example of this tactic when Thatcher states in lines five and six, “[Reagan] sought to mend America’s wounded spirit” (Thatcher). On a superficial level, this
In paragraph 10, Reagan alludes to one of the previous presidents, Abraham Lincoln. In his speech, Reagan is talking about looking out a few of his favorite windows in the White House. He is saying how he can see far out of the window and that Lincoln had the same view when he saw the smoke rising at the Battle of Bull Run. Reagan is reflecting on the past when he speaks about Lincoln. When looking out the window, Reagan was reminded of many different situations that had taken place outside of the window of the White House—making it relatable to the American people who can also look out their own windows. As they are looking out the window, they can reflect on what has happened during Reagan’s presidency and what is to come in the future. Another use of allusion takes place in paragraph 35 when Reagan says “shining city upon a hill”. “City upon a hill” comes directly from the Bible, in Matthew 5:14. This verse says, “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.” America began on Protestant views, and Reagan is connecting back to that original heritage. Americans can also reflect back on this heritage and how Reagan has used that during his presidency. Reagan is telling the people to continue using this in their lives, even after he leaves office. Also, city on a hill makes the American people that they are looking down from the hill. A hill is high off of the ground, and they would have to look down from
A president has to have character, right? I mean, if the leader of the free world has no substance, nothing special about him, then how do we as citizens know that he is capable as far as foreign policies go. How do we know that we can trust him to make wise decisions? How do we know that he will tell us the truth? This concept is exactly what fictional president Andrew Shepherd successfully conveys in his “Address to the Press on Bob Rumson and the Crime Bill.” In the movie, The American President, Andrew Shepherd becomes romantically involved with crime bill lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade. Many characters, including Bob Rumson, believe that the relationship between Shepherd and Wade is hindering the advancement of the country. They believe that this relationship shows lack of character, and it is made apparent to Shepherd through the side comments and actions of those opposing him. In the closing scenes of the movie, Shepherd is found defending himself and his character through the form of a rhetorical speech. He convincingly uses pathos to appeal to his audience’s sense of nationality and pride.
...imes when we are faced with national tragedies we are left at a loss for words. We look upon our leaders to help us through these difficult times, to have all the answers. We listen to what they have to say with vulnerability and uncertainty of what’s to come next for our country. Reagan was aware of all these factors when he gave his famous address. He was aware that in order for any argument to be considered a powerful and successful one it needs to be thought through and take into consideration the outside factors that are affecting it. Reagan’s challenger argument was one that had a clear audience, distinct setting, and finally the argument had a definite and in this case necessary purpose. By Reagan utilizing these three elements and effectively combining them he created a memorable speech that is now widely considered a masterpiece of public communication.
After this thorough analysis of broadcasts from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party televised during the 2008 presidential election campaign, we can identify the most popular types of argumentative informal fallacies and how they can serve to appeal or attack the ethos, pathos and logos of an argument or the arguer himself or herself. It is important for the American electorate to be able to recognize them and dismiss them promptly, to abstain from making a decision as important as selecting the new president of the United States based on false or illogical arguments. Unfortunately, political parties and interest groups will continue to take advantage of these fallacies, it is up to the public to think critically in order to avoid being wrongly influenced or misguided by them. Works Cited BarackObamadotcom. James Taylor for Obama.
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
Dallek, Robert. Ronald Reagan : The Politics of Symbolism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
The media plays a key role in The American President. Throughout the movie the president struggles to keep high approval ratings during primary season. The media has tremendous control of this because they are a major source of information for voters, and they can choose what kind of light to shine on a situation. Although, in this situation it was not exactly the media that attacked the president, it actually was the person running against the president, Donald Rumsfeld. Donald Rumsfeld denounced the president, and Sydney ...
He verbalizes in lines 35-37 this by making known that “[Pinckney] conducted himself quietly, and kindly, and diligently. [Pinckney] encouraged progress not by pushing his ideas alone, but by seeking out your ideas partnering with you to make things happen.” This exemplifies how we must move with grace and move with the power to achieve a common goal. He does this to signal the ones who knew Pinckney to continue in his ideologies to discover another side of the world that is ridden of hatred. A second way Obama uses rhetorical appeal towards ethos is when he states in lines 54-55 the names of the people who have passed in this horrific event “Cynthia Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethal Lance, DePayne Middleton Doctor, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel L. Simmons Sr., Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Myra Thompson” He does this to remind the people viewing the eulogy that these people have been lost and this eulogy is about all of them not just Reverend Clamenta Pinckney. We must abide for a better and renewed the US that will stand united to show the people of hatred that we are not scared to unite and we will no longer discriminate based on any physical differences. Furthermore, Obama states in lines 6-7 how the Reverend was “ A man who believed in things not seen. A man who believed there were better days ahead, off in the distance. A man of service who preserved, knowing
President Reagan, at the time in the beginnings of his second term, had successfully maintained overall a high approval rating with the American people. He had won their trust and respect by being quite relatable to the average citizen (Cannon). He had planned that evening to give his State of the Union address, but instead postponed it. The tragedy that had unfolded just hours earlier demanded his complete attention (Eidenmuller 29).
Atwood uses many emotional words and phrases to persuade her audience, and achieve her purpose. Atwood uses words and phrases that create emotions such as anger, but more importantly she creates a sense of reminiscing and missing the “good-ole-days” which is the emotion she uses to motivate her audience to take a stand and make a change for America. Atwood starts off her letter saying, “I’m no longer sure who you are… I thought I knew you” (Atwood). These statements make the readers sad as they come to the realization that America is changing since their childhood, which is what they consider, the good ole days. Atwood continues by listing some of her favorite memories from her childhood such as “the music [she] sang and danced to: the Andrew Sisters, Ella Fitzgerald, the Platters, Elvis” (Atwood). This makes America seem like it is “a ton of fun” (Atwood). The list of Atwood’s favorite music and other memories serves as pathos, because it makes people miss the way America used to be, and it also makes them mad about how America is now. The list causes the readers to realize how corrupt and different todays music, movies, books, and television shows are, which makes the reader sad about how much times are changing and this causes them to want to act so that today 's generation can know an America that is similar to the America that they have previously known. When describing America today Atwood describes her “embarrassment” (Atwood) for the country, she describes how the government is “gutting the Constitution” (Atwood) and “torching the American economy”(Atwood), she describes how the American people are “easily frightened”(Atwood) because of all of the new policies and changes in current day America. Americans are very prideful of their country so when Atwood describes feeling of embarrassment for America,
His goal was to stimulate the feeling of loving the country in order to let people unite and act according to Obama's vision of change. He established strong feeling of honor of being American through telling short stories about troubles that United States managed to overcome. His language was specific and served the pathos appeal. For instance using "thriving" and "suffering" as two opposite words to describe the last financial crisis. Obama also used the story of Ann Nixon Cooper to create an image of the changing history that can touch people's heart. He started with detailed description of the obstacles she faced through her life. Actually he used the term "color of her skin" instead of "black" that show how carful Obama was to choose his words. Speaking about the history that Ann lived through "The heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can." He used again opposites to correlate between hard times and the need of change. The story of Ann inspired him to talk about his daughter and the new generation; he used every small detail to push the audience emotionally towards believing in his