The effective use of rhetoric can spur people into action for worthy causes, bring about positive health changes, and even persuade one to finish a college education. In contrast, like most things in life, what can be used for good can also be used in a negative way to elicit emotions such as outrage, fear, and panic. This type of rhetoric often uses fallacious statements in an appeal to emotion which complicates the matter even more as the emotions are misdirected. Unfortunately, the daily newspapers are filled with numerous examples of fallacious statements. Within the past week, the following five examples appeared in the New York Times and USA Today. The examples included statements that demonstrated scapegoating, slippery slope, ad hominem, straw man, line-drawing, arguments from outrage, and arguments from envy. The first example, in an article about the current condition of income and wealth in the United States, the author stated that the fact that Americans are earning less and worth less than four years ago was started by the “financial crisis and the sharp decline in the value of homes, the principal asset of Americans, followed by the sharp drop in the stock prices. The crisis led to stubbornly high unemployment that cut income for many Americans and made wage increases harder to obtain for those who did hold on to their jobs” (Norris, 2012). The drop in housing prices is used as a scapegoating technique for the general financial condition of Americans. Scapegoating is a technique that places blame on a specific group for a certain circumstance (Moore & Parker, 2012, p. 187). By placing blame on the housing industry, Norris attempts to demonstrate that the American public is largely experiencing financial ... ... middle of paper ... ...Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/business/economy/as-recovery-drags-on-income-and-wealth-lag.html Ohio State University. (2012). Statistical Summary. Retrieved from Ohio State University.edu: http://www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php Saad, L. (2012). "Pro-choice" Americans at low 41%. Retrieved from Gallup Politics: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=gallupnews&utm_c Sara Lee Annual Report. (2012). Sara Lee Annual Report 2011. Retrieved from Sara Lee Corporation: http://www.saralee.com/ourcompany/sl11ar/pdf/2011SL_Financials.pdf USDA. (2011). Profiling food consumption in America. Retrieved from USDA.gov: http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
An obsession exists in the world today based solely upon the use of scapegoats. According to the dictionary, a scapegoat consists of a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place. Some of the most influential scapegoats consist of Jesus Christ taking suffering for the sins of civilization, the Jewish population being punished for the problems in Germany, and more recently the U.S. citizens who perished in 9/11 being punished for the sins of America. Scapegoats have come in many forms over time and have been very destructive. The usage of scapegoats in our society, such as in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”, has proved to be damaging, and an end must be found in order to find peace.
‘Self justification involves denigrating a person or group to justify maltreatment of them’ (506). ‘ The poor are blamed for their problems; stereotypes of the homeless as bums, alcoholics and drug addicts, caught in a hopeless downward spiral because of their individual pathological behavior are omnipresent in the media’ (318). By continuously portraying those who have less than the socially accepted norm the media creates a climate in which those who are struggling to survive are dehumanized and this depiction creates a self justifying culture of prejudice against these people. ‘The media socializes us to believe that people in the upper class are much better than we are. The media also suggests that we need have no allegiance to people in our own class or to those who are less fortunate’ (316). ‘Research has found that people who extensively watch television have exaggerated views of how wealthy most American’s are’ (317). Parrillo defines frustration as a result of relative deprivation, or lack of resources compared to others in society and since the media promotes the idea that many Americans are living the economic stratosphere of the rich it is not surprising many Americans feel frustrated with their current socioeconomic position (510). Prepared with the knowledge of
Here is one example, “...and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky…” (Dr.King, 177). The entirety of the paragraph is an example of pathological rhetoric, which if a person can relate or sympathize with anything King has written, they can be convinced that segregation laws should be changed. In this excerpt, King conveys the prejudiced feelings that every African American would feel in this kind of society, which causes the reader to automatically feel sympathy towards the cause.
Summary – It is quite difficult to avoid any persuasive acts while resisting them at the same time. Being prepared with knowledge of how easy it is to be manipulated, controlled, seduced, etc. allows us to open up to the use of rhetoric.
One of the most prominent concerns of Evicted is the issue of inescapable financial instability as it relates to eviction. In the very first few pages of the book, Desmond reveals that the majority of poor renting families in America spend over 50% of their income on housing, with an even more astonishing one in four spending over 70% of their income on it (4). When families are spending the majority of their already meager income on housing alone, it is no surprise that they have little money left for savings or self-betterment programs such as a college education. Compounded with this is the fact that some welfare systems are constructed in a way that discourages long-term financial responsibility. For example, Supplemental Security Income, a program that provides monthly stipends for low-income elderly or disabled individuals, is revoked if individuals have too much money in their bank account (217). For
It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate.
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.
Social media has become ever-present—which means there are more worldwide debates happening on different issues today than at any time in the past. A journalist suggests, “Because politicians and their campaign managers realize emotions often trump logic, they use numerous illogical and unpersuasive fallacies to appeal to the masses“(Campbell). Indeed, the most commonly found fallacy on Internet conversations is the appeal of emotion. For example, which do you think is the more important issue in India at present: rape or road deaths? According to the United Nations office on drugs and crime, the number of rapes per 100,000 people is 2 (UN). And according to a government research, the number of road deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles is 212 victims (Road accidents). Although the data implies the answer, some will still reply to the question with “rape”—which is an example of how emotionally susceptible we are as a species. A rape case is a story. A road accident is a number. Rape stories appeal to the public more than accidental road deaths. The media doesn’t report road deaths; there are too many of them to keep track of. Also, a headline that says “rape” would attract way more attention than a headline that says “accidental road
According to Aristotle, a speaker could frame any debate using three approaches: an appeal to logic, an appeal from credibility, or an appeal to emotions. All speakers and writers use the tripartite approach to rhetoric in varying degrees and ultimately the audience judges their effectiveness in the context presented. In America, few topics are as hotly debated as that of undocumented migration, and it can be difficult to pick through the partisan and often vitriolic rhetoric in order to come to a rational conclusion. Politicians frame the debate using elements of the American mythos. While the evidence they present to back their conclusions may be factual, it necessarily omits the full truth in order to present a partisan political front. As such, politicians predominantly rely on the reader or listener’s emotional satisfaction. And even the most scrupulous journalists—meant to impart objective fact to the public—are not free from personal bias, making the discourse even more convoluted. In analyzing three prominent voices in the immigration debate, US president Obama, journalist Sonia Nazario, and Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth, we can evaluate the effectiveness of the different rhetorical approaches by whether or not they reach their intended audiences. Nazario fulfills her journalistic raison d’être by succeeding at objectivity, while Obama and Hayworth as politicians succeed by lying by omission in speeches and in writing in order to pursue policy goals and appease supporters.
Therefore, I try to figure out a connection between those political controversy and human’s behavior. I don’t actually think different opinions are scary at all because speech is the right bestowed by the first amendment and what determines who we are. But by showing how misleading words can be through Planned Parenthood issue, I want to use this research to emphasize how important it is for an audience to think critically when faced with controversy and dissenting voices.
Rhetoric is something that has been studied and utilized since the days of Plato and Aristotle to even now in the coming presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In order to become a successful “rhetor”, one must learn the art of being persuasive to the audience of choice. In the course of history there have been many successful figures who have used rhetoric to influence people to join their movement. One cannot deny though that over time rhetoric has had to evolve with enhanced technology and new public interactions, such as social media and the internet. This paper will highlight Aristotle and some of his theories, David Ewoldsen and a few studies he contributed to in regards to people being
Statistics shows that due to foreclosure murder rates, homelessness, and vacant properties has increased dramatically this year alone. The financial crisis is affecting the health of the economy and is fueling in recession.. This has created much problems for those that are middle class workers and low income families. It target those groups of individuals because their financial background is not up to par to be financially stabled, which later cause them to be behind in payments and things of that nature. Statistics also shows that millions of Americans spend an unexplainable amount of share on their income.
Michael Lewis’s The Big Short tells the tale of the 2008 financial crisis from the perspective of a few idiosyncratic characters that saw it coming. Unlike big financial institutions that underestimated the risk of increasingly extending subprime mortgage loans to uncreditworthy customers, Lewis’ characters gauged such risk accurately and anticipated the eventual burst of the housing bubble. Not only did they foresee the inevitable, but they also made a fortune by betting on its happening. Had they conformed to the public sentiment of extreme optimism and confidence in the stability of the real estate market, they would not have reaped immense monetary rewards. Between the lines of The Big Short, there lurks, albeit not too covertly, a message about the benefits of nonconformity. While conformity is often times socially encouraged and applauded, it is important to wonder at times whether going against the flow would be of greater benefit to us or our community. In Michael Lewis’s narrative, defiance of the status quo as a result of skepticism toward financial markets has yielded big payoff, whereas conformity to the widespread denial of the housing market’s unpredictability has incurred massive losses.
The introduction of the internet to modern society has brought about a new age of information relation. Since there is no longer a need to wait until the next print day, news from all over the world is available at a person’s fingertips within hours or even minutes of the event. With this advent of such easily accessible information, new problems for the news media have also arisen. Aside from potentially losing good economic standing because newspapers are no longer being purchased in the quantities they used to be, the credibility of the information itself is also put into question. No one would argue that credibility of news sources is unimportant, but there is a discrepancy in what takes precedence; economy and speed or getting the information out correctly at the first publishing by taking the time to make sure all facts are checked. The importance of having a system of checks on all information submitted is paramount. People trust what they read and believe it to be so without always questioning. If all information were to not be checked thoroughly, there would be instances where people read an article only for information included to be wrong and they go on believing such information. This can be very dangerous as misinformed people make misinformed decisions. With an increase in errors being made by citizen bloggers and even major publications, many are worried that journalistic ethics and credibility in the news media are being sacrificed in order to maintain swiftness in the news circuit and to retain personal profits. Though getting information to the masses quickly is a major part of the media’s importance, this should not mean that the credibility of that information being presented should be sacrificed for it...
Individuals like the two young and rambunctious mortgage consultants portrayed in the film gave loans to anyone and everyone that could sign the paper, regardless of the recipient’s ability to pay the loan in full. It is doubtful that all consultants fully understood the ramifications of their actions, but undoubtedly the overall disregard for consequence was the start of the collapse. Mortgage consultants mislead and tricked people into loans they could never afford by playing on their desire to live the American dream. Distributing adjustable rate loans to individuals without jobs, without collateral is unconscionable. Unfortunately, from their perspective they were helping these individuals. In a twisted way, these consultants were acting ethically from a utilitarian point of view. The consultants won because they received utility in the form of a bonus for distributing the loans, and the loanee won because they could now afford the home of their dreams. What the consultants didn’t consider in their calculations were the long term results and utility of their actions, unethically building the flawed foundation of the housing