Is Persuasion Dead?

Generally I don't like talking politics, but politics and persuasion go hand in hand. In the old days, there was no internet or television, and people did not have much knowledge about political issues. These people would go to debates, ask the candidates questions about their policies, and side with whoever had their interests in mind. Those people were genuinely persuaded. This was possible because they did not go into debates knowing the ins and outs of each candidate’s arguments.

Fast forward to 2009. Due to mass media, people can read up on issues whenever they want. By the time anything important pops up, everyone has already taken a side. At this point persuading someone from one side to join the other is impossible. Instead, politicians now focus on persuading people from their own side not to switch to the other. That’s why we have people such a Rush Limbaugh spouting out crap. He wants to get the wavering republicans from slipping into the middle where the democrats have the opportunity to persuade them. The thing is, the democrats wouldn’t persuade these people because they too are busy trying to prevent people from switching sides. Both sides are more obsessed with keeping people as far to their side as possible that they no longer even persuade undecided people.

It’s unfortunate that this is what persuasion in politics has become. That’s why anyone with half a brain realizes how much of a joke presidential debates are. A candidate is asked what he thinks about problem A and he goes on to talk about why he wants to fix problem B because problem A isn’t on his talking points. It’s total bullshit. You know what each candidate is going to say about each issue, and you know that they will deflect controversial questions and get back their talking points. The candidates aren’t worried about taking a stand and persuading undecided voters, they are concerned making sure they don’t screw up and alienate any of their supporters. Their lies the root of the problem. Politicians nowadays are more worried about losing support than gaining support from someone who is wavering. Persuasion has become a defense instead of a weapon as it should be.

Those are the facts of life and they probably will not change anytime soon. That’s why I try to stay out of politics as much as possible. The whole system is so screwed up that it isn’t worth my time.

The never-ending argument

Upon entering my apartment today after class I found myself walking in on an epic argument between two of my roommates. “Slumdog Millionaire did not deserve an Oscar for Best Picture.” “The Dark Knight was more deserving because more people saw it and it entertained more goers” says roommate X. “No that is the stupidest statement I have ever heard.” Roommate Y responds with. “Slumdog Millionaire deserved an Oscar because it was the movie with the best writing, acting, and directing. It was put together much better than The Dark Knight.” My roommates had begun an epic battle regarding what type of movie, or in this case what specific movie, deserved to be considered best picture. Roommate X took the stand that the most popular and most entertaining movie deserves to be awarded with the Oscar for Best Picture, whereas roommate Y believed longtime movie critics should decide because they have been trained in judging movie quality. They went back and forth for what seemed like an eternity spitting off random facts. I, being the bystander who knows his roommates all too well, knew most if not all of these facts had been made up on the spot. I was getting sick of listening to such childish bickering so I asked them politely to stop. This was definitely the wrong idea.
My roommates told me they would stop if I would choose who was right. I had a strong opinion on the subject matter, however I did not want to pick a side in this argument for the fear of dealing with the loser for god knows how long. I then told them that whoever could show me evidence as to why their side of the argument was the right one is the one I would choose. Little did I know no more than ten minutes later both roommates returned with pages upon pages of printed sheets off the internet as to why their side was the correct side. I quickly realized this was a battle that could be won by no one. They both tried to persuade me to believe they were arguing for the correct side, and in their minds they both succeeded. Being the stubborn individuals they are, neither one of them would listen to the other sides facts. They just closed their eyes to their opponent and continued to push their side. It was a battle of persuasion that will never be won.
I wouldn’t call persuasion in today’s day and age “dead”; however it is becoming increasingly more difficult to change someone’s mind due to the vast amounts of information at our fingertips. If there were only one website that agreed with roommate X, the argument would have ended right then and there. However it is so easy today to locate someone that takes the same stance as you; there is no reason to change. Persuasion today is not “dead” it is just becoming a more difficult task for those to dare to address it.

S.T.L.

The Charger Hybrid - It Burns Gas

At first glance this Dodge Charger print advertisement jumps off the page. A hotrod red, powerful looking, American muscle car poses in a desert exhibiting exceptional contrast with its background. At first impression the large bolded print implies to the viewer that Dodge has combined the concepts of traditional American muscle and hybrid technology. It appears as if the marketers have successfully delivered their desired message given the constraints. Their ad uses the given space and is able to hold the reader's attention. However, it is when a viewer actually takes the time to go beyond this first glance that the ad's rhetorical message comes into question.

The ad makes several pathetic appeals. The choice to use a red car not only allows the ad to stand out, but also conveys the symbolism that a red sports car holds in American society such as success, sexuality, and power. Furthermore, the word choice used throughout the ad gives off suggestion of an emotional appeal. The words "unleashed," "power," and "torque" as well as the suggestion of burning rubber all conform to the image of the American muscle car. Furthermore Dodge's well-known slogan, "Grab life by the horns" argues that driving a Dodge, as opposed to a vehicle from some other automobile maker, gives you some sort of power or control. However, despite these appeals it should be noted that obviously driving a Dodge Charger is unlikely to give you the steotypical characteristics of someone who drives a red sports car and certainly is unlikely to give you increased control or power as the slogan suggests.

The marketers also clearly attempted to achieve an advantageous ethical appeal. The primary example of this can be seen in the overall language in the smaller text which implies Dodge's expertise in the auto industry. Furthermore, in the bottom right hand corner, there is a symbol for "five star crash test rating," "Chrysler Financial," and "buckle up." All of these, except maybe the second given Chrysler's current financial situation, go towards the ethical appeal of the accompany. The marketers want to establish, through these symbols, a feeling of good will from the audience towards their company.

While the previous appeals are extremely common in advertising and no reason for alarm, the problems with this particular ad arise in the logos of their argument. When taking a look at what is actually written in large bolded print the audience reads, "The Charger Hybrid - It Burns Gas And Rubber." This is an absurd statement! The only logical argument for purchasing a hybrid car would be to decrease the amount of gas used (either for financial or environmental reasons). The very next line after announcing the hybrid car advertises that the car "Burns Gas." Continuing reading the audience sees many references to the power of the Dodge Charger but nothing more about the hybrid aspect (not gas mileage, not anything). The closest associated fallacy would be non-sequitur, but even this doesn't seem to fit quite right. The logic of this ad is just inherently flawed. While attempting to push a hybrid-muscle car Dodge marketers simply contradicted themselves in an illogical manner.

At first impression this ad appears to successfully achieve the goals the marketers had in mind, while at the same time practicing ethically sound rhetoric. However, if an audience dwells on the page at all, the logical fallicy of the ad is right in front of them in the form of large bold letters.

Overall, this advertisement accomplishes its goal of drawing attention to the Lake Tahoe Resorts. The image draws in the reader and leaves a statement with which anyone who has ever skied can relate. Most likely, this was found in some sort of winter sport magazine which would allow the audience to relate to the thrill of the jump. With a picture that emphasizes the details of the snow flying behind the skier as well as the way the skier seems to be flying through the air with his arms outstretched, the advertisement seems like it would pop out when flipping through a magazine. The message-to experience or even just see this happening in real life would be truly amazing or as described in the ad epic.

A closer look at the description underneath shows use of repetition. This repetition, or more specifically anaphora, emphasizes the message: “Epic snowfall. Epic vistas. Epic nightlife.” This is a fair description, though it is based on opinion and not fact, because to the audience that would buy this magazine, this would be true. As explained in the advertisement, there is only one word to describe a trip like this one. Ending the description by relating the last sentence back to the picture and the one word used in it pulls the ad together as a whole; no matter what happens and how the trip is remembered it will always be considered epic, just like this picture. To emphasize this further, a period is added after “epic” in the image making the statement seem more real and concrete.

Lastly, this advertisement draws on its reputation to give it a more reliable ethos. If people have been going to these resorts and to the Lake Tahoe area for fifty years, as stated in the description, it must be a fun trip otherwise people would stop going. This indirect use of the bandwagon effect is considered fair because their message doesn’t rely solely on it. Their use of this is an attempt to show how popular the area is for tourists and explain why this advertisement should be taken seriously. In such a quick glimpse into the area, one is immediately drawn into the excitement exhibited in the image and the wording used in to short blurb to describe it creating a strong and effective advertisement.

Can we forget the past?

Whether you are reading a text, listening to a song, or watching a public speech it is impossible to ignore any reputation the author might have be it positive or negative. We as an audience are forced into looking at past actions to determine how much we should take away from the content before us. This could ultimately help or hurt the author. A speech given by a well known and respected politician will hold more weight than a speech given by a local college student majoring in political science. As an audience we would much rather pay attention to someone with a history of successful achievements as opposed to a young adult with no political background. It may even be true that the political science student’s speech is far superior to the politician’s, however we trust the politician to add to his list of accomplishments as opposed to a student with no track record. Although there is a lot to be said about someone’s reputation, it plays a far too extensive role in the way we as an audience perceive a text.

Unfortunately for someone who wishes to change their appearance, their past actions play an enormous role in defining who the audience thinks they are and what the audience expect from them. A singer with a bubbly personality such as Jessica Simpson will not be taken seriously by an audience if she chooses to cross over into the rap genre of music. She could have some of the deepest and most inspirational rap lyrics ever written, however it is difficult for an audience to overlook her previous reputation and focus solely on her current works. Audiences need to try and discount past reputations whenever possible as complicated as this may be with the ever growing media exposure around today. Reputation can be a good indicator of how credible an author is, but we must remember that people change. A person ten years ago is not that same person today, and an author’s arguments ten years ago may not even remotely resemble his current arguments. If only we could ignore an author’s reputation we could see his or her work for what it truly is. But is this something we are capable of?

-S.T.L.

What's my reputation?

It is impossible to judge someone’s ethos without considering their reputation. If I give the same exact speech as Barack Obama, the majority of the people will not pay attention to me while they give Obama their utmost attention. It’s not that Obama’s speech is any better than mine, but he has earned the country’s attention while I have not. Obama has a good reputation and I have none. Aristotle argues that when considering a speaker’s ethos, we should look at that moment, and not the speaker’s previous reputation. If we are looking to make an unbiased decision, then Aristotle is right, we should only consider the rhetoric moment. In reality, it is not possible to look at a rhetorical moment without looking at the speaker’s past actions. Human society is built off memories of the past and these memories influence our thoughts and actions. We may try to be unbiased but that is ultimately impossible. Even if we do not realize it, we are influenced by countless things. Our parents, where we’re from, our friends, everything we have experienced contributes to how we view things. Because we cannot forget the past, it is okay to be influenced by reputation, but at the same time, we have to be careful with how much we are influenced. We cannot rely wholly on a person’s reputation when looking at their ethos in a particular moment. An individual who usually makes intelligent arguments may make a dumb argument, and someone that usually makes dumb arguments can make an intelligent argument. It is up to us to balance the influence of a speaker’s reputation with what they are saying in the given moment. If we are too influenced by reputation we are no longer thinking for ourselves.

So, how much should we consider reputation and how much should we consider the particular moment when determining a speaker’s ethos? There is no definitive answer to that question. The speaker can do all they want to demonstrate their ethos, but ultimately it is up to the listener to balance that particular moment with the past to judge the ethos.