Free Play In Politics

The 2016 Presidential Election is approaching quickly, and as is customary a number of highly controversial issues have taken center stage and each side argues their position with oftentimes charged rhetoric. Using the rhetorical strategies discussed in class (ethos, pathos, and logos) in varying degrees and combinations both Democrats and Republicans appeal to their base and attempt to reach out to those who are on the fence. Oftentimes, whether a presentation or piece of controversial writing is political or apolitical a sizable majority of the readership will begin reading with preconceived notions. Those who take a hardline stance against the writer's position typically will never be convinced to adopt it. However, a large minority of readers

The performers know that what they have to say is rehearsed and is for the benefit of the audience. The political message is of great importance. However, the entire event has an air of surrealism.

When asked whether he learned anything as an actor that's been useful to his presidency, Ronald Reagan replied, “ There have been times in this office when I’ve wondered how you can do the job if you hadn’t been an actor.” Politicians must employ methods of artifice and present themselves as an idealistic image of themselves in order to win elections.

In his State of the Union Address for 2016, Barack Obama uses logical and ethical arguments to emphasize shared ground rather than partisan disputes. He also taps into the audience’s desire to feel better about themselves and their country. By using humor and irony, Obama paints his opponents into corners, out of which it would require outrageous extremism to effectively squirm away. At its best, this approach demonstrates how much Americans actually have in common in a culture dominated by ideologically polarized cable-news channels, Facebook, and cultural tribes that increasingly live and socialize apart from one another. The president's technique throughout the speech is to frame issues through a rhetorical jujitsu to persuade his opponents,

The art of writing is at times concrete and precise, while at other times it is abstract and perplexing. Regardless of the mood or style a piece of writing creates, the majority of speakers want to appeal to their audience. This desire to please is usually associated with three rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. These terms are important tools for persuasion created by Aristotle; he stated that if we believe a speaker is honorable and good, we are more inclined to listen and take what he or she is arguing more seriously. Using different appeals to hook an audience is clever, and to successfully persuade an audience is a skill that some spend their lives perfecting, especially when their argument will be critiqued and exposed to the general public.

During the 2016 Vice-Presidential election, candidates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence use persuasive language and strategies for their arguments. Notably, both speeches measure about the same in terms of implementing pathos through the repetitive use of their hardships and their families. Pathos is a strategy used to stir up the audience’s emotions. Based on the strategic manipulation of pathos, middle-aged voters may tend to sway towards one candidate more than the other.

In this essay, I will closely examine the role of ethos, pathos, and logos as they were utilized in the 1992 Presidential Debate video clip. Throughout Clinton and Bush’s debates, they used the three options of persuasion effectively and discretely; however, it is evident that out of the three ways of persuasion, the candidates used ‘pathos’ because of the content they were providing. It was apparent that Bill Clinton was more prepared to display forms of persuasion than George H.W. Bush was because Clinton had prior experience dealing with lower income people. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will explain and analyze how each candidate made use of the three forms of persuasion: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Every day there is news that gets pumped out into the faces of the people, to inform what’s going on in the world. In the recent years, late shows that are meant to be purely for entertainment has now somewhat started to incorporate big news into the monologue given at the beginning of the show. Late Night with Seth Meyers “Team Trump's Absurd Defenses for Don Jr.'s Emails: A Closer Look” and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert “Donald Trump Jr. Is His Own 'Deepthroat'” both use satire to deliver the information on the Donald Trump Jr. -Russian emails controversy to the audience. The use of selective information on Donald Trump Jr. interviews, the bias tone the host has as he presents information, and the use of jokes to point out the information so the audience can see the irony within the topic.

Because truth contains the power to bring our nation together, prosperity to our citizens, and purpose to our role as a nation, I seek to let it be my guide in policy. As I compete in Congressional Debate, I draft legislation that knows no party, with policy that adjusts to the current geopolitical landscape. True conservatism is not exhaustive conservative policy. True conservatism responds to the voice of the nation at that time. One day after debate, one of my opponents commended me for flexibility and thoughtfulness in debate. That commendation means more to me than any first place award. Participating in Congressional Debate is one of the most fulfilling parts of my life. In the debate chamber, I speak not for points or awards, but to guide people to truth. I speak not always to persuade or convince, but to share perspectives that create the kind of dynamic existence President Coolidge achieved in his life, constant examination of policy for his constituents. My desire is that my speeches do not fool others into supporting one policy over another. My desire is to share policy options, only for the most effective to be chosen at the end of the round. This is not always the policy on which behalf I spoke – dynamic

Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were dedicated young reporters at the time Watergate occurred. There dogged pursuit for the truth kept the story from falling into obscurity. Woodward was a relatively new reporter at the time, a Yale graduate, and a Navy veteran. Bernstein dropped out of college and he started working in the newspaper industry at the age of sixteen. By age nineteen, he was a full-time reporter for the Washington Star. Although they were young, and Woodward had not even been a Post reporter for a year, they were dedicated and tenacious. Without Bernstein and Woodward 's efforts, the entire truth may have never been revealed. Their actions during the scandal and their subsequent book has helped Americans see the reality of the Nixon administration.

Analyzing communication messages through late-night shows varies. Mixing humor with specific news stories provides an interesting message, depending on the audience. Last Week Tonight With John Oliver uses specific news segments and analyzes it through the use of extensive research and humor. This includes his segment on the New York Yankees, where he makes it very clear which position he is taking on the issue. This segment dives into the elitist practices of the Yankees organization, which include not allowing fans to print out tickets at home and opening the elite Legends Club with expensive premium seats. Through the use of effective theories and

Tracy Smith sits with Bill Maher to discuss his life and career in creating timely political comedy. Although, Maher was entertaining, he made the program funny but Smith was blond, you could see it in her physical expressions and vocal tones. Her questions were judgmental and in a way biased, two of her questions reads: Does it bother you that there are bunch of Americans who do not like you? (2) Do you regret anything you said? How could she prove that Americans hated Maher. None of her questions open up an opportunity for the audience to understand the background that groomed Maher into his career. Again, she was such a poor listening, she never let Maher finish his thought on one question before jumping to another question. Interviewing somebody like Maher, I like to know: what motivated his career, and how it all began. What his successes and challenges are and what he is most proud of or dissatisfied with in his

Michael Sandifer is a media consultant with a history in journalistic studies who represents candidates on both the state and federal level, who is renowned in part for his refusal to participate in negative campaigning or “dirty politics.” Though it can be argued that his moral convictions have cost him campaigns in the past (such as his campaign where he represented an unknown conservative who ultimately came in second place), Sandifer still manages to achieve a level of success as well as coverage from publications like Time and Newsweek. Sandifer’s acclaim is due to his strategy of focusing on two or three primary issues, as well as his appreciation for symbolism and imagery when it comes to “selling” his candidates. However, Sandifer is also criticized for his “naivety”, and refusal to “pull out the stops” for his clients’ victory.

Performance provides a place where the status quo can be challenged. Most performances, whether knowingly or not, will have some sort of bias for whatever cultural value or issue they are presenting. This laboratory of sorts provides a space for these topics to be dissected, discussed, and delivered to a

When choosing the speeches “We Choose to go to the Moon” and Barrack Obama’s speech on same-sex marriage, there was a running theme of exhilaration, excitement and pride within the two speeches. Without even truly knowing of the two speeches one can analyze by the meaning of the speeches they are speeches that are meant to insight the country with such invigoration over a topic that the emotion could be felt through by the words spoken. However, both events come from entirely different time periods within entirely different social and political topics, and both speeches even with coming off with similar emotions are presented in alternative ways.