Fallacy In Elections

Fallacies have become so much apart of the media that it is almost harder to find something in the public eye that is not fallacious. A prime example of a fallacy are adds or campaign slogans during a presidential election, or any campaign for that matter. All candidates use logical fallacies, such as the Ad Hominem argument, to bolster there view points and easily bash their opponent. There are common slogans, within this form of a fallacy, that are "attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos".  Candidates present fallacies that falsely depict both their arguments and plans and that of their opponents. This false sense of reality that helps sway voters can either bolster a candidate’s argument or falsely refute the opponents. In the most recent election, Obama was accused of presenting major fallacies in what he believed to be his healthcare package. In an attempt to refute Mitt Romney’s proposed package he stated that politicians would be choosing health care packages for the people. Other politicians criticized his awkward, manipulative phrasing and pointed out that under his proposed plan one of his appointees would be choosing you healthcare for you as well. This example is not intended to dive into the debate over healthcare or even over Romney and Obama, but to rather simply prove the fallacious ways of our public media. Some would argue that we are so fallacious as a public that it is hard to even see through them nowadays and the common appearance of fallacies in public doesn’t even make a difference anymore. I’d beg to differ.

What Haven't You Learned?

I’ve learned a tremendous amount this fall semester in Writing 140. As expected, I grew tremendously as a writer. But I was most impressed with my ability, with the help of Professor Adler, to hone in on the writing process itself. I learned how to effectively use all my time and make completely sure that at certain stages of the process, my paper was where it needed to be. I learned to plan ahead, do thorough research and ultimately write an articulate paper that is both argumentative and cohesive.

As for writing the literal paper, I learned a lot about formatting the overall paper, each paragraph and even each sentence. The detail in which we covered formatting gave me the confidence to dive more into my thoughts and thoroughly analyze knowing at the very least my formatting was effective. Once I learned to master the art of formatting, we dove into other aspects of the paper, such as the thesis, topic sentences and transitions. We took it slow and learned simple aspects of the thesis from our course book before we put it all together to make a complete, articulate thesis. I learned how to effectively use both topic sentences and methods of transition so that my paper, though it may have numerous points with different forms of evidence, flowed fluidly and correctly illustrated my argument.  There are other small things that I received in my edited papers that helped my paper greatly though the pointers seem to be small, and not need much change. Though I learned a lot about writing, one thing that I learned that I think is most important is knowing and understanding that your paper can always improve, and furthermore no matter how much you improve as a writer there are always things you can polish and improve in hopes of growing into a young Ernest Hemingway.  

The Audience: The Director

The audience plays an undeniably huge role in the ethics of a rhetorical situation. In our modern age of technology, much emphasis is put on consumerism and tending to the needs of buyers and viewers of a given product. The audience likes that our model of public of discourse because the news is more interesting and appealing. Maybe the audience doesn’t understand our unethical form of discourse, but statistics show that when news is heavily covered, and done so maliciously, the view ratings increase. This is in line with our apparent love, as an audience, for reality television and other forms of staged entertainment. There are more obvious forms of unethical rhetorical situation and there also situations that are less obvious. The audience plays a larger role on those that are more obvious because the blatant, unethical tactics are generally for the audience. The less obvious tend to stem from the severity of the issue. In this case the lack of ethics stems from the producers, directors, etc. and the people who are shown in the situation. A key example of this, are the presidential debates. Though the audience still has a substantial role, namely political moderates, in the ethics of this situation, most of this is placed on the candidates because they have the power to stage and form the situation, as they feel most suitable. The audiences’ apparent love for the unethical rhetoric situation doesn’t justify the producers creating such dishonest, superficial work in the public sphere. The lack of knowledge, by much of these audiences, is the reason nothing is done regarding the unethical form of public discourse in a rhetorical situation. 

Honestly, What is Public Discourse?

Our current model of public discourse fosters bad faith argumentation. Though our examples of public discourse are appealing and extremely popular, their effectiveness in presenting quality ethical rhetoric is poor. The bad quality of public discourse stems from the media and the coverage of the public debates or interviews, etc. Instead of attempting to relay and find honest, important news, the media ask biased questions, attack celebrities and twist the things they are told in order to further there news, whether it is important and prevalent or not.

A key example of public discourse that foster bad faith argumentation are the popular presidential debates. First of all, the debates in actuality aren’t debates, but rather a staged question and answer that are generally presidents reaffirming their political, social or economic opinions. These debates are meant to compel political moderates to join a political side within the presidential race. They ineffectively do so as the only thing the debates do is reaffirm why democrats or republicans choose a particular side, and identify with those respective opinions.  The candidates themselves are also to blame for the lack of honest, ethical discourse due to their ability to approve or disapprove what is to be talked about and ultimately stage the debates. There is so much public attention given to such interviews or debates that the quality of them is more important than the quantity of what is spoken about.

Interviews of high profile people, or celebrities, athletes etc. are also examples of public discourse that foster bad faith argumentation. The media sets up interviews that don’t give honest news, but rather stage a story that is more appealing to viewers. Along with the poor coverage of public discourse, we as the audience also foster bad faith argumentation due to the fact that we like hearing such news and lies. Depending on the news, certain viewer ratings increase. It is the news that is falsely covered so that it is more appealing to the audiences. There are many factors that play into the fact that our model of public discourse fosters bad faith argumentation. And this model fails at presenting ethical rhetoric. 

Michelle Norris: Material Through A New Light

It was an informative experience getting to hear Michelle Norris speak first hand after studying her work, The Race Card Project, for a few weeks now. I gained new insight of her work and how it came to be. She spoke elaborately on the geography of the mind and how we think about things, specifically race. Norris constantly talked about what race means, which culminated into an answer through the revelation of her own story. Most of her career she ran away from her race and cultural identity, until she understood the power of being a black woman. It was at this point that she consequently realized the importance of the conversation about race and how talking about it would force progression of racial equality and understanding in our society. When she came to this realization she began her project that initially entailed her giving out cards and asking people to send them back with their thoughts about race and anything that pertained. Due to the mass reception she received she further developed her project into what we know now as, The Race Card Project, a site that has archived over 35,000 cards in its short existence thus far. Within the cards she spoke about similar ideas of racial tension and progression that come up in our AMST Black Social Movements class as well. She spoke about the role of everyone in the natural fight for equality minorities face. Norris stated that this movement effects everyone and there is more to be done, whether your cultural identity, race or ethnicity is connected with the ‘dominant culture’ or one that has been oppressed since the beginning of OUR history. Norris used events such as the March on Washington and Dr. King speech as a symbol of the progression we have made and a reminder of what still needs to be done. It was an honor being able to listen to someone with endless knowledge and experience, such as Michelle Norris, speak on this topic that affects us all.