Kwantlen Polytechnic University Political Attack Advertising Discussion Find a marketing campaign – political attack advertising, consumerist advertising,

Kwantlen Polytechnic University Political Attack Advertising Discussion Find a marketing campaign – political attack advertising, consumerist advertising, social / cultural activism advertising – that is manipulative, trades on fallacies and illicit appeals to emotion, or is otherwise insulting to your intelligence.

Who is the arguer, intended audience, and the opponent? (chapter 1 of the Excerpts)
What are the ads trying to achieve? What beliefs, desires, or emotions is it trying to get the

audience to adopt, and for what reason? (chapter 1 of the Excerpts)

What fallacies, appeals to emotion, slanting, euphemisms / dysphemisms, etc., are being

employed to persuade you? (Daily Show chapter, chapter 2 & 3 & 6 & 7 the Excerpts)

What are the arguments stripped of the fallacies? Are the premises acceptable, contextually

relevant, sufficient? (chapter 3 of the Excerpts, advertising example from chapter 1)

2) What is the importance of human dignity according to Kantian ethics? Using examples develop an argument for how manipulative persuasion in the form of advertising could be seen as violating human dignity.

3) Briefly develop a thesis on any of the issues concerning advertising, politic rhetoric, political satire, etc. Give reasons for your position. PHIL 1145 Written Assignment, KPU, Summer 2020
Due: Week 11 @ the beginning of class. Worth: 25%
Sources:
• Excerpts from Good Reasoning Matters – for questions 1 & 3
•
“The Daily Show’s Exposé of Political Rhetoric” (on Moodle) for questions 1 & 3
•
“Kantian Theory: The Idea of Human Dignity” for questions 2 & 3
http://public.callutheran.edu/~chenxi/phil345_022.pdf
•
Any online sources used for examples
Answer all of the following questions.
1) Find a marketing campaign – political attack advertising, consumerist advertising, social / cultural
activism advertising – that is manipulative, trades on fallacies and illicit appeals to emotion, or is
otherwise insulting to your intelligence.
• Who is the arguer, intended audience, and the opponent? (chapter 1 of the Excerpts)
• What are the ads trying to achieve? What beliefs, desires, or emotions is it trying to get the
audience to adopt, and for what reason? (chapter 1 of the Excerpts)
• What fallacies, appeals to emotion, slanting, euphemisms / dysphemisms, etc., are being
employed to persuade you? (Daily Show chapter, chapter 2 & 3 & 6 & 7 the Excerpts)
• What are the arguments stripped of the fallacies? Are the premises acceptable, contextually
relevant, sufficient? (chapter 3 of the Excerpts, advertising example from chapter 1)
2) What is the importance of human dignity according to Kantian ethics? Using examples develop
an argument for how manipulative persuasion in the form of advertising could be seen as violating
human dignity.
3) Briefly develop a thesis on any of the issues concerning advertising, politic rhetoric, political
satire, etc. Give reasons for your position.
Tips:
• The more you engage with the required sources, the better.
• It will be tempting to google “Kantian dignity.” Don’t. If you cannot understand it or what
is important about it from the reading, talk to me about it
• No extensions will be granted. Begin your assignment now. You have lots of time to
complete this assignment and so if you leave it until the night before and get sick (etc.) you
will have to live with the late penalties. Also, be sure to back up any drafts, notes, or any
work you do on the assignment in case your computer crashes. “Catastrophic laptop failure”
is not an excuse. So 1) begin now; 2) back up your work.
Requirements:
1) A typed, formal written response to questions posed above, with a body which is between 2 and 4
pages – no longer than a 4 page body. If you really need to, you can go a little over the length limit.
12-point font, double-spaced, normal margins, and indented paragraphs, with a title page and a
PHIL 1145 Written Assignment, KPU, Summer 2020
reference page including an appendix for visuals of the advertisement you choose; see #3). Times
New Roman is the standard / professional font.
2) It should be crystal clear that you are answering these questions on the basis of the assigned
readings (provide page and paragraph numbers whenever you use a source at the end of that
sentence. As well, you should provide some short, integrated quotations on key points). For intext referencing from the sources, at the end of the sentence provide: (Name, p. #, para. #). If any
outside sources are used, you must give full bibliographical citations on the reference page as well
citing it in-text whenever you use it. If you use class lecture material, the lecture should also be cited
in text and on the reference page. Cite whenever a source is used, not just for quotations.
3) – 1) provide a title page with all relevant information (your name, student number, the name of
the course, section #, title of the assignment, and my name and title); 2.1) provide a properly
formatted reference page for each of the readings and sources used, 2.2) reference chapters from
the sources as if they were essays in an anthology (see sample below), 2.3) reference all sources used
in alphabetical order; 3) provide any visual examples of the advertisement you choose as an
appendix.
Sample reference:
Rosenthal, D. M. (2002). “Explaining Consciousness,” in D.J. Chalmers (ed.) Philosophy of Mind:
Classical and Contemporary Readings, third edition (NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 406-421.
Plagiarism: in general: using a source and not acknowledging it.
•
This includes taking information from a source (books or websites) without citing it,
•
Using someone else’s words without acknowledging they are someone else’s words,
•
Using online paraphrasing tools. Paraphrasing someone else’s words without citing – this
includes replacing some of another’s words with synonyms, and presenting another
student’s work as if it is your own.
•
If the info is not coming from you, you need to cite the source as you use it. Penalty: 0% on
the assignment and an academic dishonesty report to the Dean’s office.
Suspicion of plagiarism: failure to cite page and paragraph numbers of a source in the body of the
paper when it is used. Ineffective referencing will hurt your grade.
•
A poorly done but honest effort paper will likely (but no guarantee) pass.
•
Poor referencing that leads to a suspicion of plagiarism will result in a failing grade.
•
Plagiarism = 0% and a report to the Dean’s office.
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 121
10
THE DAILY SHOW’S EXPOSÉ
OF POLITICAL RHETORIC
LIAM P. DEMPSEY
In no area of human life is the purposeful misuse of reason more
pervasive than in politics. Rhetoric, you might say, is the bread and
butter of political discourse. It’s also the mainstay of The Daily Show’s
humor. Through purely informal means, the program brings to light
various uses of political rhetoric for recognition and due ridicule.
The Daily Show’s incisive satire makes these attempts at rhetorical
manipulation (literally) laughable.
In this chapter we’ll consider The Daily Show’s unique capacity to
demonstrate, through satire, misuses of reason in political life. Most
of the examples we’ll consider are taken from the “Indecision 2004”
segments originally broadcast on the show.1 Some are taken from
The Colbert Report. We’ll begin by considering The Daily Show’s
treatment of the more common logical fallacies employed by politicians and their exponents. Next we’ll discuss various political
appeals to emotion exposed by The Daily Show. Then we’ll consider
some of The Daily Show’s many forays into the alternative universe
of political spin, the systematic, politically motivated use of persuasive language, including “talking-points.” We’ll conclude by briefly
considering some of the different comedic devices used by Jon Stewart
and Stephen Colbert to expose and satirize these kinds of political
rhetoric.
121
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 122
LIAM P. DEMPSEY
A Cavalcade of Fallacies
Fallacies are errors in reasoning, which appear correct, and which
often distract people, one way or another, from the real issues.
Arguably the most common fallacy used in political discourse is the
ad hominem argument. This fallacy is committed when, rather than
addressing the argument or position a person offers, one simply attacks
the person. Similarly, one might try to make a person’s argument
or position look good, not by giving reasons for it, but by praising
its advocate.
Colbert gave a nice example of the ad hominem fallacy by “praising” partisan attacks on a ruling that the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Rather than
addressing the merits or the details of the ruling, partisan attacks
simply dismissed the decision on the grounds that the judge, Anna
Diggs Taylor, was appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Of course, her political affiliations are irrelevant to the cogency of
her arguments. Her decision stands or falls by the logical force of
her reasoning, not some aspect of her personality or history. The reasons for her decision are (conveniently) ignored by partisan critics.
Also common in political rhetoric is the straw man fallacy, in which
someone attacks a misrepresentation, a weakened version of an
opponent’s argument, preferably one casting the opponent in a
negative light. Consider, for example, the claim that Democratic
Representative John Murtha advocated a “cut and run” policy in
Iraq. Not only is this claim demonstrably false – Murtha advocated
a staged redeployment of troops out of Iraq while keeping them
within the region broadly – it also trades on negative language. “Cut
and run” is used to insinuate that he, and anyone who agrees with
him, are irresponsible cowards. Note well that this phrase in no way
addresses Murtha’s actual position.
The Daily Show exposes a similar example of the straw man
fallacy in its coverage of Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s vitriolic
speech against Senator Kerry (RNC, Day 3). Indeed, Senator
Miller provides a number of examples of fallacies. Not only does
he engage in ad hominem attacks, many of these attacks are attacks
against straw men. Take, for example, his claim that, as president,
Kerry would “let Paris decide when America needs defending.”
122
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 123
THE DAILY SHOW’S EXPOSÉ
The claim is, of course, preposterous. Other examples of the
ad hominem/straw man blend are easy enough to find. After
Hurricane Katrina, a popular administration talking-point was
the plea that the press shouldn’t “engage in the ‘blame game’ ” by
questioning the timeliness or adequacy of the government’s response
to the crisis.
Consider too the notorious “freedom fries” and “freedom toast”
incident (unfairly targeting the French). When Capitol Hill cafeterias
dropped “freedom” from their menus, Colbert bemoaned it in
typical hyperbolic fashion, insisting that the change to “freedom
fries” was the finest achievement of the Republican controlled
Congress, that without it, we’re left with “surrender fires.” Or
consider Governor George Pataki’s speech in which he asks the
audience, “What is this election about if it isn’t about our love of
freedom?” implying that only one party, the GOP, loves freedom, while
Democrats and others don’t (RNC, Day 4).
This brings up the false dilemma, the fallacy that there are only
two choices when in fact there are more than two. Consider this remark
on a cable news station. To paraphrase: “Sure it’s not great having
the government collect our telephone records, but it is better than
having them collect our body parts!” The argument is, in effect, that
we have two choices: either we allow possibly unconstitutional and
invasive government surveillance, or we all die! Another famous example of false dilemma, “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists,” trades on an appeal to patriotism. Satirizing this twisted logic
on The Report, Colbert concurs with the President, insisting, “Either
you’re for the war [in Iraq], or you hate America. It’s that simple!”
(August 29, 2006). These false dilemmas have become quite laughable. With President Bush’s declining poll numbers, it’s especially absurd
to think that over half the country supports the terrorists! Even so,
the use of this sort of false dilemma continues. For instance, Stewart
lambasted Vice President Dick Cheney for suggesting that anti-war
Democratic candidate Ned Lamont’s primary victory over Senator
Joseph Lieberman was a victory for Al Qaeda (August 15, 2006).
Again, the implication is that one either supports the war or one supports the terrorists, and so Lamont’s criticism of the war puts him
in league with the terrorists. Picking up on this ridiculous suggestion, Colbert began talking about Lamont as if he and Bin Laden
were old friends!
123
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 124
LIAM P. DEMPSEY
It’s worth noting that Daily Show correspondents often use false
dilemma questions. Samantha Bee, for instance, satirizes the rhetorical theatrics of the 2004 Republican national convention with
the following: “Is tonight the night that they exploit 9/11, or is
tonight inspired by empty promises for the future?” (RNC, Day 3).
It’s fairly common practice on The Report for Colbert to ask the
Congressional representatives he interviews (in his “Better Know a
District” segment): “George W. Bush: great president or the greatest
president?”
The slippery slope fallacy is committed when someone claims
that a seemingly harmless action, if taken, will inevitably lead to a
disastrous outcome. Noting a report of a woman in India allegedly
marrying a snake, a Fox News commentator challenged gay marriage
advocates to give principled reasons for why we ought to “draw the
line” at snakes. The implication is that there’s a slippery slope from
gay marriage to any conceivable union, however ridiculous. There’s
also an ad hominem/straw man element here, as if homosexuals were
no different from those who practice bestiality, implausible as it is
to see a snake as a person capable of informed consent. Colbert’s
response to this argument was to “agree” that homosexuals should
have to justify this purported marriage to a snake. Having said this,
however, Colbert continued:
I don’t see gay marriage as a slippery slope down to people marrying
snakes. I see people marrying snakes as a step up the slope from gay
marriage. I’ve got no problem with people marrying snakes – as long
as they’re not marrying gay snakes. We must marry limbless reptiles
of the opposite sex. Otherwise, it’s just unnatural. (June 20, 2006)
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when someone uses a key
word in two or more senses in the same argument and the apparent
success of the argument depends on the shift in meaning. A statement from Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow, satirized on The
Daily Show (August 2, 2006), provides a humorous example. In
response to questions about President Bush’s medical exam, Snow
proudly proclaimed that President Bush was “fit for duty.” As a rhetorical device, this proclamation trades on an ambiguity between physical fitness, which a doctor assessed, and professional competency,
which wasn’t tested, and lies beyond the doctor’s medical expertise.
124
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 125
THE DAILY SHOW’S EXPOSÉ
Stewart illustrates this equivocation by displaying a picture of an
overweight William H. Taft, who might have been fit for duty (competent) despite his apparent lack of physical fitness.
Finally, there’s the fallacy of begging the question, which is committed when an arguer states or assumes the very things he or she is
trying to prove as a conclusion. Consider The Daily Show’s satirical
take on Senator Sam Brownback’s argument against state-sponsored
embryonic stem cell research (July 19, 2006). Brownback’s presentation included a series of pictures following the development
of a child, the result of a discarded embryo, a so-called snowflake
baby. The first picture depicts the frozen embryo in question.
During this presentation, Senator Brownback refers to the frozen
embryo as the same person as in the other pictures. This reasoning
is fallacious in that Senator Brownback assumes the truth of the
very point at issue. He assumes that an embryo is a person in
arguing that the state should treat it as a person. Thus, he begs the
question against the proponents of embryonic stem cell research
who don’t accept the premise that embryos are persons. Indeed,
Brownback goes even further, displaying pictures drawn by the child
in question, of herself as a “happy” embryo – with a smiley face
– juxtaposed with “sad” embryos that haven’t yet been adopted.
Not only does this beg the question, it also attempts to “tug at our
heartstrings,” trading on the very strong feelings we have for the
welfare of children. As Stewart concludes with a chuckle, if research
reveals that some embryos are capable of speech and emotions, they
should, indeed, be exempt from research!
Tugging at the Heartstrings
It’s common – all too common – for politicians to make direct
appeals to listeners’ emotions. These include appeals to fear, outrage,
and patriotism. Since 9/11, fear has become a powerful rhetorical
device in North American political life. Not surprisingly, fearmongering – causing or using fear in your audience in order to
persuade them – has become quite common. It’s fear that often
“justifies,” in the public mind, both military interventions abroad
and limitations on civil liberties at home.
125
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 126
LIAM P. DEMPSEY
Appeals to fear, outrage, and patriotism are brought out nicely in
The Daily Show’s treatment of the 2004 Democratic and Republican
national conventions. Both parties make ample use of these rhetorical devices to secure support. For example, as Stewart highlights,
there were numerous references to Senator Kerry’s (comparatively
impressive) war record in an attempt to harness the fear, outrage,
and patriotic fervor of post-9/11 America.2 Recall Senator Kerry’s salute
to the audience and his exclamation: “I’m John Kerry and I’m
reporting for duty!” The take-home message: the world is a very scary
place, fraught with danger and hidden enemies, but John Kerry, a
decorated war hero, will protect us from these dangers.
The Republicans, on the other hand, went so far as to have their
convention in New York City, just miles away from Ground Zero.
The continual references to 9/11 and the threat of terrorism in its
delegates’ speeches are difficult to overstate. As Stewart notes, not
only were “September 11th” and “terrorism” frequent refrains in the
speeches of the participants, “September 11, 2001” was displayed
on the backdrop to the speaker’s podium (RNC, Day 1). Colbert
summed up these rather obvious – but apparently effective – rhetorical ploys as “crass-tastic.”
Appeals to outrage can take at least two forms: trying to harness
listeners’ outrage in order to persuade them, and simply displaying
outrage at something for the same purpose. In the latter case,
outrage suggests conviction. If so-and-so is that upset about suchand-such, there must be something really objectionable about it.
Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s angry speech at the 2004 Republican
national convention (RNC, Day 3) provides a nice example of the
rhetorical use of outrage: “Today’s Democratic leaders see America
as an occupier not a liberator. And nothing makes this marine
madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather
than liberators!”3 Miller’s suggestion is that it’s outrageous, even
unpatriotic, to describe the American military presence in Iraq as an
occupation. The choice of “occupier” over “liberator” infuriates
Senator Miller! But notice that Miller hasn’t given us any reason to
view “liberator” as more fitting than “occupier.” He’s just expressed
patriotic outrage, without in any way justifying it, much less his
conclusion. What’s more, as Stewart humorously points out,
President Bush himself had only recently referred to Iraqis as living
under “occupation.”
126
9781405163149_4_010.qxd 5/10/07 1:39 PM Page 127
THE DAILY SHOW’S EXPOSÉ
The ubiquity of fear-mongering and appeals to outrage and
patriotism has also been picked up on by Colbert in his Report. In
an exchange with Stewart at the end of one episode of The Daily
Show, Colbert actually fear-mongers about fear-mongering, using
fear to draw attention to the dangers of fear-mongering (August 16,
2006)! To take another example, Colbert satirized fear-mongering in
cable news reports on the Middle East by enthusiastically embracing the potential outbreak of “WWIII,” complete with graphics of
explosions and allusions to Armageddon. Similarly, in his regular
segme…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment