Oppen rhetorical style!

As the world continues to progress, technology has presented us with a wealth of sources for learning about the current state of the world. However, the ability of the first world to pick and choose a preferred method of intake does not necessarily mean that all sources are created equal. For almost full generation, the show 60 Minutes has been a pillar of the American news media. One of the most important services that 60 Minutes has provided for the American people has been election coverage. When the show debuted in 1968, the very first episode was a duet of interviews with presidential candidates Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. When it was created, it was the first show that offered a reporter centered investigation. The show confronts the viewer with two dueling editorials and lets them decide if they find the viewpoints credible. Especially in presidential coverage, the ability for a news program to air opposing opinions in a manner such that neither is given preference over the other makes for a very informative program that leaves the viewer with a very real sense of who they think has the stronger case. Because of this, 60 Minutes has gained massive authority over the last forty years and makes this program one source that presidential candidates must perform well on if they hope to convince Americans that they are the right person to be in the oval office. Part of doing that is not only the policies that distinguish their politics, but also how they present their plans to the public, the idea of elocution or style in the five canons of rhetoric. Because 60 Minutes has such authority in the news world, it ensures that both people who support and oppose both candidates are sure to keep a close eye during. For this reason, 60 Minutes makes an ideal source for analysis by a amateur rhetorician for the uses of elocution in public speaking.

In the opening half of the show, reporter Scott Pelley interviews governor Mitt Romney. For Romney, the first real major issue that Scott Pelley brings up is his flip-flops over the abortion debate and tax increases, and raises a topic about rhetoric; playing up the audience. Romney of course denies Pelley's accusation that he says whatever he needs to at a certain time, and instead spins the question off to say that he has acquired knowledge that he previously did not possess. According to Aristotle, however, knowing what to say when is a distinctly advantageous quality for a rhetorician. Romney, it seems, knows that he puts his foot in his mouth several times over the last few months, mainly the video leaked in which he show apparent disdain for 47% of Americans ability to make an informed decision. Based on the apparently covert means used to film his comments, Romney had no plan for the general public to view that tape, but to a party of strict Romney supporters, he is more frank about his situation and the manner in which he proposes to do about it. Although the common American finds it distasteful, his elocution portraying his hopeful attitude in the face of dour odds exudes confidence, bravery and tenacity that are stylistically important traits when the slog is acknowledged to be a tough one.

Romney's response to Pelley's question about his plan for financial reform includes the use of a rhetorical term called anacoloutha. Romney says that his plan to get America out of the financial crisis is to find the ways that Americans cut corners to get more take home pay. Central to this is the idea of finding instances in tax laws that give a unfair advantage to those who know these laws well. Specifically, he says that he wants to find “loopholes, deductions, special rates”(T:5:00) and then close them. Clearly, Romney wants us to see these the words to be synonyms, when in fact they really have some very different meanings and connotations that, if examined one at a time, are really quite dissimilar. A “loophole” sounds dishonest, something that a sneaking investment banker will use to gain monetarily at a rate unavailable to the majority of Americans who are not savvy to the banking world. “Special” rates implies that some investors are “special” and deserve an unfair advantage. In this way, both the terms “loopholes” and “special rates” imply something that is wrong or unfair. “Deductions” however, are a completely different story. Deductions are government tax breaks are given for a number of reasons, but most of the time these reasons do not stem from unfair practices. Romney is using anacoloutha in order to give connotation to a word that, if it was not book-ended by two very negatively charged phrases, would seem like something deserving of a tax break. Because of the way that the terms “loophole” and “special rate” imply dishonesty, this anacoloutha is playing on the pathos of the viewer. People in modern America are very passionate about equality, especially in the eyes of the law. By the inherent unfairness that “loopholes” and “special rates” imply, Romney hopes to create emotion in the mind of the viewer and outrage about how these practices have been allowed to continue this far. The theme within this anacoloutha's style seems to give creedence to the Romney/Ryan belief that Obama has been implementing his plans for financial reform, but they either haven't worked or allow for “loopholes, deductions and special rates” to continue in our current government.

Steve Kroft interviews President Obama in the White House. This in and of itself is a use of the elocution used in rhetoric. When the viewer is confronted with the very prestigious position that Barack Obama holds in our country by the seals on the carpet and the general décor that is closely tied with the oval office, Obama is assuming that the viewer will associate him with not only the prestige of presidency, but also how his actions have led him to that office. The style of exuding authority is Aristotle's concept of ethos. It serves to give him a tangible status the candidate who has experience and know-how that make him the man to lead the country and fix our problems. As an additional evidence of Obama's close attention to style, his tone of voice, word choice and manner of speaking directly into the camera that come off as frank and sincere. Many times during the interview he acknowledges that the situation in America is a bleak one, as well as taking responsibility for all of the things his administration has done, both good and bad. His reasons for this can be thought of as twofold. The first is very simply that the American people want somebody in the White House that is morally strait, again he playing up his credibility in the eyes of the American people. The second and less obvious reason could be that he wants the American people to know that he is aware of the problems that many of them face every day. While he plays up his ethos and the prestige that goes along with the presidency, he also is making the distinction that he is different than the average Joe. While any Presidential candidate should be far above the curve, all these apparent differences could make it seem as if he is out of touch with his constituency. For this reason, the President uses his style of frankness to ensure that the American people believe that he knows what the problems of middle America are.

When Obama is asked by Kroft about the lack of change during his term as far as creating employment in America, he answers with an easy to follow logic based argument that has been a mainstay of his style of rhetoric. Firstly, he acknowledges that he knows that there is a huge problem and that he is in fact concerned about it. He goes on to say that although he did create some jobs, there is a long way to go still. He argues that the reason that the American people have not seen a large change since the start of his term is the size of the hole that he was left to fill by the previous administration. Here again he uses his manner of frank and simple speaking. By saying that he knows that the problem has not gone away, he indeed has not delivered all of what he promised to do during his previous campaign, but there are reasons for this, and he goes on to explain them in a concrete way. He says that what Mitt Romney wants to do to fix the financial situation in America has already been tried by his predecessor, and that is why America struggles even though his stimulus plan is slow in developing. Given the situation that America continues to languish in, it is apparent that this type of thinking has caused very serious strains on the American economy that pervade into his term. He uses a charged word, “backward” in order to describe where the Romney/Ryan plan is headed. Especially in America, progress is a huge goal that every President has promised during their term. When something is described as going backward, it is implied that progress has halted, and only a feeling of stagnation remains. This is also conforms to his campaign slogan, Forward, and the idea that his plan is fresh and the American people are avoiding the stagnation in practices that have led us thus far into a recession.

The unique way in which the viewer is presented with material by the show 60 Minutes has made the show increasingly popular over the 44 years that it has been in production. By being a reporter based inquiry, the questions that are raised in a dueling editorial style give 60 Minutes a debate quality that necessitates that each candidate prepare their very best methods of rhetoric in order to convince each of the shows million viewers each year that they are indeed the right man to be in the Oval Office. For these reasons, amateur rhetorician can quickly identify, analyze, and then ultimately understand how each candidate uses their unique elocution of rhetoric in order to further their cause and gain the admiration of the public.