Read both Donna Woolfolk Cross's "Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled" (in
our Power of Language text) and the LB Brief's section on
"Fallacy" (pp. 113-16). Post a response to
the following questions:
What is propaganda? Give an example that you see
in the world.
What is a logical fallacy? Identify one specific fallacy
(e.g., post hoc ergo propter hoc) then give an example of it that you have
found.
Is it ethical to use either or both when trying to persuade
someone to do something? Why or Why not?
Name a context that would make
this information useful and important to have.
Identify a potential
audience who might need to be informed of or reminded that people use these
techniques to manipulate or persuade us all the time. When done, post a
response to one other classmate's post. Remember also to share your ideas
with your peer group before posting your formal response.
Cruiser Message Board Post: Nixon
Post a 150-250 word response to Nixon's "Checker's Speech." Read the
text and watch the YouTube 13
minute video of the speech before posting.
How could an audience during
Nixon's speech (given in 1952) have known or suspected he was not being
truthful or straightforward.
Remember, some people heard this on the
radio. There were no VCR, DVR, or DVD recorders, no 24-hour news shows
to breakdown and fact check what Nixon said, no Internet to do it as
well.
Considering the stakes here for Nixon, his political future, what
were the important consequences of so many people falling for his propaganda and logical fallacies?
Over 3 million people contacted the
Republican National Committee in support of Nixon after this speech, and
he remained the vice presidential candidate for the GOP, eventually
winning with Eisenhower. He eventually became president.
What strikes
you as particularly persuasive, outrageous, and funny in this speech?
Respond to one other classmate's post.
Note about Chapter 10 reading:
On p. 105, Aaron discusses different types of
claims made in arguments. In this essay, we are working with the
first one, a claim made about a past or present reality. Using Nixon
(the past) as an example, we are showing people in the present how
easy it can be to be fooled by propaganda and how manipulative some
people will be in how they use propaganda and logical fallacies. So
the claim is in part that we can learn from the past by analyzing
Nixon's famous speech in order to learn about the nature of these
techniques.
In this essay, we will not be making counterargument.
You can read this section in Chapter 10, but do not worry about
implementing it in your essay. We will be incorporating counterargument
in the last essay for this class.
I have provided below a suggested outline for your
argument using the most logical and traditional development and
progression of ideas in academic writing. Your book offers several
patterns. Since some of these incorporate different components of
argument we are not using in this assignment, please stick to the most
basic pattern.
Do not get bogged down in the inductive/deductive
reasoning section. My simplest explanation of these two patterns is
this: Using inductive reasoning to make an argument is like a detective who
finds a lot of evidence at the scene of a crime but has no idea of motive or
suspect. Using the clues, he pieces them together to arrive at a possible
solution to the crime. Using deductive reasoning is like the detective
who begins with a theory of the crime - why and who did it, looks for
evidence to support her belief, and then presents her claim. For this
paper, we already are aware of motive and criminal when it comes to
propaganda and logical fallacies. We must lay out our argument to our
readers using deductive reasoning: we present them with a supposition
(using a particular fallacy or propaganda technique is bad), we provide
evidence to support that supposition (we define the fallacy/propaganda, we
give them an example from Nixon of that technique), and we then connect the
dots by arguing why this is a problem (we explain why Nixon's use is
unethical and then connect it to the present).
LENGTH:
Your paper must be a minimum of 3 pages (@ 900 words).
POINTS:
THIS ASSIGNMENT IS WORTH 100 POINTS.
AUDIENCE: Your default
audience for this assignment consists of intelligent,
college-level readers. You may specify a more particular
audience, using examples that will resonate with them.
GUIDELINES
This essay assignment
asks you to persuade an audience that knowing about propaganda
techniques and logical fallacies is important. To do so, you must
define in general what these are, and then, in the body of the
essay, present to your audience three types of fallacies with
examples from “Senator Nixon’s Checkers Speech.” You then must walk
readers through the example, showing them exactly why the example is a
fallacy and what the dangers are in not being able to recognize it as
such. When defining each logical fallacy, you MUST cite from Cross
or LB Brief. When setting up your argument and discussing propaganda
and fallacies in general, you may also cite from Cross or LB Brief to add
weight to your argument.
In your body paragraphs, you MUST cite
passages from Nixon’s speech. Deciding when to quote or summarize
depends on what you are doing. Follow these guidelines when deciding:
Quoting:
If your argument and the fallacy/propaganda technique you are pointing
out deals with misstatements by Nixon, a problem with how he says something,
or a problem with his logic, then you must quote his exact words. We cannot
take your word that he misspoke or used vague language - we must see what he
did. For example, let's consider the logical fallacy of the complex
questions. Wheeler
defines this as "phrasing a
question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement
is true without evidence or discussion." Since I am dealing with the
way someone phrases his/her words/statements, I must quote the original so
the audience can see exactly what the person says. Here is an example from
Hitler's "Nation and Race" from Mein Kampf. Using the pattern
for your body paragraphs, this is how I would develop the argument:
An
insidious form of logical fallacy is the complex question that
phrases a "question or statement in such as
way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence
or discussion" (Wheeler). This technique is very useful when dealing
with an unknowledgeable or ignorant audience. Hitler is a master of
the complex question, inserting statements throughout his writings
that seem hard fact but are not. One particularly striking example
occurs near the beginning of
"Nation and Race."
Hitler is beginning his argument about the dangers of mating between
different species, offering proof of this in that mating across
species is infertile and offers various examples as proof using
finches, storks, and wolves as some examples of species who only
mate together. This makes sense. However, in the next paragraph,
Hitler begins using the word "race" and refers to humans breeding
not animals of different species. His argument here is
scientifically unsound because humans are all part of the same
species and race, though they have different ethnicities. A
Caucasian mating with a Hispanic is not a matter of different
races/species. The complex question arises when Hitler claims that
"racial purity" is "universally valid in Nature." Nowhere
does he prove this argument. In fact, he does not treat it as
argument but instead offers it as fact. For those without an
understanding of basic biology or the classifications of species vs.
ethnicity (or that race is equivalent to species not to ethnicity),
this statement might not register as problematic. If prejudice and
ethnic fear also form part of the argument, then an audience might
swallow this statement as fact without even questioning it.
This is what propagandists do: they use words and confidence, facts
out of context, words with imprecise meanings, and listener's fears
to persuade people to do their bidding. People who do not listen
critically or who let prejudice and fear rather than reason guide
their responses are vulnerable to this unethical manipulation and
can easily become pawns in someone else's power play. The results
can be devastating, as Hitler's rise to power and the resulting
Holocaust can attest.
Summarizing: If your argument is about a pattern of technique and
information or topics that he uses to try and win his audience's
support, then you can use summary instead of quotes. However, you will
also benefit by following up a summary of basic trends with a specific
example that uses a quote. Using appeal to patriotism, I would use the
summary followed by a quote technique as follows:
The
patriotic approach is a specific type of argument ad hominem.
Wheeler
defines the latter as "Using
an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and
enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument" and
specifies that the appeal to patriotism "asserts that a certain
stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that
those who disagree are unpatriotic." Usually, propagandists use
several appeals to patriotism in one speech, building the emotion of
the audience. One allusion to patriotism may be harmless, but a
consistent barrage of patriotic references, especially when they are
not relevant to the situation, can only be a technique meant to prey
on an audience's emotion rather than supply a logical reason for
supporting the speaker's cause. Nixon, in his "Checkers Speech,"
came before his listeners to argue why his use of campaign funds was
not morally unethical. He soon abandons that argument and falls back
on a multitude of propaganda and logical fallacy techniques, with
appeal to patriotism being one of the more common ones. He mentions
his military service and honors, his fight against Communism, and
ultimately his love of his country as reasons to trust him.
One of his strongest patriotic appeals comes at the end when he
tries to make his audience believe America is in danger. He says:
Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel
that in spite of the smears, the misunderstanding, the necessity
for a man to come up here and bare his soul? And I want to tell
you why. Because, you see, I love my country. And I think my
country is in danger. And I think the only man that can save
America at this time is the man that's running for President, on
my ticket, Dwight Eisenhower. (Nixon)
The fact that Eisenhower is a retired Army
general much respected and loved by the country makes the patriotic
aspect of this appeal even stronger. Nixon uses the element of fear
to place listeners in a position of seeming unpatriotic or uncaring
of America's safety if they continue to criticize or disbelieve his
past actions and current motives. Not to long ago, President
G. W. Bush used the same appeal in making the case of war against
terrorism. In a speech meant to justify American plans to attack
terrorists, Bush argued, "You're either with us or against us in the
fight against terror" ("Bush
Says"). The person guided by emotion and great love of country
might overlook the logical error in this statement and quickly
embrace patriotism. The fact is, many more alternatives existed
besides the two Bush offered. A person could love country but not
want to jump immediately into war without proof, as was the now
clearly documented case in this situation. The propagandist may have
the best intentions in the world when making his/her appeal to an
audience. Not all people using these techniques are monsters like
Hitler. As Donna Woolfolk Cross points out, propaganda is neutral
(47). The intent behind the use is what makes an appeal evil, good,
or misguided. That is why people need to be aware of these
techniques so that they can make an informed decision when presented
with an argument, not be blindly swept away by emotion and lies.
Works Cited
"Bush Says It Is Time for Action."
CNN.com. Turner Broadcasting System, 06 Nov. 2001.
Web. 20 June 2011.
Cross, Donna Woolfolk. "Propaganda:
How Not to Be Bamboozled." The Power of Language; The
Language of Power. Ed. Christian Morgan. 3rd ed. New
York: Learning Solutions, 2010.
47-55. Print.
Hitler, Adolf. "Nation and Race."
Mein Kampf. Tropic of Rhetoric. Kelli
McBride, 2011. Web. 20 June 2011.
Nixon, Richard M. "Checkers Speech."
The History Place. Philip Gavin, 2011. Web. 20 June 2011.
Wheeler, L. Kip. "Logical Fallacies
Handlist." Dr. Wheeler's Website. Carson-Newman
College, 2011. Web. 20
June 2011.
You should make it
clear to your audience what may happen if they do not think about what
the speaker is saying or do not question the validity of, practicality
of, or intent behind the arguments a writer presents. Your discussion
must incorporate your own ideas and opinions regarding this
subject, but may also make use of ideas presented in assigned readings
and class discussion. Students must follow MLA documentation rules
when citing from outside sources, which the handbook clearly
addresses. If you have any further questions, please consult with me.
The analysis essay
should have a minimum of 3 body paragraphs according to the outline
given below and discussed in class. In your thesis statement, you must
make your position clear, and list your three points of discussion.
BASIC
REQUIREMENTS
Following a strict, academic format, your
essay would outline like this (though a lot of variations exist):
Introduction: open with an attention
getter, provide context/background for this discussion, and state
thesis/claim. You do not define or start arguing about
individual fallacies you want to point out in Nixon in the
introduction. Instead, you focus on the issue of fallacies and
propaganda on the big picture level.
Body
Paragraphs: Present in each paragraph a
different logical fallacy pattern; define it using Cross
and/or LB BRIEF; explain the problems with this type of
thinking according to your source(s); point out an example in
Nixon’s speech that uses this fallacy; explain why it is a
logical error. When referring to examples from Nixon’s speech, you
must QUOTE the text,not summarize it. This is
important because you are analyzing Nixon’s use of words, and to do
so fairly, you must present the reader with Nixon’s exact words.
With fallacies that Nixon uses more than once, you may cite more
than one quote to show a repeated use of this logical error. You
would then explain what Nixon hopes to gain by using this
fallacy repeatedly.
Conclusion: Restatement of thesis, provide
big picture comments – why it is important not to be bamboozled, as
Cross calls it.
In addition, you
must:
use proper tone
and voice for a formal essay (use formal, not conversational or
casual, language)
employ correct
punctuation and grammar.
follow page format
guidelines as described in your syllabus.
Include correct
and complete MLA documentation for each source