Rhetorical Analysis of Political Advertisement

As the pivotal 2016 U.S Presidential Elections approached

The two main parties bombarded the American electorate with political rhetoric. Political speeches, presidential debates, and ads all used this rhetoric. In this paper, a political commercial from the 2016 US Presidential Elections will be subjected to an Aristotelian analysis. The 32-second political commercial "Bad News" that targets Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has been selected for this analysis. This advertisement's content was created by Future45, a group whose main objective is to inform American voters about the problems confronting the nation. The “Bad News” advertisement follows the distressing trend of aggressive attacks on the two leading candidates by organizations and individuals who had interests in this election. The broader meaning of rhetoric is that it is an art of persuasion. In the “Bad News” advertisement, the creators are trying to persuade the electorate that Hillary Clinton was a corrupt and therefore does not qualify to be the president on moral grounds. The message in this advertisement echo the “Crooked Hillary” attacks by Republican candidate Donald Trump during the campaign trail. The advertisement starts with a quote by President Richard Nixon who states that the citizens have the right to know if their president was a crook.

Aristotelian Analysis of the ‘Bad News’ Advertisement

Rhetoric was initially recognized as a discipline in ancient Greek. However, while Plato (c. 428 to 348 B.C) was largely hostile to rhetoric and its practice, it was Aristotle (c. 348BC to 322 B.C), a pupil of Plato, who promoted the use and study of rhetoric. Aristotle’s ideas on the use of rhetoric have to date become the foundation on which people understand the art of persuasion. Aristotle’s ethics was based on three principle terms which are ethos, pathos and logos. This Aristotelian analysis will thus be founded on these three terms. In other words, the focus of this analysis is how the “Bad News” advertisement uses ethos, pathos and logos to appeal to or persuade the audience. Ethos, which is the first mode of persuasion as espoused by Aristotle, is based on the speaker’s personal character. Ethos is also referred to as ethical appeal. On its part, pathos deals with putting the audience to a certain frame of mind. Pathos is also referred to as emotional appeal since it is meant to appeal to the audience’s emotions. Logos deals with proof of the words contained in a message. Logos is also called logical appeal since it appeals to the rationality of the audience.

The “Bad News” Advertisement uses Pathos as a Model of Persuasion

The creators of this advertisement employ ethos where the people and agencies quoted are meant to inspire some trustworthiness. The first person to appear on this advertisement is President Nixon who avers that it is prudent for the citizens to know whether their President (on in this case, the person who is on the Presidential ticket, is a crook). In this quote, crook is used metaphorically since it contains implied comparison. Metaphors are important elements of speech in political advertisements because they matter “when it comes to changing views and behaviors” (Geary 120). The ability of metaphors to persuade cannot be underestimated (Lakoff and Johnsen 4). Nixon is a former President and therefore qualifies to comment on the issue of the moral qualification of the President and the right of the citizens to know the kind of person they intent to vote into that office. The creators also quote the FBI director who they contend that he has “agreed” on the need to open investigations into Hillary Clinton’s servers. This reference to FBI acceding to the fact that people need to know whether their president is crooked is a form of archetypical metaphor which as Osborn asserts, are meant to appeal to the ubiquitous emotions and motivation of human beings (Osborn 306). In this case, the target audience is the voters. The use of the FBI’s image was supposed to convince the audience that indeed, Clinton was not the suited to be the President since her very character is being questioned by the person is the head of the nation’s intelligence and security and the FBI at large. Overall, in this advertisement, the creators indicate that the FBI has opened up investigations into Clinton’s servers, and since Americans have trust and confidence in the FBI, this is meant to make the electorate question Clinton’s candidature.

The Pathos Employed in this Advertisement

The pathos employed in this advertisement is that voting for Hillary Clinton is wrong because of her email controversy and the fact that she was under investigations by the FBI because of the source and handling of classified emails that were in her server. This position is supposed to create or evoke a frame in the mind of the audience that it is wrong to vote Clinton into the office of the President. A frame, as Lakoff found out, is a powerful tool in rhetorical appeal (Lakoff). Pathos was incorporated in this advertisement through the question by appealing to the negative emotion of the audience. By stating that it is not thoughtful to vote for Hillary due to the ongoing FBI investigations, the speaker is trying to invoke a sense of resentment and even fear on putting the country into the hands an individual with such a tainted past. This strategy gives form to the people’s deep-lying desires” (Fowles). This is a powerful use of emotional appeal because it resonates with the desires of the electorate and Americans at large – to vote for a President who has a high sense of moral rectitude.

The Advertisement also Uses Logical Appeal or Logos

The advertisement also uses logical appeal or logos, to persuade the audience that Clinton is not the ideal Presidential candidate. The idea is to appeal to the rational side of the audience when the speaker asks “how can we elect someone who is under FBI investigation.” The message in this advertisement is that Clinton is under investigations by the FBI due to the email controversy – something that is a statement of fact. In other words, the creators are simply saying that there is enough proof that indeed, the FBI has reopened investigations into Clinton’s servers after the discovery of new emails. The quotes by President Nixon and by the FBI are examples of logos used in this advertisement since these testimonies are in support of the position taken by the creators of this advertisement that Clinton is unfit to be the President.

Conclusion

The “Bad News” advertisement is rhetorically effective. This is because the advertisement artfully uses language and images to persuade the audience. The primary target of this advertisement is the voters, and its purpose was to create a certain effect on the voters. The specific effect that the advertisement was supposed to create is skillfully captured in the message that Clinton does not deserve to be the president. However, the speaker does not specifically advise the electorate not to vote for Clinton, it employs Aristotle’s ingredients for persuasion or rhetorical appeals which are ethos, logos and pathos. Therefore, the “Bad News” advertisement is rhetorically effective because it appeals to the electorate’s ethics convincing them of the speaker’s credibility (in this case President Nixon, the FBI director, the FBI, and Wall Street Journal). The advertisement is also rhetorically effective because it largely succeeds in generating an emotional response on the audience by making them have serious reservations about the candidature of Clinton. Finally, the advertisement is rhetorically appealing because it speaks to the audience’s rationality having presented proof of the issues facing Clinton.

Works Cited

Fowles, Jib. Advertising's Fifteen Basic Appeals. New York: Jamper Presss

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press, 2008.

Lakoff, George. Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004..

Osborn, Michael. "Archetypal metaphor in rhetoric: The light‐dark family." Quarterly Journal of Speech 53.2 (1967): 115-126.