Pathetic Discourse In Media

An argument should be fair, accurate, and principled in order to keep the balance between logos, pathos, and ethos. This is especially important when it comes to public discourse. However, in our current form of public discourse, pathos is being used unfairly and excessively. It seems that pathos currently outweighs logos and ethos in all form of the media. From the Tiger Woods scandal to health care reform, pathetic appeals are being overused to grab the audience’s attention.

Although as a whole there is an unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse I do not always find this wrong, it depends upon the situation. Sometimes it is necessary to make strong emotional appeals in order to capture your audience. In society today people are constantly surrounded by media and persuasive arguments. One main problem for a writer is how to break through the “noise” that surrounds everyone and grab people’s attention. I find that it is acceptable to rely upon strong emotional appeals in order to get your point across when it comes to television shows and news broadcasts because they have to find a way to differentiate themselves from other forms of media. For instance, during the Olympics there always seems to be an athlete that overcomes great odds such as a rough childhood, a death of a family member, a spouse or child with cancer, and he or she goes on to win the gold or come close. This person would otherwise just be another athlete competing for the gold but the broadcasting company decides to focus on their story and tell it to America in order to appeal to our common attitudes and emotions. I find myself rooting for this person because I can identify with them. If it wasn’t for the strong emotional appeals of the network I would simply look at this athlete as just another athlete in another Olympic competition. In addition, I would be more likely to change the channel because I am not emotionally invested in the outcome of the event. However, this is not the case by drawing me in with a strong emotional appeal.

At some point though, strong emotional appeals that are unbalanced with logos and ethos can cross the line. One area in which I believe it is especially important to keep the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos is politics. Politicians often exploit people by making emotional appeals to their audience with a lack of logos and ethos. When politicians over rely one pathetic appeals the audience misses out on important information that is necessary in understanding the facts of the issue. For instance during the debate about health care, Rush Limbaugh stated that he’s moving to Costa Rica if we get health care passed. This is an irrational argument that makes a strong emotional appeal to his audience. It makes the idea of health care reform sound so disturbing to him that it would destroy America and its values, so he would rather move and live in Costa Rica. During this statement, he makes no logical facts for what he finds wrong with health care reform and relies entirely on emotional appeal. Politicians often commit this when they uses bumper stickers saying, “A vote for Joe is a vote for children.” This fallacy relies entirely on emotion and suggest that if you don’t vote for Joe then you are hurting or against children.

In conclusion, sometimes it is necessary to break the balance between ethos, pathos, and logos in order to capture your audience’s attention. However, this practice should never be used for matters that greatly affect the general public such as politics. A strong emotional appeal to an audience to get them to watch a television show doesn’t really hurt anyone. On the contrary, when politicians make overly pathetic arguments they confuse the public and possibly harm future and current public policy.