Persuasion - Reception and Responsibility

Chapters 3 and 4 and the Health Care Debate

Reflection Paper

Liz Horgan

September 17, 2009

COMM 612 Leanne Pupchek

 Our national health care debate sprung to mind as I read Chapters 3 and

4 of “Persuasion-Reception and Responsibility” by Charles Larson. Looking at

theories of rhetoric and at Aristotle’s basic components of persuasion of ethos,

pathos and logos, I had visions of town hall meetings, Fox news, CNN and Jon

Stewart all talking about healthcare.

The credibility of the speaker, the emotions and logic used crafting the

message, the techniques of delivery and the use of enthymeme all serve to

influence the receiver of the message, me. As I thought of specific issues and

ideas highlighted in the readings, I felt I could understand the theory best by

looking at it in practice.

One of the compelling components of persuasive theory dealt with

choices of language, specifically using metaphor and narrative to connect to an

audience. Our current national healthcare policy debate becomes real when

stories of people suffering from breakdowns in our current system are used as

examples of why change is needed. Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” is an

example of using storytelling and dramatic affects to make complicated

comparisons between the US for-profit healthcare system and other countries’

systems simpler and easier to understand.

The techniques used in delivering the healthcare message are also

important. Again looking at “Sicko”, Moore used an investigative approach, had

compelling interviews with down-to-earth people/the common man, he

addressed both sides of the issue and directly highlighted opposing viewpoints

(the cost of care in other countries vs. the US, the availability of care/rationing

fears) in order to build an effective and persuasive argument. Honing a

message, repetition and dramatic, visual and auditory delivery were all

techniques used to persuade viewers to support a change to the US system.

Michael Moore is divisive figure, having taken on GM and other icons of

our society. He is not an attractive speaker, his dress is casual/messy and his

personal grooming is somewhat slack. Yet he has a reputation of asking hard

questions and taking on the status quo which gives him a measure of credibility

in some circles. Overall, he has engendered either a very positive or very

negative reputation, depending in large part on ideological and political

identifications of audience members. I believe his mixed credibility, combined

with his lack of mainstream power, affects the overall reception of his message.

Message reception is impacted by a variety of issues, including anchors,

which impact how an individual stands on an issue, and gives a range of

acceptance that impacts the effectiveness of persuasive arguments. When a

family member has had a bad experience with insurance coverage, of a person

you know has had to file for bankruptcy as a result of medical bills they can’t

pay, or you have been laid off and can no longer afford health coverage, these

experiences directly shape attitudes towards our health care system. Repeated
exposure to the issue gives depth to both the logical and emotional analytic

tools used in persuasion (the dual-process theories of ELM and HSM).

The motivation of the recipient is also a critical factor in both the

effectiveness and outcome of persuasive arguments. If health care issues

affect you (as outlined above), you tend to listen more attentively. You have a

stake in the dialog, though are more susceptible to fear-related and FUD style

persuasion which can impact objectivity and make you vulnerable to ethically/

biased arguments.

Persuasive theory, the way the message is delivered, the credibility of the

speaker, the motivation and attitudes held by the receiver all serve to impact

the dialog surrounding the issue of US healthcare policy and will ultimately

affect and influence policy outcome.