After reading through the factcheck.org responses to the vice presidential and first presidential debates, what do you think is the rhetorical value of lying. Do you think that one kind of lie is more likely to get candidates in trouble than another? Why do candidates persist in lying in this age of near-instant factchecking? From the candidates' perspective, how does untrue information manage to persuade people anyway? (even when it's easy to demonstrate that the information is untrue?)
due on October 17, 2012
I think the rhetorical value of lying during campaign speeches and debates lies in the area of ethos, but not of the speaker - the ethos of the speaker's opponent. If one of the candidates spends time lying about what the other guy wants to do and making his or her plans seem more farfetched than they really are, then some people may take them to be true, especially if they don't do any fact checking themselves. Having this in their mind would really affect the ethos, or the credibility, of the liar's opponent because people who don't fact check may believe what is said. And, I feel like some people still don't check the facts even in today's time with widespread access to the Internet in America. The candidates know this, I think, so they continue to exploit the people who don't take their word with a grain of salt. Also, the candidates probably know that negative and extravagant statements tend to stick in people's minds and be remembered, so by repeating the lies over and over, people still may hold them to be true.
ReplyDeleteSometimes when a candidate lies, one may stand out more than another. I think part of this is the fault of the media who tend to latch onto one out of line thing that is said by one candidate, and they run with it for weeks and blow it way out of proportion. Also, usually it is the lies that somehow bash the character or morals of one candidate that seem to cause the most upheaval.
I think the rhetorical value of lying is that the candidates are hoping that they have American’s so convinced and that they do not check their facts that they make themselves seem credible. So in the instances that American’s don’t check their facts it makes the candidate or whomever is speaking, sound much more credible than they are. I don’t think one type of lie will necessarily get a candidate into more trouble than any other unless it is a blatant, everybody knows, in your face kind of lie. Let’s be honest too, not every candidate has all of their facts right either whether it is intentional or unintentional.
ReplyDeleteI would say that candidates still lie, even though it is easy to fact-check them now, because it has been done for so long. They say things that they hope no one will catch or to make their point more appealing or maybe there even is some truth to what they’re saying. It’s almost just a given now that when you think of politicians you think of liars, so lying it seems just doesn’t appear to be such a big issue anymore, it’s not right, but it’s almost a given that a politician is going to lie.
It still persuades people anyway because maybe their opponent is an even bigger liar, or that they are not so far off track with there they’re wanting to go with their statement that people still believe them. You cannot convince the public to believe anything different than what they want to believe. The lies still persuade people though because maybe one lie is more appealing than another lie, which just goes back to the fact of all politicians lie. As a nation we have come to accept that I guess and they, the politicians, know that so they just keep on with what they have always done, lying and hoping that they will get their points across.
I think the rhetorical value of lying has a lot to do with the current dramaturgy that has developed in regards to the Presidential debates. It is not essentially about telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth but it is instead intended for shock value- in hopes of convincing people to lean one way or another and essentially change the polls and help define the race. I think the lie of total and complete fabrication would definitely get candidates in more trouble then say a simple exaggeration or twisting of words. The latter kinds of lies can be attributed to mis-quoting or misinterpretation or even misspeaking. It is easy to demonstrate that information is untrue nowadays but it is also easy to be very wary and skeptical of news channels and things that we read on the Internet. People sometimes are still gullible enough to believe anything that comes out of a candidate’s mouth- or at least believe that there has to be some kind of truth behind that lie. Regardless of the simplicity of fact checking, the candidates still can achieve what they want by lying. Even if they find the facts to the false, the viewer is still going to remember the initial shock, anxiety or anger that they felt when they first heard the statement. This is playing obviously off of pathos. This can cause them to attribute this negative feeling regardless to the person that the statement is regarding. You cannot “undo” hearing or seeing something that may have had an impact on you. Also, it may be important to remember that not all of us are news junkies or in depth voters. Many people are lazy and/or don’t care to further investigate the facts. These people are ideal for the candidate who is lying- they take everything for what it is worth when it is initially said.
ReplyDeleteI think politicians lie for two reasons; one is to prove they considered and care about these social problems. The other is to prove that they have the ability to response questions which point out by their competitors. Thus, the rhetorical value of lying is that candidates are showing their political strategies and abilities. Personally, I think candidates will in more trouble if candidates lay something related moral problems, such as illegal incomes, abuse authority, or cheating in the competition. Since political is something very complex, no one can really know how it develops on next day. Thus, people can understand if the policy does not work. However, if a candidate has moral problems, people may feel difficult to trust that person to be the leader of their country.
ReplyDeleteIn political competition, the truth may always hard to tall. For example, Romney always accuses President Obama because of his foreign policy. However, if he becomes the president of the United States, he may also change his current foreign policy under some pressures or in some specific situations. Thus, the truth at this time is not really important because we hard to say if these policy can be true. The most important thing for candidates is to get public’s trust. Therefore, both of the two candidates focus on talking about economy and health care problems.
The employment, tax, and health care are the three most important issues for everyone. Candidates want the public to know that they consider of them as the first important thing. Although candidates gave some untrue information, this information still shows people their attitudes on these problems. Thus, people can choose the one, who they think may do better in next four years. In fact, people know that candidates lie in many cases, especially during the election. The candidates’ policies and speeches may not true, but they show candidates opinions about how to manage the whole country. From the candidates' perspective, they know some of people do not know what the truth is; they could be incited by their speeches. For those, people who know the truth, candidates want to convince people who know the truth to believe in them by showing their attitudes of political issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do think that one kind of lie is more likely to get a candidate in trouble than another. I think this is very unfortunate because a lie is a lie, however, audiences perceive different lies as more or less offensive. If you think about it, we all do in a way. It is sad how acceptable our society is of small white lies. It is also sad how audiences and viewers that are following the campaigns just assume that the candidates and the candidate’s campaign groups do lie to make they look better. Wouldn’t you think that they would be smart enough to know how easy it is to get caught in a lie these days with the access of the Internet right at people’s fingertips, which allows them to check every little detail and see if it is a fact or a lie? But, to answer the question again, yes, I do think people see lies as little ones that are unimportant and people don’t really get upset about the lie because it doesn’t have a true effect and then there are lies that truly matter and cause large debates and distraught. I think that candidates persist on lying because they have such a large desire to please. I also think that they underestimate their viewers because they do not think that they will get called out on all of their lies. I think the candidates are smart enough to know they are taking a chance, but their passion and desire to be favored over the other candidate is much stronger than their passion and desire to not lie and look trustworthy on all topics. Looking from the candidates’ perspective I think that untrue information manages to persuade people because people just don’t educate themselves to know if it is untrue or not. But if it is easy to demonstrate that it is untrue, then I think that people are persuaded by these lies from the candidates because I think that people go with what they want to hear and see happen, whether it is true or not. Its almost like they convince themselves that it is true. It is sad and unfortunate that our society feels this way, but it is just a fact of life. Candidates want to make themselves seem more marketable and valued than the other candidate. That is al that matters. They want the shock and emotions involved in their campaign because it will help better their audiences. Including pathos is a key advantage to gathering people’s votes. Having pathos involved almost gives them a feeling of reliability with the candidate as well as making the candidate more personable, and that will sell the candidate.
ReplyDeleteLies come and go through life in everyday situations. People have any reasons to lie, protect others, get out of something, or even to produce an image for yourself. The Presidential election between Obama and Romney has been a bashing war causing conflict with statements and policies. We have been told lies and the candidates have called each other out on these actions, but why lie to begin with? The first reason I can come up with is to let the people here what they want. This causes a problem of trust, whereas we should be able to trust our President otherwise why is he our leader. The second thing I was thinking about is when the candidates change up their original policy rules. They may be lying in which they to make themselves look better, but maybe they have changed their minds, since they are making decisions for our country they should be able to changed their ideas if they are better solutions to our problems. Lying may have been able to slide by before but now since the instant-factchecking is in play it is dumb and may hurt the candidates look. The candidates may also lie to make themselves not look bad in a situation. The candidates may lie to cover up a downfall to a policy they are in favor of. The lying system so far in this election has made me think of trying to find the less of two evils. We have seen a bash out and It is excruciating to figure out the facts for this election
ReplyDeleteI wrote an entire response and my internet crashed thus deleting the entire thing. I'm not redoing it right now, so give me the benefit of the doubt if you grade this before I fix it.
ReplyDeleteTo preface my answer to the blog as a whole, I don't believe the candidates blatantly lie. Being educated men of high regard (in addition to being coached on the art of forensics), they must recognize that people will question their claims. With that being said I feel that they're each determined to answer any question asked to the best of their knowledge even if that means rambling or overgeneralizing. Overgeneralizing becomes the real issue. For example, Joe Biden rounded a value of $264 million to $300 million in the heat of argument. His statement is more inaccurate than untruthful because the other details of the statement were relevant to the question. In the case of President Obama's and Vice President's Biden's untruthful claims, I have a greater sympathy for their errors than Romney or Ryan. The president must continue working as our leader while campaigning simultaneously. Memorizing all of Romney's future plans, which change constantly in an attempt to appeal to the masses, could be an excruciatingly extensive task. Romney's only job is to familiarize himself with all aspects of the current government.
ReplyDeleteAs we've discussed in class, the debates have very little potential to sway undecided voters. I think the only leverage either candidate gains is when the media declares a "winner." I'd assume that most voters do not watch the entire election but more would hear the media's input on the subject. The voters change their views based on the media's frame and the segments of dialogue that are later exploited. The statements are infinitely powerful when taken out of context. Case and point, Romney's "binder full of women" comment is neither funny or degrading, yet everybody criticizes his wording. If one watches the entire dialogue he or she can clearly understand his meaning from the context of the question.
In conclusion, the only important aspect of the debate is which candidate "wins" based on the strength and boldness of his response. All four have been proven to lie and the public recognizes that, yet most voters continue to defend their candidate.
Note: The debates aggravate me and I hate watching them. The manner in which the candidates conduct themselves is embarrassing and shameful to the entire country.