Media Text (so far)

 

   The passing of Nelson Mandela brings the end of an era. A man who dared to speak against the overwhelming odds, a man who proves that peaceful protest can prevail. He proved, to me personally, that systems created by human beings, do not have automatic universal stature. Whilst the mourning continues to take place, expect many far-right politicians to bask in the social enlightenment of Mandela's eternal greatness and what it entails. These are the same people who supported the apartheid, these are the same people who campaigned for Mandela to be hanged, these are the same people who have lied to us before. It got me thinking, why do we believe them? Even a sceptic as myself falls into the grasps of the wizardly worded utterances seeping from the silver tongued idols.
  
Every word in a political speech has been taken into consideration. We live in a world where what politicians say and do are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. This begs the question, why do we believe a word they say? How can we be led into this false dream of promise only with the  cold slap of reality to wake us up. We all know the cliché's, the left wing 'time for change' and the rights 'god told me to' (literally god and change were the most common phrases) but aren't we wise enough to see through the triviality of each phrase as they are tossed out with such disregard? I believe there is more to what lies on the surface.

Ethos.

Being trustworthy. Knowledge is not enough. Ethos is whether the audience thinks you’re credible. Politicians often spend a large portion of their time trying to promote themselves as an honest family man while the reality of their personal lives are often not so commendable. John Major, the man who based his whole campaign and 'British family life' who was found out to have been having an affair with a fellow party member. He was lying, blatantly, but he did it well. The public believed him and that's all that mattered. The Ethos is not self-confidence, it is others belief in you. This explains why politicians take such an authoritarian stance in situations where they can clearly not be comfortable. Barack Obama is an effective user of Ethos. He doesn't state his authority simply, but creates his status by aligning himself with greats, such as Martin Luther King, a rare example of installing confidence without any surface arrogance, perhaps its why he's so likeable. We've all witnessed the fate of the weak and timid supply teacher who pales in comparison to the assertive and authoritative absent teacher.

 Pathos

Appealing to emotion is a powerful tool. Evoking emotion whether it love, hope or fear, is one of the greatest tools a politician can have at their disposal. Patriotism is a classic tool used by nearly every politician, especially right-wing. Talking about the greatness of a country is an easy way to bring a tear to the eye of its compatriots, some greater than others. Some nationalists will base their vote entirely on a politicians love for their country. Pathos is expertly effective when paired with an underlying theme that resonates with the listener, whether patriotism or poverty, when it relates to us personally, you can expect your name in that ballot box. Emotional delivery is a devastatingly powerful technique, passion and genuine concern sucker in even the cynics among us. Cue Tony Blair, the master orator, his way of speaking really connected with the public, inspiring emotion with each accentuated beginning of a sentence, and each calm whispering end. Notably his final speech as labour leader, the Iraq war had left him with a resenting party and he must be in contention for the greatest hypocrite of all time. However charismatic and controversial to say the least, somehow with that speech he managed to connect with us once again, and a hasty good riddance was transformed into a regretful farewell.

Logos
Logical and factual appeal really catapults you into discussion. If lacked you can be vulnerable and political analysts will pounce. The key to any debate and proof of all statements, logos enhances the ethos and raises you above the rest of the elegant wordsmith's and presents you as a person who can get things done. Uses of logos usually are in the form of facts and figures and supply the ammunition to change our perceptions, after all; what's a point without evidence? Lexical choice is key, contrary to pathos, where the aim is to relate to the audience, using expert and factual language from the relative field can add great depth to your argument and can also make you look as someone with an acquired expertise (ethos). Aristotle believed this should be the most important, as factual and logical appeal is what persuasion should involve, however logos itself is not enough, it needs a compatriot to instil its point as it is disengaging.
 
I believe politicians exploit the ethos and pathos as they are the smokescreen that creates the avoiding of logos. Who needs logic when your crying at the knees of a saint?