After reading the material I, of course, promptly signed online to write a response (Promptly as in last minute). I then realized that everyone who has posted already had bascially summed up my thoughts as well. I will, nevertheless, give my opinion.
I see Lippman as being the weaker of the two. His reading was not as interesting and I found it hard to keep reading. I'm still not sure if that was due to the fact that I was in fact bored, or if I just didn't get what he was saying. Something tells me that it was a combonation of both. His opinions on voting were reasonable, but I didn't like the way he approached them. There wasn't really any persuasion at all. Like someone else mentioned, he was just trying to use scare tactics. That doesn't make me want to listen to him, it makes me want to prove him wrong!!
Bernays, on the other hand, did a very good job of keeping my interest. His views on rhetoric in society were very intersting and really got me thinking. What IF there was absolutely no rhetoric in the world? It would become completely chaotic! Our views of what is right and wrong would be completely distorted. Who knows what might become of us.
I would characterize Lippman as being coercive and Bernays as being persuasive. I believe both used their facts well and were very knowledgeable, but Bernays won as far as actually persuading me goes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment