Below are my responses. could someone take a look and see if they seem so be correct?
Write a minimum 500-word response to the following:
1. Identify and explain at least 2 specific examples of bias in the speech.
2. Identify and explain at least 2 specific examples of fallacies in the speech.
3. Identify and explain at least 2 specific examples of rhetorical devices in the speech.
4. How did the speaker address arguments and counter arguments?
5. Were the speaker’s arguments effective? Explain your answer.
Campaigner: There is only one man who can rid the politics of this State of the evil domination of Boss Jim Gettys. I am speaking of Charles Foster Kane, the fighting liberal, the friend of the working man, the next Governor of this State, who entered upon this campaign --
Kane: with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State! I made no campaign promises, because until a few weeks ago I had no hope of being elected.
Now, however, I have something more than a hope. And Jim Gettys -- Jim Gettys has something less than a chance. Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I'll be elected. Now I can afford to make some promises!
The working man -- The working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests. The decent, ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the the underfed!
Well, I'd make my promises now if I weren't too busy arranging to keep them.
Here's one promise I'll make, and boss Jim Gettys knows I'll keep it: My first official act as Governor of this State will be to appoint a Special District Attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Boss Jim W. Gettys!
MY ANSWERS:
Bias
The first indication of bias is the statement, “There is only one man who can rid the politics of this State of the evil domination of Boss Jim Gettys.” (Welles, para. 1). The reason this is considered biased is because Charles Foster Kane is not the only person competent to replace the current governor. There is also bias in the way the current governor is portrayed insinuating he has run the state like a dictatorship using the words “evil domination”(Welles, para.1).
The campaigner says, “I am speaking of Charles Foster Kane, the fighting liberal, the friend of the working man, the next Governor of this State, who entered upon this campaign --with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State!” (Welles, 1941, para 1) This campaigner is obviously biased portraying Charles Kane in a very positive light saying, “fighting liberal, the friend of the working man” (Welles, 1941). On the other hand in the same statement the campaigner also states that Kane’s goal is not just to become the next governor but also to, “Point out, make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys’ political machine” (Welles, para.1). The campaigner expresses biases toward both Kane and Getty’s, in that he has already decided how he feels and what he thinks about both of these politicians.
Fallacies
“The decent, ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the the underfed!” I think this is a guilt trip fallacy as Mr. Kane uses the wording, “decent” along with “citizens” implies all decent citizens will know Kane will have only their best interest at heart. This is clearly an attempt to influence the citizens that if they fall into the “decent and ordinary” category, they should vote for Kane. Additionally, this is considered a group think fallacy as Kane tries to influence the listeners that the common and respectable people are already aware he will be working for the greater good of this group of people.
“ My first official act as Governor of this State will be to appoint a Special District Attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Boss Jim W. Gettys!” (Welles, para.6). I believe this is an argument from outrage because it is meant to provoke anger in the minds of the voters. This statement is meant to influence voters by anger they have for the previous governor and Kane is hoping it will influence them to vote for him. This is also a personal attack as Kane is trying to make himself look like the savior of the state when elected by first making sure the terrible current governor Gettys is prosecuted and convicted of his crimes. Although, Kane never lists what those specific crimes are.
“Now, however, I have something more than a hope. And Jim Gettys -- Jim Gettys has something less than a chance. Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I'll be elected.” (Welles, para.3) This is an argument by popularity as Kane is attempting to influence the voters to accept this claim because independent polls and straw votes, which are very unreliable, show he will be elected.
Rhetorical Devices
“the next Governor of this State, who entered upon this campaign --Kane: with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State!” (Welles, para.1&2). This statement I believe is a hyperbole as it is a gross exaggeration of Getty and the way he had managed his position as governor in an attempt to make Kane look better in the eyes of the voters.
“Jim Gettys has something less than a chance.” (Welles, para.3). Kane is insinuating that he has already won and Gettys has already lost, before the election has taken place. This is an innuendo.
Arguments and Counter Arguments
The arguments addressed by the speaker were not sound. Welles used many fallacies and rhetoric to influence his audience but did little to provide facts to back up his claims. He made a lot of excuses as to why he had not made any campaign promises, with the exception of prosecuting Gettys once he was elected. He spent most of this speech lashing out at Gettys to inflame anger in his audience. He also tried to appeal to the common man, in what I thought was a degrading sort of way, in an attempt to influence them they would be looked after if they voted Kane into office. “The working man -- The working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests. The decent, ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the the underfed!” This statement is an example of an argument Kane is making, a promise to the people as opposed to what he is insinuating Gettys has done for these citizens. Again, he makes himself out to be the savior replacing this villain which has done the citizens of the state so much harm.
Were the speaker’s arguments effective?
I think this campaign speech may be effective to some on an emotional level but I think it clearly lacks substance. There were too many questions left unanswered because of the rhetoric, fallacies, and lack of clearly defined promises which would cause a citizen of the state to believe Kane would be a good governor.
Bias
The first indication of bias is the statement, “There is only one man who can rid the politics of this State of the evil domination of Boss Jim Gettys.” (Welles, para. 1). The reason this is considered biased is because Charles Foster Kane is not the only person competent to replace the current governor. There is also bias in the way the current governor is portrayed insinuating he has run the state like a dictatorship using the words “evil domination”(Welles, para.1).
The campaigner says, “I am speaking of Charles Foster Kane, the fighting liberal, the friend of the working man, the next Governor of this State, who entered upon this campaign --with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State!” (Welles, 1941, para 1) This campaigner is obviously biased portraying Charles Kane in a very positive light saying, “fighting liberal, the friend of the working man” (Welles, 1941). On the other hand in the same statement the campaigner also states that Kane’s goal is not just to become the next governor but also to, “Point out, make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys’ political machine” (Welles, para.1). The campaigner expresses biases toward both Kane and Getty’s, in that he has already decided how he feels and what he thinks about both of these politicians.
Fallacies
“The decent, ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the the underfed!” I think this is a guilt trip fallacy as Mr. Kane uses the wording, “decent” along with “citizens” implies all decent citizens will know Kane will have only their best interest at heart. This is clearly an attempt to influence the citizens that if they fall into the “decent and ordinary” category, they should vote for Kane. Additionally, this is considered a group think fallacy as Kane tries to influence the listeners that the common and respectable people are already aware he will be working for the greater good of this group of people.
“ My first official act as Governor of this State will be to appoint a Special District Attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Boss Jim W. Gettys!” (Welles, para.6). I believe this is an argument from outrage because it is meant to provoke anger in the minds of the voters. This statement is meant to influence voters by anger they have for the previous governor and Kane is hoping it will influence them to vote for him. This is also a personal attack as Kane is trying to make himself look like the savior of the state when elected by first making sure the terrible current governor Gettys is prosecuted and convicted of his crimes. Although, Kane never lists what those specific crimes are.
“Now, however, I have something more than a hope. And Jim Gettys -- Jim Gettys has something less than a chance. Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I'll be elected.” (Welles, para.3) This is an argument by popularity as Kane is attempting to influence the voters to accept this claim because independent polls and straw votes, which are very unreliable, show he will be elected.
Rhetorical Devices
“the next Governor of this State, who entered upon this campaign --Kane: with one purpose only: to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine -- now in complete control of the government of this State!” (Welles, para.1&2). This statement I believe is a hyperbole as it is a gross exaggeration of Getty and the way he had managed his position as governor in an attempt to make Kane look better in the eyes of the voters.
“Jim Gettys has something less than a chance.” (Welles, para.3). Kane is insinuating that he has already won and Gettys has already lost, before the election has taken place. This is an innuendo.
Arguments and Counter Arguments
The arguments addressed by the speaker were not sound. Welles used many fallacies and rhetoric to influence his audience but did little to provide facts to back up his claims. He made a lot of excuses as to why he had not made any campaign promises, with the exception of prosecuting Gettys once he was elected. He spent most of this speech lashing out at Gettys to inflame anger in his audience. He also tried to appeal to the common man, in what I thought was a degrading sort of way, in an attempt to influence them they would be looked after if they voted Kane into office. “The working man -- The working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests. The decent, ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the the underfed!” This statement is an example of an argument Kane is making, a promise to the people as opposed to what he is insinuating Gettys has done for these citizens. Again, he makes himself out to be the savior replacing this villain which has done the citizens of the state so much harm.
Were the speaker’s arguments effective?
I think this campaign speech may be effective to some on an emotional level but I think it clearly lacks substance. There were too many questions left unanswered because of the rhetoric, fallacies, and lack of clearly defined promises which would cause a citizen of the state to believe Kane would be a good governor.