A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric (14 page)

There are other such dystopic worlds in literature, all different and all depicting some aspect of the control and oppression by the powerful on language itself, and on the freedoms it affords: for example, Pinter's
Mountain Language
, or satirical pieces like Swift's “A Modest Proposal.”

What these linguistic dystopias help us to see is that rhetoric functions freely in a democracy, where matters are to be contested, where there is no limit on the generation of ideas, where communication between people at every level is highly prized and protected. Rhetoric is therefore an agent of freedom, a necessary dimension of human operation because it not only gets the world's work done, it also allows thought and cogitation to take place.

That the political world is perceived through the lens of “the media” is no great insight: newspapers, online news, television news and radio, carrying their individual and distinctive mixes of modes (printed and/ or spoken word, image, moving image, sound), frame and reframe our experience of the world every day. Scandals happen from time to time (see, for example, the Murdoch empire case regarding the media and the British government, 2011–12, resulting in the Leveson Inquiry into press freedom and the undue influence of the media on political decision making). But mostly, the influence of the media on our perception of the world goes unnoticed. Subliminally, we accept that the media control our news.

Let us take an example from the
New York Times
on an ordinary day in the first part of the twenty-first century (in this case, Wednesday, August 15, 2012). There is a small section, “World Briefing,” that sits at the foot on page 6 of section A (the national and international news section) of the paper on that day. It is divided into four world sections: Europe, the Middle East, The Americas, and Asia—chillingly like the division of the world in
Nineteen Eighty-Four
into Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, always with one part of the world at war with the other two who were in alliance. Under Europe, there appears a headline, “Serbia: Cousin of Genocide Suspect Draws Sentence for Harbouring Him.” The Middle East section has as its headline, “Egypt: 14 Sentenced in Sinai Attack.” For The Americas, “Ecuador: President Denies Decision to Grant WikiLeaks Founder Asylum.” In Asia there are two stories: “China: Self-Immolations Continue” and “Japan: Cabinet Minister Visits Shrine.” Two of these five stories are from the Reuters agency; the other three by individual special reporters or freelance journalists. The common element that makes up serious news is there: conflict, often relating to war or some other form of physical conflict or potential conflict. Such drama and difference from the everyday run of events (largely harmonious) makes up news stories precisely because they are not run-of-the-mill. Of the five, “Japan: Cabinet Member Visits Shrine” seems the least contentious until you read on:

A Japanese cabinet minister visited a Tokyo war shrine on Wednesday for the first time in three years, a move that could add to already heated exchanges with neighboring South Korea over history. The visit by Jin Matsubara, the National Public Safety Commission chairman, was the first by a cabinet member to the Yasukuni shrine since the Democratic Party came to power in 2009 with vows to build closer ties with Asia. Mr Matsubara, an outspoken conservative, told Kyodo News that he visited the shrine to Japan's war dead as a private citizen, ignoring a request from Prime Minister Yoshiko Noda not to go. The visit comes as Tokyo and Seoul have clashed over compensation for World War II-era sex slaves and over disputed islands. (A6)

Although this is hardly a story in itself, the symbolic significance of the visit to the shrine and the fact that the visit “
could
add to already heated exchanges” makes it newsworthy. As we read on the wider significance becomes clearer: this is the “
first
by a
cabinet member
… since the Democratic Party came to power in 2009 with vows to build
closer ties with Asia
.” “First,” so it is different from the ordinary. A “cabinet member,” so a person of authority and status and a representative of the elected party—of the people in a democratic state—and thus significant in that
respect. The fact that the visit is set against the background of a pledge to build closer ties with the rest of Asia could jeopardize that pledge and, what is more, dishonor the pledge made by the Party in the first place. We know that Mr Matsubara is “an
outspoken conservative
,” so on two counts he is running against the grain: he speaks out (those who speak out usually do so individually and against the accepted line), and he is a conservative, so (we assume) a nationalist and against wider ties with Asia. There is further conflict that Mr Matsubara's action ignores a request from the Prime Minister not to go. Finally, we get the yet wider picture: this action and its immediate context are set against the clash between “Tokyo” and “Seoul” (the personification of the two capital cities being a rhetorical figure in its own right) about World War II-era compensation regarding
sex slaves
as well as disputed islands … a sensational ending to a short and seemingly innocuous story.

Let us pan out from this particular section “World Briefing” to the half-page or so that is separated from the rest of the International page. Just above the short news items of “World Briefing” there is a more substantial story concerning the expediting of applications to help Iran's earthquake victims; the “Names of the Dead” (a sad, regular feature in the
New York Times
during the war in Afghanistan); an advertisement headed “Rock Stars” from Windsor Jewelers Inc.—”Today more than ever before it's important to feel confident and comfortable when it comes time to sell your jewelry or precious stones. With over 30 years of experience and integrity, Windsor Jewelers customers are always met with personalized service, unsurpassed expertise, and consistently higher process—offered right on the spot.” In a smaller box at the foot of the page is one of the
New York Times
's own advertisements: a philanthropic invitation to donate to education via the newspaper itself. The two main articles on the page—at the top—are “Crashes Underline Uganda's Spotty Record with Helicopters” and “Israel Names New Minister to Oversee Home Front.”

The article we have focused on earlier is thus framed on the page by other international news, some deemed more important than others; a ritual acknowledgement of the dead in an overseas war; a commercial advertisement; and an invitation to donate. We can tell, from this page alone, that the
New York Times
aligns itself with relatively wealthy readers who might trade in their jewels or donate to a good cause and that Iran and Israel are preoccupations for the paper and its readers.

Within the paper as a whole, the page we have been considering sits within Section A—the main section of the newspaper. As page 6, it sits in the International section between the front page (where there is no dominating story on that day);
page 2
, which acts like a Contents and information
page (“Inside the Times” and “The New York Times Information Directory”); page 3, which has carry-over stories from the front page; and the latter half of the main section, which shifts to national news, a campaign update (this is the year of a Presidential election), obituaries, and a New York section. There is a page devoted to Weather, some lighter features, an editorial opinion page, and, to end the section, some serious features and commentary by leading journalists. Interspersed between the news stories throughout are advertisements, large and small. To give a flavor of the market that the
Times
is reaching, advertisers include Louis Vuitton, Tiffany and Co., MaxMara (“Stegola Bootie in Black Suede $680”) and other luxury goods companies, Macy's, Hilton Worldwide, and reputation.com. Their advertisement is worth quoting in full as it sheds light not only on the rhetorical audience, but also on the nature of information in the twenty-first century:

Private person?

Want to make sure you stay that way?

Having your personal information publicly accessible on the Internet exposes you and your family to very serious and potentially costly risks. It compromises your personal privacy and increases your odds of identity theft. Luckily, we have a proven technological solution.

Our executive concierge service starts suppressing your unprotected personal information online in as little as three minutes.

Stop making your personal information so easy to find.

Sections B, C, and D of the newspaper are devoted to “Business Day” (though that section also includes “Sport”), “The Arts,” and “Dining,” respectively (the
New York Times
varies its sections, day by day).

Let us take the advertisement for reputation.com first, as advertisements pervade the paper as a whole. It indicates that the readers of the
New York Times
are likely to value discretion and privacy and protecting whatever wealth they have. The language of the advertisement has a hook to get the reader interested, in the form of the two opening questions. The first main paragraph consolidates the catch: you, your family, and costs. But the “technological solution,” the “executive concierge service,” and the protection of your online personal information “in as little as three minutes” drive home the point of the advertisement and are at the heart of its clever selling message. You might well accept its invitation to call now for a free privacy assessment (“normally $150 value”), persuaded by the rhetoric of the text.

More broadly, in rhetorical terms, the nature of this advertisement points to the balance between private and publicly available information that the Internet has brought about. Private communication in the form of emails, entries on social networks, and other kinds of personal
engagement can be made publicly available. The borders of the private and public are blurred, so rhetoric has to deal with the extension beyond the public (its original function, at least in Europe) to the private. Borders or framings then have to be built (this company sees a business opportunity at exactly that borderline) to manage the balance between the two states of communication. The advertisement and its company play on the fears that the private may be made public.

The others sections—B, C, and D—cover the mix of news and magazine material that is typical of a contemporary newspaper. The daily paper is also available online in an e-edition, in large print weekly, or via your cell phone. There are contact details for advertising in various formats; for learning dimensions of the operation of the paper; for schools, colleges, and via “The Learning Network”; and for rights and permissions, including academic use and photocopy.

In short, the
New York Times
is more than a daily newspaper; it is a communications hub and a community, both in the United States and worldwide. It sells itself via its brand and its reputation and the continued high quality of its reporting. As a community, it is a
learning
community. It has learnt that not only does involvement in education help develop the next generations of the
New York Times
's readers, it also signals a philanthropic and therefore morally responsible ethos, as well as extending the community more widely than its daily readership. In rhetorical terms, its power derives from the breadth, depth, and quality of its product and of its readership. Its politically left-leaning credentials, its New York cachet, its motto (“All the news that's fit to print”), and its commitment to high quality typography and accuracy as well as to the content of what it does are all part of the package.

Newspapers and their attendant modes and media are one way in which a democracy is kept alive: through challenging the orthodoxies, through a pursuit of the truth (however tentative and provisional that truth might be), through investigative journalism that explores the corridors of power, and through the presentation of conflict and debates that keep the argumentational side of human discourse at the forefront. In what other ways does rhetoric function within a democracy and support its values of free speech, maintaining the balance between the individual and the state? Can it be said to abuse power and/or be a negative presence as well as being used for democratic and largely benevolent ends?

The positive aspects of rhetoric are clear. Not only does rhetoric oil the wheels of democracy, it also enables the audience to distinguish between political cant and rhetoric on the one hand (language divorced from truth) and rhetoric in the service of truth and reasonable exchange on the other.
Rhetoric thus has an ethical basis in that it operates for the common good. It aims to aid communication so that exchanges between people can be clear, cast in the best possible way, and understood. But we need to understand rhetoric in order to see how it works and how it is being used to aid communication. It is necessary to reveal the arts of discourse in order to see the limitations of the art, the limitations of discourse itself, and the different ways in which communication can take place.

There is thus an ethical imperative to be aware of rhetoric and of its power. We also need to be resistant to influence from advertisements, political campaigns, and other highly persuasive genres of communication so that we can act in accordance with what we see as the proper course, rather than being unduly influenced by others. The important fact to recognize regarding rhetoric, then, is that it operates alongside the conduct of the world; even in speech acts, it is there carrying out the business, rituals, and exchanges of the world without any reference to physical action as we know it. It does not operate for itself, so manuals that reify its existence seem inappropriate and help to earn rhetoric its negative connotations. Rather it operates invisibly, for the most part, in the service of society. That is where it gains its power.

There are instances where rhetoric is used with negative intent. A political campaign might aim to attack another candidate by concentrating on his or her personal characteristics or history. Here the rhetoric can be “turned up,” but the source of the negativity is never rhetoric itself but the intent and the substance behind it. However, rhetoric—like the messenger—can be “blamed” unfairly for the negative feel or consequences of such an approach. If rhetoric itself becomes disproportionate or inappropriate in a situation, then rhetoric itself must take the blame.