After watching the two videos, these are my thoughts on how Ethos, ones character, credibility, trustworthiness, and authority where established by Mr. Stewart and Mr. O’Reily
Mr. Stewart
Humor is a way that can be used to make an argument. This is one way Stewart tried to get his audience to understand his total disbelief of the Eric Garner Grand Jury. Along with humor he invoked many forms of swearing. Using the f word, which had to be bleeped out. Not being a person who likes swearing it was very hard for me to watch the segment without negative thoughts as to his character. A person making a joke of any aspect of the Eric Garner case and repulsive language leaves me no respect for the man, Mr. Stewart. Is my thoughts objective? I really don’t know. Someone else may find his humor and swearing likable, I just don’t find it likable. Mr. Stewart did say, "I honestly don't know what to say. If tragedy is comedy plus time, I need more (bleep) time. But I would really settle for less tragedy to be honest with you.” These statements made me think that maybe he had a sense of decency in him. Not …show more content…
O’Reilly was empathetic and calm which shows a positive aspect of his character. Mr. O’Reilly said, "[Garner] should not have resisted, but all Americans, every one of us, should pity Mr. Garner and his family," O'Reilly said, adding that he was "extremely troubled" by the video and would have loosened his grip after hearing Garner say he couldn't breathe. He did not deserve what happened to him.” These statements and Mr. O’Reilly’s calm demeanor gave way for the audience to trust him. “…whenever you write a paper or present an idea, you are sending signals about your character and reliability…” (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz 45). The calm demeanor and empathetic words were signals to the viewers, letting them know that he agrees that this should not have happened to Mr. Garner no matter what the jury did. Mr. O’Reilly was using emotion at this time to appeal to the
Mr. Stewart
Humor is a way that can be used to make an argument. This is one way Stewart tried to get his audience to understand his total disbelief of the Eric Garner Grand Jury. Along with humor he invoked many forms of swearing. Using the f word, which had to be bleeped out. Not being a person who likes swearing it was very hard for me to watch the segment without negative thoughts as to his character. A person making a joke of any aspect of the Eric Garner case and repulsive language leaves me no respect for the man, Mr. Stewart. Is my thoughts objective? I really don’t know. Someone else may find his humor and swearing likable, I just don’t find it likable. Mr. Stewart did say, "I honestly don't know what to say. If tragedy is comedy plus time, I need more (bleep) time. But I would really settle for less tragedy to be honest with you.” These statements made me think that maybe he had a sense of decency in him. Not …show more content…
O’Reilly was empathetic and calm which shows a positive aspect of his character. Mr. O’Reilly said, "[Garner] should not have resisted, but all Americans, every one of us, should pity Mr. Garner and his family," O'Reilly said, adding that he was "extremely troubled" by the video and would have loosened his grip after hearing Garner say he couldn't breathe. He did not deserve what happened to him.” These statements and Mr. O’Reilly’s calm demeanor gave way for the audience to trust him. “…whenever you write a paper or present an idea, you are sending signals about your character and reliability…” (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz 45). The calm demeanor and empathetic words were signals to the viewers, letting them know that he agrees that this should not have happened to Mr. Garner no matter what the jury did. Mr. O’Reilly was using emotion at this time to appeal to the