Rhetorical Analysis Of Bloody Sunday

On the 15th of June 2010 David Cameron’s delivered a prepared statement as an apology for the events of Bloody Sunday. A very challenging statement for a conservative PM to make as he had the challenge to make his speech very convincing to two groups of people, at the same time, with very different opinions on this very sensitive issue. This statement is a great example of the benefits of using a scripted language as opposed to spontaneous language. Mr Cameron was able to effectively use rhetorical devices and extended quotations. A spontaneous statement would not have had the same structure as this statement and as a consequence would not be convincing. Mr Cameron starts his statement by trying to appear less scripted and personal by using anaphora and the rule of three by starting three sentences beginning with the first person “I”. This gives the audience the impression that these are Mr Cameron’s own opinions despite the fact he is obviously referring to his script which takes some accountability away from himself. This subtle technique is only possible when the orator has a script in front of them. This was …show more content…
Mr Cameron ensures that he begins each of these quotes by making it clear that they come from Lord Saville’s report. Using the title “Lord Savile” shows a respect for the findings in the report but also distances Mr Cameron from what he is saying and suggests this is not his personal opinion. Mr Cameron also clearly makes a conscious effort to be looking at his script when reading the quotations this further distances him from what he is saying. Despite this there is a positive response in the streets of Derry to what Mr Cameron is saying. There are positive reactions to anything that proves their innocence or denounces the British army. Mr Cameron knows this and has these phrases spread throughout his speech to keep this audience