In my COMM 340 class (Comm. and Popular Culture) this morning, we were discussing the topic of government surveillance. I found this interesting because our class just debated this issue. In class, we watched a video clip of John Oliver interviewing Snowden in Russia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M). Although it was mainly just a conversation between the two, John Oliver begins to discuss the implications of Snowden leaking information about NSA surveillance. Oliver makes the proposition that the information that Snowden leaked put American lives at risk. Snowden on the other hand defended himself by saying that he was justified in sharing that information with the grounds that no one is ever really free from risk and that the world deserved to know the truth. I then realized that it was interesting that no one in our class debate brought up Snowden and his leak.
Oliver was able to successfully debate with Snowden because he actually listened to Snowden while asking all the right questions. He remained level-headed and calm throughout the conversation, making his arguments even more effective for the audience. Sometimes, those arguing tend to get heated and portray frustration in their argument, causing them to lose their credibility (ethos). Using humor to appeal to the audience, John Oliver is able to make an effective argument against Snowden's actions while maintaining a civil, refreshing, and hilarious conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment