Taking a look at "Monopoly and Democracy"

e>

Ted Turner’s “Monopoly or Democracy?” was published in the Washington Post. He shuts down opposing views through personal experience then appeals to his audience’s emotion through threat and reward, word choice and sets an appropriate point of view though out the entire article.  Although Ted Turner used writing fallacies his argument was effective and with the publication to the Washington Post it was something many citizens were affected by unconsciously or not.

Ted’s personal experience allows for the audience to credit his opinions as valid for the field of programming. There are apparently five media corporations that regulate what the vast majority of US citizens are exposed to.  Turner states “I am a major shareholder in the largest of those five corporations, yet-speaking only for myself, and not for AOL Time Warner- I oppose these rules” (Turner63). He wants the audience to think that this is personal issue for him instead of the company. Most Americans would probably make this a “personal issue” also if their personal gain was in jeopardy. He is a major shareholder in the five media corporations that Americans are mostly exposed to.  Does the fact that he has a major say for the input of media exposure to America validate his interest, or does it say anything else like all the media is bias in one direction? He cries “if these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting, or 10 years later, to launch CNN” (Turner 63). He makes a good politician in twisting the perspective that these rules are damaging to the people and what they are allowed to view. Turner tries to gain public acceptance through his personal experience. We validate these personal opinions because we are less experienced with such associations.

According to riting and rhetoric threat and reward is a writing fallacy.  “The threat fallacy diverts attention from the real issue to the negative consequences of not accepting an argument” (Writing and Rhetoric 70). Although, Ted Turner’s argument is about accessing local programming more fairly and freely, his argument turns the switch to what is being lost “Why should the county care? When you lose small business, you lose big ideas” (Turner 64). The threat here is that we will lose big ideas by letting these laws pass from the FCC. After Turner’s statement that they will lose big ideas by consolidating programming he then states “That means laying off reporters, in other words, downsizing the workforce” (Turner64). He does not like the idea that the media cannot be as what he calls “diverse” as he would like. The opposing view may say that consolidating programming would allow for equal time, for only the best reports to be shared and less bias in those reports. These threats shared by Ted Turner push his audience to side with him on programming and who is in control of what is said.

Turner also evokes emotion from his readers by using emotional word choice.  He uses personification toward his passion of programming. “Personification is to give human characteristics to animals, abstract ideas, and inanimate objects” (writing and Rhetoric 95). He declares “They kill local programming because it’s expensive, and they push national programming because it’s cheap” (Turner64). Killing is an action toward a biologically living thing. Programming cannot eat nor breathe, but this evokes emotion within the reader. He also arouses emotion though creating a dissatisfaction or uneasiness. “Even more troubling are the warning signs that large media corporations- which massive market power- could abuse that power by slanting news coverage in ways that serve their political or financial interests” (Turner65). The word warning, power, abuse, and slanting all have a negative connotation that sets an unfair or unjustified feeling about what could occur if programming was consolidated. Toward the end of his argument he releases the emotion in actual words “Powerful public groups across the political spectrum oppose these new rules and are angry about their lack of input in the process” (Turner65). Ted Turner states his ideas in this manner in hope to provoke emotion and hang his audience with his argument.

The bandwagon effect is another way Turner captures hearts “We brought MGM, and we later sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, because we had little choice” (Turner63). Although, Turner is not directly saying that the reader is on his side, he assumes it by using the unifying word “we”.  In actuality he is not talking about the reader, but about his team and their efforts. This word of “we” allows the audience to become a part of his group. This bandwagon effect is what writing and rhetoric refers to as the Ad populum (writing and rhetoric69). The emotional attachment of unification is used all throughout his whole argument. “We had to gain access to programming to survive” (Turner64). Think of the words, to survive, they strongly suggest that it is a struggle for programming to succeed. At the end one may think ‘yes, we did it’; when in reality Turner is only thinking of himself and his team’s success of making it. Turner has an interesting way of unifying with dissatisfaction from behavior “how narrow-minded have we made out public discussion if the opinion of the pope is considered outside the bounds of legitimate debate?” (Turner). This is appealing to the audience, but in a negative way that makes them want to change their action. Ad populum or the bandwagon effect is not something Turner allows his audience to think about rather it is simply presumed that they are on his side.

This effective article of Turner’s without being analyzed is persuasive to people who do not know about the topic. Chances are if they already know about the issue presented, they already have a side they stick to, his side or not.  The psychology of human tendency is to stay on one side even if they are wrong.  Ted Turner appeals to his audience’s emotion through threat and reward, word choice and ad-populum. He also shuts down opposing views through his personal experience.  Although Ted Turner used some writing fallacies his argument was effective and this is shown though the publication to the Washington Post.

Ted Turner also stated “When, on my initiative, Turner Communications (now Turner Broadcasting) bought its first TV station, which at the time was losing $50,000 a month, my board strongly objected” (Turner64). This statement makes it seem like it is hard for a broadcasting station to make any money when they first start out. What if they just made some poor decisions like buying that TV station at that time and it is not really that hard to get into business in communications.

Works Cited

Jackson, Brian and Brett McInelly. Writing and Rhetoric. 1st ed. Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNiel Publishing, 2011. 69-95. Print.

Turner, Ted. "Monopoly or Democracy?." Washington Post 30 May 2003: A23. Print.