Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan show on January 7, 2013 to argue against gun control in the wake of the Newtown, CT shootings that occurred on December 14, 2012. Part 1 of the interview is embedded below with a link to part 2 below the video.
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo
Rhetor: Alex Jones is the Rhetor of focus.
Target Audience: Alex is actually targeting those that are on the fence about gun control by excessively promoting fear of criminals and government throughout.
Exigence: The shootings at an elementary school in Newtown CT, have caused Americans to seriously analyze how firearms are policed and distributed in the county. Immediately after the tragedy, pro-gun and anti-gun advocates furiously jockeyed for position in the mass media. However, gun control advocates, both in the media and in government, became more empowered as public opinion on the issue turned in their favor. This caused pro-gun advocates to increase exposure and fervor on the issue.
Purpose: The general purpose of Alex Jones interview was to come out strongly against gun control and call for an increase in the numbers and exposure of firearms overall as a deterrent to crime and government over-reach. Jones uses an excessive amount of pathos in his overall argument to the interviewer. He not so subtly implies that a decrease in guns will lead to an equal increase in violent crimes and government abuses.
Constraints: The major constraint Alex faces is trying to convince those in the audience that are either undecided or pro gun control is that an increase in guns will make the country safer. This may prove difficult in light of the fact that Newtown involved an elementary school and the the shooting came on the heels of another mass shooting at an Aurora CO movie theater a few months earlier.
Effects and Reaction: According to the press, this particular interview has further painted pro-gun advocates as out-of-touch and tone-deaf in their response to the killings. However, I am sure that most pro-gun advocates will strongly agree with Mr. Jones take on the issue during the interview. From a rhetorical standpoint, the excessive pathos Jones puts on display overshadows his central argument. The loud speech, hand gestures, and facial expressions completely get in the way of his message and make him appear to be un-hinged rather than appealing to the audience. His “delivery” is quite aggressive and, more than likely, will not appeal to those in the audience he is trying to sway assuming that is his goal. In addition, the pathos, and ultimately his entire argument, is not supported with the necessary logos. He uses anecdotal evidence to make his main points throughout the entire process. When these points are challenged by Piers, the interviewer, Alex cannot or will not back them up with concrete evidence and simply reverts to opinion shrouded with emotion. Additionally, the organization of his content is garbled at best. His inclusion of government can confuse the audience and his general points on crime and prevention do not follow an understandable pattern.
Rhetoric is ultimately communication and it has been proven over time that best communicators were the ones that has a firm grasp of fact, appeared level headed, and were able to connect with the audience whether the audience was present or not. While there are no strong reasons to critique the exignece nor the kairos of the interview, it’s the delivery and content that put the purpose and effectiveness of the entire piece into question.
I find it interesting that so many of us chose to discuss rhetoric surrounding gun control. It’s further evidence that this issue has found its kairos. One thing that I found interesting in looking through these selections is that very few rhetors have tried to achieve stasis. It seems that one issue is responded to by bringing up another, rather than addressing the root of that problem or providing a rebuttal directly addressing that statement. This is seen when Jones responds to Morgan’s challenges to fact by responding with opinions and emotion.
I think in order for us to achieve stasis on this issue, rhetors need to address the issue like Crowley and Hawhee have shown with their example of the debate over abortion. The two sides must match up their arguments appropriately and acknowledge their differences. When an anti-gun activist says “Guns kill people,” the pro-gun activist should respond with “Guns do not kill people.” From there, the discussion will shift to what does kill people. Do people kill people? Does mental illness kill people? Perhaps guns actually do kill people. Responding to the stases questions will not only make these arguments stronger, but allow people to communicate more effectively.
Unfortunately, like abortion, I think this is one issue that people may never agree on. There are too many variables to the argument and too many constraints to the audiences and rhetors.
I concur with your comments and evaluation of the rhetorical situation. Alex Jones’ pathos got in the way of his message. He displays the fear that some gun owners have and that banning guns would take away their Second Amendment rights to own firearms. I refer to them as fringe fanatics since they believe that the government may try to take control of the country and strip all citizens of their rights. He didn’t offer any proofs to support this claim. His delivery–yes, overboard pathos–turns me off personally, but I am sure that there are fringe gun owners who would agree with him. There is no stasis in this situation. They cannot come to an agreement to disagree. I only Piers would have used the fact that the 20 first-graders who were murdered were riddled with multiple gun shots–up to eleven bullets in some children. The exigence is horrific. But, your breakdown of the situation is right on.
Interestingly, if we were to focus on Piers as the rhetor here, I believe he achieved an effective communication with his audience to support his case. He notably did this with few of his own words. It can be said that Alex Jones’ performance proved Piers’ case. Politico.com quotes Piers as saying the Alex Jones interview was “the smartest booking we ever made.” I consider myself pragmatic on most issues, and, although Piers’ argument for stronger gun control is pragmatic, I must admit it never would have reached my ears because I am not a viewer of his show. However, because of the vitriolic nature of this Alex Jones engagement, Piers’ rhetoric was repeated across other media, and it did reach me as audience.
I’m proposing that the whole setup of his choosing this guest for this situation is part of his rhetorical invention. That is, in posturing this exchange with this particular guest, Piers communicated his own arguments using effective ethos, logos, pathos. The rhetoric did not change Alex Jones’ stand, but I would argue that changing Alex Jones’ mind was not Piers’ intent. Piers was successful in reaching and affecting his intended audience outside the room.
Not unlike Edbauer’s theory, it seems that rhetoric in the age of new media positions itself on alternate planes in order to achieve effectiveness. Its appeal is often directed outside of the room in which the communication takes place.
Interesting take on the interview. Alex Jones is basically a shock jock in the political radio world. However, I question whether Piers proved. his point with the way Alex approached the subject. I would be interesting to kn tow how many viewers changed the channel during the exchange because I would think athat most people would be turned off by the yelling and such. I just think that more civilized rhetoric has more of an effect than the aggressive type Jones displayed.
Good point, Andre.
I did not know who Alex Jones was (I looked him up and he was born on the same day/same year I was! haha!), but the first thing I thought while watching the clip was that this guy was trying to use shock value as a means of rhetoric. We read in the first chapter of C&H about rhetorical engagement as theater, where public rhetoric is dramatized for entertainment. Unfortunately, I believe that this is where we are as a society. You claim that you think people would be turned off by the yelling, but I think just the opposite. It is obvious that you reach a larger audience the more shocking and absurd you are. Real Housewives, anyone? The real question, and the one I think you are getting at, is “What kind of power does this type of rhetoric have?” and I think the answer is Very little. I think on both sides of this situation, the rhetors had a systematic plan in mind, but I don’t think auditors on either side were likely to have been swayed from their own beliefs. We clearly have two speakers here with a completely different set of values–values that are shared by their own communities–and I do not believe that, for all the circulation of this interview, any effect was had on the minds or attitudes of those listening. At most, it maybe simply reinforced the already-held beliefs of the separate factions. It was exactly as it was set up–shocking and cringe-inducing entertainment.
Excellent analysis of the presentation by the rhetor. Logos and pathos are key foundations in creating viable rhetoric, but with the immediacy of presentation and ethos in our 24-hour news world, what the auditors see is crucial. His unhinged discussion just may sway on-the-fence auditors to add Jones to the list with criminals and the government. If we look at the role of how a rhetor is presented, the presidential elections offer prime examples of the power of charisma and poise in a speaker.