I am fascinated by the struggle between the Fox News Channel and the Obama administration. But this article is not about politics, about the right or wrong, or even about how each side is the interpretation of the actions of others. I will leave political analysis to political experts. I am an expert in communication, so this article is about communication strategies.
Presidential adviser David Axelrod caught my attention Sunday when he said that Fox News should be treatedas a news organization. With this statement, he attacked the credibility of Fox with the Obama administration to criticize, and that makes me stop and think right. His words reminded me of a familiar rhetorical strategy: counter criticism with condescension. Where was I ever seen?
As communication specialists, especially in the area of written communication, I have to write a library for books. The answer, I knew it would, and it was. The writing guidelines bang! Writing with Impact Statesto emphasize this: "attack the credibility of your critics, the superiority of your ideas."
The three key words here are "attack", "credibility" and "critics". With this strategy, you claim that their critics do not have a valid source of information, so their ideas are not worth considering. This is, in fact, what David Axelrod said on Fox. According to Axelrod, Fox News is a news organization, so it does not make any criticism worth considering.
ThisStrategy has two effects. The most obvious consequence is that they can negate the effects of criticism. If I will be able to damage the credibility of my critics, then others probably think less of what they say about me. I Reduce the impact on my critics, by people who believe that my critics say do not know what they are. Bang! Writing with Impact has a good example.
The press corps is to say, we do not know how to handle corporate finance fond. They went into journalismSchool. We have advanced degrees in financial management. You are not in a position to tell us how companies deal with finances.
The second effect is more subtle, but perhaps more. This strategy allows the person who criticizes the question of whether avoiding the critics right. When I apply this strategy, I change the topic from the original issue price of my actions () to) a new (your credibility.
Suppose you are the critic, and I am the person you criticize.If I use this strategy is that the argument is no longer on the accuracy of your criticism. It is no longer a question for which you criticize me. The argument now is whether or can not be believed.
If I am successful with this strategy, and change the subject, I no longer have to defend my actions. Instead, you now have to defend your credibility. By using this strategy, I have slipped past your criticism and put on the defense.
Attack on the credibilityTheir critics is a powerful communication strategy for counterattack. However, as so many rhetorical strategies, their strength is also its weakness. When seen what it is a rhetorical strategy to avoid or negate further criticism, it is easy to use against the person himself. Here is a simple example shows how to:
Critic: You have done something wrong.
Person criticized: You do not have the credibility to criticize me.
Critic: You try to avoid this problem byAttack on my credibility. We can discuss that at a later date. In the meantime, please discuss this issue and respond to the accusation that you are doing something wrong.
See what the critics at the end? The critic pointed out that the person is deliberately trying to avoid the problem. He revealed the strategy. The listener or reader will wonder why the person wanted to avoid criticism. Perhaps the critics are right, they think. The person who criticizes seems absurd thatthe moral authority of the critics and improve added value to its criticism.
If not, the critics can respond to the question of credibility, he can also keep it light, while critical of the person on the topic. For example, the critic might reply follows: "This is not a question of credibility, but my question here, what you have done. If you think that my accusation is wrong, tell me why." This approach is weaker than the previous one, since it allows the listeners / readers the opportunity toWhen in doubt, for the critic.
The last point that Bang makes writing with impact on this rhetorical strategy is good. "It could help you win an argument, but it will not win any friends. This strategy, however, also raises ethical considerations, so use it cautiously, if at all."
No comments:
Post a Comment