{"id":514,"date":"2025-05-26T17:04:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T17:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=514"},"modified":"2025-09-07T13:05:42","modified_gmt":"2025-09-07T13:05:42","slug":"public-communication-analysis-description-interpretation-and-evaluation","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/chapter\/public-communication-analysis-description-interpretation-and-evaluation\/","title":{"raw":"Public Communication Analysis: Description, Interpretation, and Evaluation","rendered":"Public Communication Analysis: Description, Interpretation, and Evaluation"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Chapter Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Students will:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Describe and interpret a range of rhetorical features in a rhetorical artifact.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Evaluate the artifact\u2019s success or failure in achieving the rhetor\u2019s goals and in strengthening or weakening democratic principles.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 0pt;\">The previous chapter defined public communication analysis as an approach to rhetorical criticism that helps critics determine a rhetorical artifact\u2019s features and ascertain their likely consequences. It guided you through the first two steps of this rhetorical method: identifying an appropriate rhetorical artifact and reconstructing its historical context.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In this chapter, we focus on analyzing the artifact itself by describing the next two steps of public communication analysis. First, we will explain how to describe and interpret an artifact\u2019s rhetorical features. Then we will instruct you on how to evaluate an artifact\u2019s functions and consequences, focusing on whether or not the artifact achieved the rhetor\u2019s goals and strengthened democratic principles.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Describing and Interpreting the Rhetorical Features<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Public communication analysis begins with description. In chapter 30, we defined <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">description<\/em><\/span> as noticing, identifying, and explaining a rhetorical artifact\u2019s content, form, and absence. In this chapter, we will introduce you to more specific types of features, from argumentation to delivery. Some of these features focus more on an artifact\u2019s content (e.g., pathos, ethos) while others emphasize its form (e.g., organization, style), though many features consider both aspects (e.g., argumentation). You should find, label, and observe each feature with specificity. You should also always ask what might be missing or absent from the artifact.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Public communication analysis follows description with <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">i<\/em><em class=\"import-i\">nterpretation<\/em><\/span>. In chapter 30, we defined interpretation as making inferences about how an artifact\u2019s content, form, and absence function persuasively. Interpretation explores the artifact\u2019s symbolic action, which we defined in that same chapter as the power of symbols to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">do<\/em><\/span> things\u2014to shape our thoughts, values, and actions.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Notice that critics <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">infer<\/em><\/span> interpretations; you can rarely prove your inferences as definitively as you can describe rhetorical features. For example, you can name an artifact\u2019s organizational structure (\u201cNotice how the speech moves chronologically from past to present to the future\u201d), but you infer how that structure functioned (\u201cBy moving chronologically, the speaker shifted the audience\u2019s attention from the past crisis to the more hopeful future, leaving them feeling more optimistic and comforted\u201d).<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\nRemember the insight we provided in chapter 30: A critic\u2019s interpretations should use <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">active verbs<\/em><\/span> to accentuate the symbolic action. If you are not using verbs when interpreting a rhetorical artifact, then you are probably still describing, rather than interpreting, its persuasive functions or symbolic action.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.1 Describing and Interpreting a Rhetorical Artifact<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFor each rhetorical feature,\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">find<\/strong><\/span> the feature in the artifact,<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">describe<\/strong><\/span> the feature with specificity, and<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">interpret<\/strong><\/span> how the feature may have influenced the audience\u2019s beliefs, attitudes, or courses of action.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Not every rhetorical feature you examine will be important or even present in every artifact, but you cannot know that until you closely attend to the artifact and determine its central features. We recommend you conduct your rhetorical criticism by initially describing and interpreting each element systematically and then deciding which elements provide the most important rhetorical insights to share with others.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">We now turn to specific rhetorical features to describe and interpret for your artifact. They include the following: argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, rhetor\u2019s credibility, construction of the desired audience, construction of the undesired audience, organization, style and framing, and delivery. For each, we will explain the feature, provide prompting questions for your own description and interpretation, and offer an example.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Argumentation<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image342.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"120.866666666667px\" height=\"120.866666666667px\" \/>Recall from chapter 26 that an argument is the advocacy of an idea, position, or course of action that is supported by evidence. Drawing from Stephen Toulmin\u2019s model, we identified the three main components of any argument as including a claim, data (evidence), and warrant(justification for using the data to support the claim).[footnote]Stephen Toulmin, <em>The Uses of Argument<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958).[\/footnote] In chapter 25, we noted that Aristotle considered argumentation to be a form of proof he called logos.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.2 Argumentation Reminders<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[columns count=2]\r\n<p class=\"import-sbahaft\" style=\"font-size: 22px; text-indent: 36pt;\"><strong>Patterns of Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>deductive reasoning<\/li>\r\n \t<li>inductive reasoning<\/li>\r\n \t<li>reasoning from example<\/li>\r\n \t<li>reasoning from analogy<\/li>\r\n \t<li>reasoning from cause<\/li>\r\n \t<li>reasoning from sign<\/li>\r\n \t<li>reasoning from authority<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"import-sbahaft\" style=\"font-size: 24px; text-indent: 36pt;\"><strong>Reasoning Fallacies<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>hasty generalization<\/li>\r\n \t<li>faulty analogy<\/li>\r\n \t<li>faulty cause<\/li>\r\n \t<li>slippery slope<\/li>\r\n \t<li>appeal to authority<\/li>\r\n \t<li>appeal to popularity<\/li>\r\n \t<li>appeal to common practice<\/li>\r\n \t<li>begging the question<\/li>\r\n \t<li>ad hominem<\/li>\r\n \t<li>false dilemma<strong>[\/columns]<\/strong><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Describing<\/em><\/span> an artifact\u2019s argumentation does <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-iu\">not <\/em><\/span><span class=\"import-u\">mean simply restating<\/span> its main point(s) or message. Rather, it means doing the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>carefully identify the artifact\u2019s claims, data, and warrants to determine the type and validity of the argumentation<\/li>\r\n \t<li>note the patterns of reasoning utilized as well as any inclusion of fallacies, which we described in chapter 27 as flaws or defects in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument<\/li>\r\n \t<li>consider whether and how an artifact includes counterarguments to its claims or proposals<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">Rhetorical criticism requires going beyond merely describing these aspects, however, to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpreting<\/em><\/span> how they may have persuaded (or failed to persuade) an audience to accept the rhetor\u2019s position. Box 33.3 offers questions to help you describe <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em><\/span> interpret your rhetorical artifact\u2019s argumentation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.3 Questions to Ask About Argumentation<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>What claims, data, and warrants did the artifact provide or not provide?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Did the artifact use valid and sound arguments, or did it make use of fallacies? How so?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What patterns of reasoning did the artifact include?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How well did the artifact identify and reasonably respond to counterarguments?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How might the artifact\u2019s claims, data, and warrants have resonated\u2014or failed to resonate\u2014with the audience(s), given the historical context?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How might the argument(s) have persuaded, or failed to persuade, the audience of the speaker\u2019s viewpoint, given the historical context?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What kinds of attitudes, values, conclusions, or actions did the argumentation encourage or discourage?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.4 Argumentation in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn the previous chapter, we turned to President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, speech to exemplify the criteria for an appropriate rhetorical artifact and how to identify its historical context. We return to this artifact in this chapter to illustrate how to analyze each rhetorical element. Descriptive labels are bolded, and interpretations are underlined.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In his January 6 speech, President Trump constructed an argument about the 2020 election using <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">inductive reasoning<\/strong><\/span>. Early in the speech, he made his <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">thesis<\/strong><\/span> clear: \u201cToday, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.\u201d His <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">data (evidence)<\/strong><\/span> included the three common types of evidence explored in chapter 26: example, statistics, and testimony. Trump alleged specific <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">examples<\/strong><\/span> of illegal actions in several swing states that resulted in fraudulent votes for Biden, cited numerous <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">statistics<\/strong><\/span> for ballots illegally counted against him in those states, and occasionally integrated <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">testimony<\/strong><\/span>, mostly from unnamed people like a \u201creal pollster,\u201d \u201ceyewitness testimony,\u201d and \u201ca career employee\u201d of Detroit. Indeed, Trump provided <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">no sources<\/strong><\/span> for his examples and statistics of fraud, and most of his sources for testimony were <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">vague references<\/strong><\/span> (\u201cpeople,\u201d \u201can eyewitness,\u201d \u201ca real pollster,\u201d \u201cpoll watchers,\u201d \u201ca career employee\u201d of Detroit).<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">By inundating listeners with multiple forms of apparent evidence and repeatedly referring to them as \u201cthe facts,\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Trump <span class=\"import-u\">created the impression of validity and truth<\/span><\/span>. He <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">encouraged the audience to accept<\/span><\/span> his <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">inductive conclusion<\/strong><\/span> that, based on the numerous instances he named, he easily won the election and that Democrats were lying and \u201cstealing\u201d the election for Joe Biden.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This claim, however, required the audience to place tremendous trust in Trump to have ethically researched the topic and presented his findings\u2014a trust undercut by many legal decisions. By January 6, 2021, the Trump administration, lawyers, and supporters had presented their evidence in courts to support lawsuits to overturn the election; they lost sixty-one cases and won one.[footnote]\u201cResults of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,\u201d <em>Campaign Legal Center<\/em>, accessed 15 May 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections<\/a>; U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., <em>Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol<\/em> (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2022), 210\u201313, https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/GPO-J6-REPORT\/pdf\/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8<\/a>.[\/footnote] Indeed, the House of Representatives Committee that later investigated the US Capitol attack <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId729\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">concluded<\/span><\/a><\/span> that Trump had been made aware by this point that his claims of fraud were baseless but persisted anyway with the \u201cBig Lie,\u201d making false claims \u201cmore than 100 times during his [January 6] speech.\u201d[footnote]U.S. House of Representatives, <em>Final Report<\/em>, 197, 204-10, 232.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_397\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"128\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-397\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image343.png\" alt=\"Speech bubble with an X inside\" width=\"128\" height=\"128\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Logical_Fallacies_Fallacy_Icon.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Logical Fallacies<\/a> by SkepticalScience via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA <\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Consequently, Trump\u2019s use of argumentation was likely only persuasive to supporters who already accepted the claim or wanted it to be true. For those listening critically, Trump\u2019s lack of sources to support his evidence and his use of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasoning fallacies<\/strong><\/span> significantly <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">weakened his claims<\/span><\/span>. Trump relied on multiple fallacies, including <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">false dilemma<\/strong><\/span>. He offered listeners only two possible outcomes based on whether they accepted or rejected his thesis that he won the election. Acceptance would \u201csave our democracy\u201d while rejection means \u201cour country will be destroyed.\u201d Such a false dilemma appeared as reasoning but actually <span class=\"import-u\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">played, instead, on American\u2019s feelings for their country<\/span><\/span>. It also <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">ignored additional possible outcomes<\/span><\/span>, such as helping save the country by rejecting his attempt to alter official election results.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Thus, in place of sound argumentation, valid reasoning, and verifiable evidence, Trump\u2019s speech made points that <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">sounded like arguments but offered falsehoods instead<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Appeals to Emotions and Loyalties<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image344.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"131.533333333333px\" height=\"131.533333333333px\" \/>Rhetorical artifacts typically appeal to the audience\u2019s emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness) and loyalties (e.g., liberty, family), or what Aristotle called pathos. As we explained in chapter 25, pathos is concerned with the psychological state of the audience; it is a measure and reflection of the extent to which we are moved by and feel invested in a topic and a message.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Describing<\/em><\/span> an artifact\u2019s appeals to emotions and loyalties means that you identify<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">specific<\/em><\/span> emotions and\/or loyalties elicited by the artifact and<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">how<\/em><\/span> the rhetor appealed to these emotions and loyalties.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">You then <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how the pathos appeals functioned persuasively. Infer how soliciting particular emotions and loyalties may have aided (or hurt) the rhetor\u2019s goal, such as by<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>relating pleasurable feelings and allegiances with the rhetor\u2019s position or<\/li>\r\n \t<li>associating painful emotions and the disloyalties the audience rejects with counterproposals, a standing policy, or a problem (as described in chapter 25).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">You might also pay attention to the balance or imbalance of positive and negative appeals to emotions and loyalties as well as to the balance or imbalance of these appeals with argumentation. Recognizing an artifact\u2019s extensive reliance on fear appeals, for example, may indicate that a rhetor attempted to frighten the audience into accepting their position.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.5 Questions to Ask About Appeals to Emotions and Loyalties<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Which specific emotions and\/or loyalties did the artifact invoke or appeal to? Where? How?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Which pleasurable emotions and\/or loyalties did the artifact associate with the position advocated?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Which painful emotions and\/or disloyalties did it associate with counterviewpoints or the problem itself?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>To what extent did the artifact balance positive and negative emotions and loyalties?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How might the artifact\u2019s appeals to emotions have made the audience(s) feel moved by and interested in the message\u2014or failed to do so?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What did the rhetor gain or lose from the emphasis or de-emphasis on appeals to emotion and audience loyalties?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the emotional appeals focus the audience(s)\u2019 attention? Toward what? Away from what, given the historical context?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.6 Pathos in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image345.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"106.666666666667px\" height=\"106.666666666667px\" \/>In his January 6 speech, President Trump elicited <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">pleasurable feelings of pride and the loyalties of patriotism and democracy<\/strong><\/span> by praising \u201cthe magnitude of this crowd\u201d and calling his audience \u201cpatriots\u201d who \u201clove our country,\u201d \u201cdo not want to see our election victory stolen,\u201d and want \u201cto save our democracy.\u201d Trump\u2019s language\u2014magnitude, patriots, victory, democracy, save\u2014<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">instilled feelings of righteousness and confidence<\/span><\/span> in rejecting the election results. He lamented that \u201cweak\u201d Republicans like Mike Pence lacked such \u201ccourage and guts.\u201d He ended his speech by encouraging his audience to walk to the Capitol and give the \u201cweak\u201d Republicans the same \u201cpride and boldness that they need to take back our country.\u201d He <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">implied that insufficient <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-iu\">feelings<\/em><\/span><span class=\"import-u\"> of courage and pride were what prevented congressional leaders from rejecting the Electoral College votes<\/span><\/span>.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image346.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"105.733333333333px\" height=\"105.733333333333px\" \/>Trump paired such appeals with <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">painful feelings of anger, outrage, and even hate<\/strong><\/span>. His very first sentence\u2014\u201cThe media will not show the magnitude of this crowd\u201d\u2014immediately expressed outrage at the \u201cfake news media\u201d for allegedly refusing to show the audience\u2019s size. He associated the news media with the disloyalty of communism, comparing their \u201csuppression\u201d with \u201cwhat happens in a communist country.\u201d He went on to accuse Democrats of \u201cstealing\u201d the election by \u201ccheating,\u201d stoking anger at the election outcome and hatred toward the opposing political party.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">By pairing such extreme and antithetical emotions (pride and shame, love and hate) and loyalties (democracy and communism), <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Trump <span class=\"import-u\">left little room for Republican supporters to accept the election results<\/span><\/span>. To do so was to no longer love your country and to side with despicable criminals and even communism. He also <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">amplified the magnitude of Congress\u2019s January 6 meeting<\/span><\/span> as a historical moment in the battle between courage and shame: \u201cWe\u2019re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity, they\u2019ll be ashamed.\u201d<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This showdown of feelings corresponded closely to the false dilemma analyzed earlier as part of logos, revealing that Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">emphasized feelings over sound argumentation and verifiable facts<\/span><\/span>. Trump <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">implied that the crowd might help<\/span><\/span> these leaders choose the \u201ccourage\u201d to deny the election. He <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">encouraged his audience to demonstrate the \u201cstrength\u201d of their feelings<\/span><\/span> to congressional members, \u201cbecause you\u2019ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Rhetor\u2019s Credibility<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image347.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"111.066666666667px\" height=\"111.066666666667px\" \/>A third feature typically found in rhetorical artifacts are appeals to credibility, or what Aristotle called ethos. In chapter 5, you learned that ethos refers to the state of a rhetor\u2019s public character or persona. This definition should draw your attention to the rhetor\u2019s credibility as a rhetorical creation. That means the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Analyzing ethos involves examining how the artifact presented the rhetor as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">character<\/em><\/span> that the audience(s) would perceive as credible.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Although a rhetor\u2019s previous reputation plays a role in this perception, the critic is more interested in how an artifact <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">strengthens, modifies, or builds the rhetor\u2019s credibility through the public message under examination<\/em><\/span>. Beginning critics can make the mistake of merely explaining a rhetor\u2019s prior reputation without examining the artifact itself.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.7 Credibility in President Obama\u2019s July 19, 2012, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_402\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"375\"]<img class=\"wp-image-402\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348.png\" alt=\"President Obama speaks at a podium\" width=\"375\" height=\"239\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Obama_delivered_remarks_on_debt_limit_and_deficit_reduction.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[President Barack Obama]<\/a> by David Lienemann via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.[\/caption]President Obama <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId736\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">addressed the nation on July 19, 2012<\/span><\/a><\/span>, a few days after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator for his Sanford, Florida, community, fatally shot Martin, a seventeen-year-old African American boy who was walking home through the neighborhood.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Saying Obama had credibility when speaking because he was the president would ignore the persona he emphasized <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">in the speech<\/em><\/span> as an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">African American man<\/strong><\/span>: \u201cTrayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.\u2026There are very few African American men in this country who haven\u2019t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.\u201d[footnote]Barack Obama, \u201cRemarks by the President on Trayvon Martin\u201d (transcript, Washington, DC, July 19, 2013), <em>President Barack Obama White House Archives<\/em>, https:\/\/obamawhitehouse.archives.gov\/the-press-office\/2013\/07\/19\/remarks-president-trayvon-martin, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC<\/a>.[\/footnote] Looking to the speech for ethos reveals that Obama <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">drew upon his personal experience as an African American man and as a member of the African American community<\/strong><\/span> to <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depict himself as an authoritative source on race conflicts<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">As box 33.7 exemplifies, you must specifically <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe<\/em><\/span> what <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">kind<\/em><\/span> of credibility or persona the rhetor attempted to construct <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">within the artifact being analyzed<\/em><\/span> and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">how that credibility was developed<\/em><\/span>. In chapters 5 and 25, we suggested rhetors typically try to establish their credibility in terms of one or more qualities:[footnote]See Richard D. Rieke, Malcolm O. Sillars, and Tarla Rai Peterson, <em>Argumentation and Critical Decision Making<\/em>, 7th ed. (New York: Pearson, 2009), 155\u201356.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>competence (expertise, preparation, intelligence)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>trustworthiness (moral standing, integrity)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>goodwill (having the audience\u2019s best interests at heart)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>dynamism (charisma).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">Rhetors may use a variety of rhetorical means to establish any of these qualities, including but not limited to all the other rhetorical features highlighted in this chapter: argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, construction of the audience and the other, organization, style, and delivery.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.8 Questions to Ask About the Rhetor\u2019s Credibility<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>What type(s) of credibility did the rhetor try to cultivate through the artifact? How?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What type of character did the rhetor present for themselves? How?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What overall impression did the rhetor attempt to create for themselves?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Why might the rhetor have chosen to develop the credibility they did, given the historical context?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the rhetor\u2019s credibility appeals leave the rhetor vulnerable to attack or refutation?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the qualities emphasized in the rhetorical artifact relate to the rhetor\u2019s reputation at the time?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.9 Credibility in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021 Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn his speech, President Trump developed at least three types of credibility through a variety of rhetorical features:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Competence<\/strong><strong class=\"import-b\">:<\/strong><\/span> His reference to multiple examples and statistics cultivated the impression that he was well researched on election fraud; he even claimed that \u201cnobody, until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Goodwill<\/strong><strong class=\"import-b\">:<\/strong><\/span> His expression of outrage, along with praise for advances made by his presidential administration, suggested he wanted what was best for the country.<\/li>\r\n \t<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Dynamism<\/strong><strong class=\"import-b\">:<\/strong><\/span> His use of humor and coarse language\u2014such as \u201cThey\u2019re all running around like chickens with their heads cut off.\u2026Nobody knows what the hell is going on\u201d\u2014suggested a gregarious and straight-talking personality.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Together, these three qualities\u2014competence, goodwill, and dynamism\u2014<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">presented Trump as a forceful spokesperson against the election results, helping cultivate some audience members\u2019 trust in his claims and evidence<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Of course, these very rhetorical appeals <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">also <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-iu\">hurt<\/em><\/span><span class=\"import-u\"> Trump\u2019s ethos in the eyes of critics and those who acknowledged the courts\u2019 decisions against his claims of fraud<\/span><\/span>. His use of unverified evidence weakened perceptions of his competence, his outrage at the election results reflected someone willing to hurt the country\u2019s democratic process, and his coarse manner of speaking reflected someone unfit for the presidency.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Construction of the Desired Audience<\/h2>\r\n<img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image349.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"106.666666666667px\" height=\"106.666666666667px\" \/>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">In addition to analyzing how an artifact developed the rhetor\u2019s credibility, you can also examine how it constructed the desired audience. You might think of the desired audience as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">another character<\/em><\/span> the artifact constructs, similar to how it develops the rhetor\u2019s own persona. In chapter 11, we explained that through speech, a rhetor can offer a vision of a desired audience\u2014that is, of an audience that does not yet exist. That vision may emphasize key qualities and attitudes the rhetor wishes actual audience members to adopt. It might also attempt to unite listeners into an idealized community for a better future.[footnote]This rhetorical feature is based on the \u201csecond persona\u201d developed by Edwin Black and \u201cthe people\u201d developed by Michael McGee. Edwin Black, \u201cThe Second Persona,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 56 (1970): 109\u201319; Michael Calvin McGee, \u201cIn Search of \u2018the People,\u2019\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 61 (1976): 235\u201349[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.10 Questions to Ask About the Desired Audience<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Who was the desired audience? Who was the \u201cyou\u201d or \u201cus\u201d the artifact associated with positive qualities?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What positive qualities or characteristics did the artifact associate with the desired audience? How? Where?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Through what strategies did the artifact construct the desired audience?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What kind of relationship did the artifact create between the rhetor\u2019s presentation of themselves (ethos) and their desired audience?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How did the desired audience encourage those who actually heard, viewed, or read the artifact to think or act?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the construction of the desired audience attempt to entice actual listeners to adopt its qualities or perspective?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.11 Construction of the Desired Audience in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPresident Trump developed two different desired audiences in his January 6 speech.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">First, he presented a desired audience of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Republican leaders who would reject the Electoral College votes<\/strong><\/span> to overturn the election results. He particularly identified <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Vice President Mike Pence<\/strong><\/span> as becoming part of this group:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_404\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"256\"]<img class=\"size-full wp-image-404\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image350.png\" alt=\"Mike Pence\" width=\"256\" height=\"369\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Mike_Pence_(50765077402)_(cropped).jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Mike Pence<\/a> by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">I hope Mike is going to do the right thing.\u2026I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.\u2026All Vice President Pence has to do is send it [the electoral vote tally] back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.\u201d Trump also included in this desired audience currently \u201cweak\u201d Republicans who needed to become \u201cstrong\u201d by supporting this effort: \u201cSo we\u2019re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue\u2026to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don\u2019t need any of our help, we\u2019re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This desired audience functioned as not just an invitation to but also <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">pressure on Republican leaders to execute Trump\u2019s wishes<\/span><\/span> to remain in the good graces of Trump and his supporters. For politicians, the fear of losing public support\u2014and thus their political office\u2014was real and ongoing.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump constructed a second desired audience of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">supporters who would give these Republicans the \u201ccourage\u201d to reject the election results<\/strong><\/span>. This audience consisted of true \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">American patriots<\/strong><\/span>\u201d who would remain committed, together, to \u201cstop the steal\u201d because they \u201ccannot take it anymore.\u201d Trump frequently constructed this audience with \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">we<\/strong><\/span>\u201d: \u201cWe will never give up. We will never concede.\u201d \u201cWe\u2019re gathered together in the heart of our nation\u2019s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy.\u201d Trump constructed this desired audience as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">victims<\/strong><\/span> of the \u201cfake news media,\u201d \u201cbig tech,\u201d Democrats, and many others who conspired to \u201csteal\u201d the election for Joe Biden. Rather than give in or admit defeat, Trump\u2019s desired audience would remain banded together with Trump to buoy Republican congressional leaders to overturn the election results.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This desired audience <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">functioned as a savvy adaptation to Trump\u2019s target audience<\/span><\/span>. Trump\u2019s supporters likely felt defeated and deeply disappointed by the election outcome\u2014even confused by it. Trump\u2019s vision offered a clear action they could take (walk to the Capitol) to remain on the winning side and overcome their sense of victimization.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Construction of the Undesired Audience<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image351.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"99.5333333333333px\" height=\"99.5333333333333px\" \/>Yet another rhetorical feature you can examine is how the artifact constructed the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">un<\/em><\/span>desired audience. This is the audience the rhetorical artifact negates by denying or dismissing their relevance or existence.[footnote]This rhetorical feature is based on the concept and theory of the \u201cthird persona\u201d as developed by Phillip Wander, \u201cThe Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory,\u201d <em>Central States Speech Journal<\/em> 35 (1984): 210.[\/footnote] Artifacts typically construct an undesirable audience in one of two ways:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>First, they may silence a group by <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">failing to include them<\/em><\/span>, even though that audience is directly affected by the artifact. (We referred to this group in chapter 10 as the implicated audience.)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-blp\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">A history textbook that relates the United States\u2019 westward expansion without ever referencing the perspectives of Native American peoples, for example, negates these groups\u2019 existence and silences their voices, thereby making them an undesired audience.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Second, a rhetorical artifact may construct an undesired audience by <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">characterizing it negatively<\/em><\/span>, typically associating the person or group with the \u201ccharacteristics, roles, actions, or ways of seeing things to be avoided,\u201d making the undesired audience the opposite or flipside of the rhetor\u2019s desired audience.[footnote]Wander, \u201cThird Persona,\u201d 209.[\/footnote] (We referred in chapter 10 to groups spoken for as the implied audience.)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-blpl\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If the history textbook referenced earlier included Native Americans in its explanation of the United States\u2019 westward expansion but presented a racist depiction of them as bloodthirsty, unreasonable, and uncivilized, then it would negate the Native Americans\u2019 human existence by portraying them as animalistic and, thus, undesirable\u2014possibly in contrast to the qualities ascribed to the white settlers. Of course, just like the rhetor\u2019s credibility and desired audience, the undesired audience is a rhetorical construction that does not necessarily bear resemblance to the actual existing group it represents.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Recognizing undesired audiences can help you discover how artifacts rationalize favored positions, foster unity among the desired audience by creating a common enemy, or discourage the adoption of alternative perspectives.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.12 Questions to Ask About the Undesired Audience<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Whose perspective or voice, if any, was missing from the artifact that could or should have been included?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Who was the \u201cthey,\u201d \u201cthem,\u201d \u201che,\u201d or \u201cshe\u201d the artifact associated with negative qualities?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What negative qualities, actions, or viewpoints did the artifact associate with the undesired audience?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the artifact relate the desired audience with the undesired audience? Typically, they are presented as opposites. How did the artifact offer such a construction, or what other kind of relationship did it build?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>What attitudes and actions might the construction of the undesired audience have attempted to rationalize or encourage (or debunk\/discourage)?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What type of community did the undesired audience help unify (against it) or define?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the construction of the undesired audience possibly mobilize actual listeners to adopt qualities of the desired audience?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.13 Construction of the Undesired Audience in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn his January 6 speech, Trump used negative characterizations to construct an undesired audience consisting of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">the \u201cfake news media,\u201d \u201cbig tech,\u201d \u201cradical left Democrats,\u201d and many others<\/strong><\/span>. He depicted these groups as wanting to \u201csteal\u201d the election. The news media and \u201cbig tech\u201d \u201csuppress[ed]\u201d thought and speech and downplayed the size and success of Trump and his supporters. After \u201cyears\u201d of getting \u201caway with election fraud\u201d and enacting poor policies, Democrats \u201cus[ed] the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots [to]\u2026attempt the most brazen and outrageous election theft.\u201d Trump also included in this undesired audience any \u201cweak\u201d Republicans who allowed Democrats to succeed.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In so doing, Trump <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">presented all groups who might oppose, counter, or hold Trump accountable as detestable<\/span><\/span>, representing the worst elements of society and driven by widely rejected vices: personal greed, unchecked power, and corruption. This portrayal <span class=\"import-u\">attempted to justify their undoing<\/span> through an overwhelming and outraged public response.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Organization<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image352.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"105.733333333333px\" height=\"105.733333333333px\" \/>An artifact\u2019s organization can also be a useful feature to analyze. The ordering of points or arguments\u2014what Aristotle called arrangement\u2014can do the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Reveal the rhetor\u2019s logic or way of thinking. In chapter 13, we explained that patterns of arrangement depict common ways of thinking.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Identify the rhetor\u2019s presumptions about the audience: as knowledgeable or ignorant about the topic and as favorable, apathetic, or hostile toward the rhetor\u2019s thesis.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Suggest what the rhetor deemed important or unimportant, based on the amount of time or space the rhetor devotes to each topic, reason, emotion, and so forth.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">One of the best ways to determine the artifact\u2019s organization\u2014especially its pattern of arrangement\u2014is to create an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">outline<\/em><\/span> of the artifact, noting its main points and sections. Doing that will help you avoid the mistake of simply restating what the rhetor said in the order they said it: \u201cShe started by saying\u2026then she claimed\u2026and she ended by concluding that\u2026\u201d Notice that such statements do <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">not<\/em><\/span> describe or interpret the artifact; they merely summarize or restate it.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Once you identify an artifact\u2019s pattern of arrangement, you can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how the organization took the audience on a rhetorical journey. Infer how each part of the artifact, starting with its beginning, may have shaped or influenced how the audience received what came next in the artifact; how that section of the artifact then affected how the audience received what followed; and so on until the artifact concludes.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image353.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"118.2px\" height=\"118.2px\" \/>Such rhetorical movement is like what rhetoric scholar Stephen Lucas has called the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">textual context<\/strong><\/span>, which is the evolving environment created <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">within<\/em><\/span> an artifact that conditions the audience\u2019s responses to the artifact from its beginning to its ending. Lucas explains that \u201ca text [artifact] creates its own internal context as it unfolds in time and is processed by the listener or reader.\u201d[footnote]Stephen E. Lucas, \u201cThe Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical Criticism,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 74 (1988): 249.[\/footnote] The textual context is quite different from how we used the word \u201ccontext\u201d earlier in this chapter, for textual context exists entirely <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">within<\/em><\/span> the artifact itself. It forces the critic to infer how the structure may have impacted the audience\u2019s reaction to the text <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">because of<\/em><\/span> the organization. It prevents organization from being undervalued by suggesting that how a rhetor moves strategically from the beginning to the end of the artifact matters.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.14 Questions to Ask About Organization<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>What pattern of arrangement did the artifact follow? How would you label the structure employed by the artifact?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What logic or way of thinking was suggested or encouraged by the artifact\u2019s organization?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What parts of the artifact received the most emphasis or time? The least?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What presumptions about the audience(s) were revealed by the artifact\u2019s organization?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How did the artifact rhetorically build, flow, or grow from beginning to end (or fail to do so)? How might each part have influenced the impact or meaning of the part(s) that followed?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How might the artifact\u2019s structure have impacted audiences\u2019 impressions of the topic\/issue?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Why might the rhetor have chosen the structure, given the historical context?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.15 Organization of President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image354.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.733333333333px\" height=\"113.733333333333px\" \/>President Trump\u2019s speech at first seems to be organized a little like stream-of-consciousness, jumping from idea to idea. After a more careful inspection, however, the speech appears to come closest to the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">nonlinear pattern of a star<\/strong><\/span>. We explained in chapter 13 that a star pattern provides multiple main points\u2014like the tips of a star\u2014that may appear disparate from one another, but all support the thesis.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Interestingly, Trump\u2019s speech emphasized <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">five main points<\/strong><\/span> that focused on the problem (the election result was fraudulent, and the news media are suppressing that information) and the solution (we will stop the steal, but Mike Pence and other Republicans need to reject the electoral vote count, which is why we need to march to the Capitol and give them the courage to do that). These points made logical sense together and supported the thesis, \u201cWe will \u2018stop the steal.\u2019 Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.\u201d<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In a star pattern, one main point is typically focused upon and developed at a time, though the ordering of main points can be altered for different audiences and situations. In his speech, however, Trump <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">frequently moved back and forth among the five main points<\/strong><\/span> in various orders. That gave it the feeling of stream-of-consciousness as he bounced from one point to the other in no predictable pattern. By doing so, Trump could speak in a somewhat impromptu manner, which some <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">might have interpreted as more authentic and engaging than reading a manuscript speech, while also emphasizing his thesis and main points<\/span><\/span>. Indeed, the five main points became so interrelated that the structure<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"> <span class=\"import-u\">may have helped audience members remember<\/span><\/span> each point. However, speakers who repeatedly shift from point to point run the <span class=\"import-u\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">risk of sounding disorganized, appearing frenetic or undisciplined, and boring the audience through repetition<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Style and Framing<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image355.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"128.866666666667px\" height=\"128.866666666667px\" \/>We defined style in chapter 16 as language or expression. You are already analyzing an artifact\u2019s style when you consider the rhetorical features previously discussed. To enhance your analysis of an artifact\u2019s style, however, you can attend to at least three additional aspects of an artifact.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">First, examine the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">level or type of language<\/em><\/span> the artifact employed. You might <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe<\/em><\/span> the simplicity or complexity of the language (e.g., folksy versus grandiloquent), the informality or formality of the style (e.g., colloquial versus learned), or even the type of voice\u2014manner of expression\u2014it reflects (e.g., lawyerly, sermonic, motherly, etc.). Then <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how these choices may have shaped the audiences\u2019 impressions of the rhetor, the audiences themselves (how they were addressed), and the topic or issue.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Second, consider the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">stylistic devices<\/em><\/span> the artifact employs. Recall from chapter 16 that such devices are language techniques and literary tools that clarify meaning, express ideas in a compelling manner, and appeal emotionally to an audience. Identifying and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describing<\/em><\/span> these devices can aid you in <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpreting<\/em><\/span> how the artifact used them to create a sense of rhythm, encourage visualization, enhance argumentation, or develop a sense of community.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Finally, analyze the artifact\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">persuasive<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">framing<\/em><\/span> of the issue addressed. In chapters 21 and 25, we defined framing as the use of language to order and make sense of the world. We explained that framing is how we employ language to help shape perceptions of reality. Use guidance in chapter 25 to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe and interpret<\/em><\/span> how the rhetor framed the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">problem<\/em><\/span> and its <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">cause<\/em><\/span> (i.e., who\u2019s to blame) in ways that appear worthy to the audience and logically set up the desired <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">solution<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Analyzing how an artifact framed the issue enables you to determine how its presentation of the problem matched, or failed to reflect, the actual issue that prompted the artifact (the \u201cwhy\u201d in the historical context). Drawing from chapter 25, you can also consider whether the framing appears to be an honest attempt to persuade the audience to adopt the rhetor\u2019s solution or a potentially dishonest effort to win supporters by intentionally confusing the audience\u2019s understanding of the issue.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.16 Questions to Ask About Style and Framing<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>What level or type of language did the artifact adopt?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What stylistic devices did the artifact employ?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the artifact persuasively frame the issue (define the problem, cause, and solution)?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How well or poorly did the artifact\u2019s persuasive framing reflect the issue that motivated the artifact? How did the framing relate to (or contrast with) alternative framings of the same issue at the time?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How might the artifact\u2019s style and framing have shaped audiences\u2019 impressions of the issue? How might those impressions have encouraged audiences to adopt the rhetor\u2019s perspective (or not)?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the stylistic devices create a sense of rhythm, encourage visualization, enhance argumentation, or develop a sense of community?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the style and framing complement or contradict the other rhetorical features, such as argumentation, appeals to emotion, and the desired and undesired audiences?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.17 Framing and Style in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPresident Trump\u2019s framing of the election explicitly defined the problem, its cause, and the solution. As mentioned previously, he identified the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">problem<\/strong><\/span> as mass election fraud; the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">causes<\/strong><\/span> as Democrats\u2019 corruption, the news media\u2019s suppression efforts, and \u201cweak\u201d Republicans\u2019 failures to respond; and the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">solution<\/strong><\/span> as supporters\u2019 pressure on Republican leaders to overturn the election results.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This framing <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">dishonestly diverted attention from the actual problem<\/span><\/span>\u2014Trump lost the election\u2014to an invented problem of election fraud. That diversion <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">whipped his supporters into outrage and action <\/span><\/span>instead of acceptance and contemplation. Trump\u2019s framing also <span class=\"import-u\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">left somewhat unclear what that action or their pressure on Congress should look like<\/span><\/span>. Trump encouraged rally attendees to \u201cwalk\u201d and \u201cmarch\u201d to the Capitol and even once said \u201cto peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.\u201d Yet his framing emphasized the causes of the fraud as so despicable, coordinated, and strong that peacefully marching and protesting would be an insufficient solution, leaving open the possibility that supporters might need to escalate their response.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_410\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"375\"]<img class=\"wp-image-410\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356.png\" alt=\"A burglar uses a crowbar to get into a door\" width=\"375\" height=\"249\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/photos\/thief-burglary-break-into-1562699\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Kris via Pixabay, <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/service\/license-summary\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pixabay Content License<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">stylistic choices<\/strong><\/span> contributed to that escalation. Trump drew heavily on the stylistic device of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">metaphor<\/strong><\/span>. One of his most heavily used metaphors likened the election results to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">theft<\/strong><\/span>: \u201cYou don\u2019t concede when there\u2019s theft involved.\u201d \u201cDemocrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft. There\u2019s never been anything like this. It\u2019s a pure theft in American history.\u201d \u201cThey want to steal the election.\u201d \u201cWe must stop the steal.\u201d \u201cThis is a criminal enterprise.\u201d By likening the results to a crime, Trump\u2019s metaphor <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depicted himself and his supporters as innocent victims<\/span><\/span> of nefarious lawbreakers; thus, they were <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">justified in defending and retrieving<\/span><\/span> what was rightfully and legally theirs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_411\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"375\"]<img class=\"wp-image-411\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357.png\" alt=\"Two men boxing\" width=\"375\" height=\"249\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/photos\/boxing-fighting-sports-ring-7490185\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Lee Murry via Pixabay, <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/service\/license-summary\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pixabay Content License<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">How they might do that was informed by a second popular <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">metaphor<\/strong><\/span> in Trump\u2019s speech: Their response was like a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">physical fight<\/strong><\/span>. Trump instructed, \u201cAnd we fight. We fight like hell and if you don\u2019t fight like hell, you\u2019re not going to have a country anymore.\u201d He characterized the Republicans who objected to the results as \u201cwarriors\u201d who were \u201cfighting. The House guys are fighting.\u201d He criticized the \u201cweak\u201d Republicans who \u201care constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It\u2019s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we\u2019re going to have to fight much harder.\u201d Through this metaphor, Trump <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">likened their response to an unrestrained physical assault that was both required and justified to win<\/span><\/span>. Some supporters took this metaphor literally.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Delivery<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image358.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.733333333333px\" height=\"113.733333333333px\" \/>To analyze a rhetor\u2019s delivery of an artifact, you must have access to an audio or visual recording. In chapter 17, we defined delivery as the actual means of expression: \u201cIt is how a speaker physically conveys words and ideas, verbally and nonverbally, to the audience.\u201d You can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe<\/em><\/span> a rhetor\u2019s<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>vocal delivery (how the voice and mouth are used to deliver words),<\/li>\r\n \t<li>nonverbal delivery (how the body is used to communicate),<\/li>\r\n \t<li>televisual delivery (how a speech is presented through a screen), and<\/li>\r\n \t<li>use of memory (how one stores and recalls the information shared in a speech).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">You should then <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how the rhetor\u2019s delivery functioned persuasively, given the historical context. As explained in chapter 17, delivery is situational; its effectiveness depends on the rhetor\u2019s ability to adjust to situational factors (e.g., occasion, purpose, audience composition, and size) and conditions and constraints (e.g., distance from the audience, use of a camera, the arrangement of the speaking platform or lectern, etc.). You can identify the delivery choices the rhetor made for their speaking situation and infer whether and how they met the demands of that situation to achieve their persuasive goal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.18 Questions to Ask About Delivery<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Description<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How would you characterize the rhetor\u2019s vocal delivery in terms of their volume, tone, rate, pauses, articulation, pronunciation, and vocal fillers?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How would you characterize the rhetor\u2019s nonverbal delivery in terms of their eye contact, facial expressions, gestures and movement, and appearance?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>If the artifact was delivered through a screen, how would you characterize the rhetor\u2019s use of, or adaptation to, the camera\u2019s framing, angle, and distance; the lighting and background; and the camera\u2019s movement or steadiness?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the rhetor adjust their delivery to suit the historical context, or how did they fail to do so?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What mode of delivery did the rhetor adopt (extemporaneous, memorized, impromptu, manuscript)?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<strong>Interpretation<\/strong>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>How might the rhetor\u2019s delivery have influenced audiences\u2019 impressions of the rhetor? How might those impressions have compared or differed if audiences watched in person or via a screen?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How might the rhetor\u2019s delivery have aided or hurt their attempt to persuade their audiences?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How did the rhetor\u2019s delivery complement or distract from the artifact\u2019s other rhetorical features?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.19 Delivery of President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPresident Trump\u2019s speech delivery appeared to strengthen his claims by <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depicting him as presidential<\/span><\/span>. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Dressed<\/strong><\/span> in a black, long overcoat with a white collared shirt and red tie, he looked presidential. The <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">setting<\/strong><\/span> helped. His podium featured the presidential seal, American flags waved in the breeze on either side of him onstage (and in the camera\u2019s frame), and the White House was easily visible behind him. The stage placed him physically above audience members, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">reflecting his <\/span><span class=\"import-u\">power over them<\/span><\/span>.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">His nonverbal delivery was restrained. He remained <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">standing<\/strong><\/span> behind a podium. He frequently <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">gestured<\/strong><\/span> to underscore his points, such as shrugging his shoulders, pointing at the crowd, or dropping his hand with specific words. But his gestures were made fairly close to his body. His <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">vocal tone<\/strong><\/span> and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">volume<\/strong><\/span> stayed rather consistent, with only occasional vocal emphases on particular words or phrases. While the speech was scripted and teleprompter screens stood on both sides of him, Trump appeared to mostly <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">look<\/strong><\/span> out at the crowd and cameras. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">paused<\/strong><\/span> occasionally when the crowd cheered or chanted.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Consequently, Trump\u2019s delivery <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depicted a man who was\u2014and was ready to remain\u2014the US president<\/span><\/span>. He talked directly to the people as their leader and their choice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Evaluating the Rhetorical Artifact<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image319-1.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"99.5333333333333px\" height=\"99.5333333333333px\" \/>Once you have systematically described and interpreted your artifact for features such as the ones listed previously, you can judge the artifact\u2019s functions and consequences. Focus on whether the artifact successfully achieved the rhetor\u2019s goals (or not) and strengthened or weakened democratic principles. We will discuss both assessments in turn.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Did the Artifact Achieve the Rhetor\u2019s Goals? Why or Why Not?<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">You should judge if and why the artifact achieved the rhetor\u2019s goals. Use<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>your research and understanding of the historical context (i.e., evidence from outside sources) and<\/li>\r\n \t<li>your description and interpretations of the rhetorical features (i.e., evidence from the artifact)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">to argue how the artifact helped the rhetor achieve their goals or why they fell short.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Of course, determining success can be complicated. What counts as success, with what audience, and how quickly must it occur? As a critic, you must decide and ultimately argue how to define success or failure for the artifact, given its context.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\nSpeech scholar W. Norwood Brigance claimed, \u201cThe success of any speech is determined, not by whether it carries the day, but by how far it moves toward that goal.\u201d[footnote]William Norwood Brigance, \u201cWhat Is a Successful Speech?,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech Education<\/em> 11 (1925): 376.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.20 Evaluation of Whether President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech Achieved His Goals<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPresident Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">fulfilled his immediate goal<\/strong><\/span> of motivating rally attendants to march to the Capitol and pressure Republican congressional leaders to object to the Electoral College votes. After Trump\u2019s speech, a large portion of the approximately 10,000 people in attendance joined the tens of thousands of protesters already gathered near the Capitol.[footnote]Jie Jenny Zou and Erin B. Logan, \u201cKey Facts to Know About the Jan. 6 Insurrection,\u201d <em>Los Angeles Times<\/em>, January 5, 2022, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/politics\/story\/2022-01-05\/by-the-numbers-jan-6-anniversary\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/politics\/story\/2022-01-05\/by-the-numbers-jan-6-anniversary<\/a>.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_414\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"450\"]<img class=\"wp-image-414\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359.png\" alt=\"Tear gas and rioters outside the Capitol\" width=\"450\" height=\"232\" \/> <br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Tear_Gas_outside_United_States_Capitol_20210106.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tear Gas outside United States Capitol<\/a> by Tyler Merbler via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_415\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"400\"]<img class=\"wp-image-415\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360-300x225.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"300\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Sherrod_Brown_January_6_4.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Sherrod Brown via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Unfortunately, their presence strengthened a physical attack on the building that had already begun. According to the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId748\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">House of Representatives Select Committee\u2019s final report<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cThe Proud Boys and other extremists initiated the attack shortly before the joint session of Congress was set to begin at 1:00 p.m. The rioters who streamed down Pennsylvania to the U.S. Capitol from the Ellipse then provided crucial momentum for the attack.\u201d[footnote]U.S. House of Representatives, <em>Final Report<\/em>, 612.[\/footnote] In that attack, over 140 law enforcement officers were injured, five people died (on that day or soon afterward), $2.9 million in damages was done to the Capitol, and congressional leaders had to end their meeting suddenly and be escorted by police to safe hiding spaces.[footnote]\u201cThe Jan. 6 Attack: The Cases Behind the Biggest Criminal Investigation in U.S. History,\u201d <em>All Things Considered<\/em>, updated May 14, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories<\/a>.[\/footnote] <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId750\" href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">According to NPR<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cThe FBI has estimated that around 2,000 people took part in criminal acts on Jan. 6,\u201d and they continued to investigate and make arrests through 2024.[footnote]\u201cJan. 6 Attack.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Did Trump\u2019s January 6 speech cause the Capitol attack?<\/strong><\/span> On the one hand, the answer is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">no<\/strong><\/span>. The attack started before his speech ended, and most people who walked to the Capitol did not directly engage in violence or enter the building. He never told his audience to enter the building or attack congressional leaders or Capitol police officers.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">On the other hand, the answer is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">yes<\/strong><\/span>. His <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">speech<\/em><\/span> contributed to his previous rhetoric that encouraged supporters to travel to Washington, DC, to stop congressional leaders, especially Pence, from certifying the votes. He whipped up his audience\u2019s outrage through <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">false evidence and fallacies<\/em><\/span> as well as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">contrasts of love and hate<\/em><\/span>. He depicted the encounter as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">showdown between patriots and enemies<\/em><\/span> and encouraged his supporters <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">to \u201cfight\u201d the \u201cthieves\u201d to \u201csave\u201d the country<\/em><\/span>. Such rhetoric overly simplified the situation and downplayed the weighty implications of attempting to overturn a democratic election.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">While Trump did not overtly tell the crowd to attack the Capitol, he stoked feelings and beliefs that helped justify such violence. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId751\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">As one professor noted for the BBC<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cHe clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.\u201d[footnote]Garrett Epps, quoted in Sam Cabral, \u201cCapitol Riots: Did Trump\u2019s Words at Rally Incite Violence?,\u201d <em>BBC<\/em>, February 13, 2021, https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/world-us-canada-55640437, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ<\/a>.[\/footnote] Several investigations made a similar conclusion, resulting in Congress impeaching Trump for a second time and the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId752\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Justice Department indicting him<\/span><\/a><\/span> on four counts, including the \u201cObstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.\u201d[footnote]Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, \u201cTrump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>, August 1, 2023, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2023\/08\/01\/us\/politics\/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">failed to fulfill his ultimate goal<\/strong><\/span> of overturning the 2020 election results. Congress reconvened the following day to finish their certification of the Electoral College votes, officially confirming Joe Biden\u2019s election victory as the forty-sixth US president.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Did the Artifact Strengthen or Weaken Democratic Principles? How?<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">In addition to assessing the artifact\u2019s ability or failure to achieve the rhetor\u2019s goals, public communication analysis requires you to also consider the artifact\u2019s impact on democratic principles.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_383\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"333\"]<img class=\"wp-image-383\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330.png\" alt=\"U.S. Capitol Building exterior\" width=\"333\" height=\"500\" \/> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pexels.com\/photo\/facade-of-the-capitol-building-7016963\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Facade of the Capitol Building<\/a> by Ramaz Bluashvili via Pexels, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pexels.com\/license\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pexels License<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">We argued in chapter 31 that rhetoric that addresses public affairs should strengthen democracy, and we suggested that critics evaluate an artifact\u2019s impact on democracy by determining whether it strengthens or weakens democratic principles. In that chapter, we defined democratic principles as the behavioral standards necessary for democratic governance to exist and thrive, and we gave examples such as the participation of ordinary people in civic affairs, the equality of all people, and the tolerance and protection of a variety of voices. Artifacts that prioritize, reinforce, and\/or practice such principles strengthen democracy.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">To help you assess your artifact\u2019s impact on democratic values, we will delve into this idea a bit further by considering, separately, how an artifact might support democratic principles directly <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">or<\/em><\/span> indirectly.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3 class=\"import-ch\">How Did the Artifact <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Directly<\/em><\/span> Support or Hurt Democratic Principles?<\/h3>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">A rhetorical artifact might <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">directly<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">strengthen<\/em><\/span> democracy by advocating for or addressing one or more democratic ideals. We might think, for example, of Martin Luther King Jr.\u2019s calls for freedom and equality in his \u201cI Have a Dream\u201d speech. Alternatively, an artifact can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">directly<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">weaken<\/em><\/span> democratic principles by explicitly calling for their dismissal, subjugating them to other values, or refusing their application to particular groups of people.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3 class=\"import-ch\">How Did the Artifact <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Indirectly<\/em><\/span> Support or Hurt Democratic Principles?<\/h3>\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">An artifact can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">strengthen democracy<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">indirectly<\/em><\/span> by modeling or practicing democratic principles. Any artifact that qualifies as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">responsible public discourse<\/em><\/span>, for instance, reinforces democratic principles. Recall in chapter 4 we defined responsible public discourse as public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It may or may not be polite or civil. Alternatively, some artifacts <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">indirectly weaken democratic principles<\/em><\/span> by practicing irresponsible public communication that uses the qualities of unproductive discourse and restricts the public sphere in inequitable ways.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">A rhetorical artifact may fall along a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">sliding scale<\/em><\/span> between strengthening and weakening democratic principles. Most artifacts probably improve some principles and hurt others. Clearly, the more ways a single artifact strengthens democratic principles, the better. You will need to decide in which direction your artifact tends by paying close attention to the artifact\u2019s rhetorical features and historical context.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Box 33.21 Evaluation of the Effects of President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech on Democratic Principles<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPresident Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">directly hurt<\/strong><\/span> democratic principles. Though he claimed to \u201csave our democracy,\u201d his speech called to overturn a democratic election. That directly violated such principles as the rule of law, the importance of the common good in balance with personal gain, and the accountability of officials and public leaders to the will of the people.\r\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump\u2019s speech also <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">indirectly weakened<\/strong><\/span> democracy by making heavy use of division, dichotomous thinking, certainty, combativeness, and winning and by attempting to restrict valid voters to those Americans who voted for him.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Summary<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<p class=\"import-paft\">This chapter provided the final steps necessary to conduct a public communication analysis. After identifying a suitable rhetorical artifact and reconstructing its historical context, you should continue to analyze the artifact itself:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>You describe and interpret several rhetorical features, including argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, the rhetor\u2019s credibility, the desired audience, the undesired audience, organization, style and framing, and delivery.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>You next make two types of judgments about the artifact, using what you learned from the historical context and rhetorical features. You evaluate whether the artifact was successful or failed to achieve the rhetor\u2019s goals, recognizing the need to argue for what counts as success or failure. You also judge whether the artifact strengthened or weakened democratic principles by considering the principles the artifact attempted to directly reinforce (or violate) and indirectly practiced or modeled (or failed to do so).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--key-takeaways\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Key Terms<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n\r\ntextual context\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Review Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>How do you describe and interpret an artifact\u2019s argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, organization, and style and framing? What mistakes should you avoid?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What is the difference between the rhetor\u2019s construction of themselves (credibility), the desired audience, and the undesired audience?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>By what means might you evaluate an artifact\u2019s success in achieving its goals?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>By what means might you evaluate an artifact\u2019s impact on democratic principles?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Discussion Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>Which of the rhetorical features seems most important to analyze? How should you decide which to focus on or to include when sharing your work?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>What kinds of evidence best support a critic\u2019s interpretations of an artifact\u2019s rhetorical features? How does a critic know when their inferences are right? How should we judge the merit of a critic\u2019s interpretations, especially when two critics disagree about how a rhetorical feature functioned?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>How can you ever really make judgments about an artifact\u2019s success or failure or impact on democratic principles? What kinds of evidence does that require?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Chapter Objectives<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Students will:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Describe and interpret a range of rhetorical features in a rhetorical artifact.<\/li>\n<li>Evaluate the artifact\u2019s success or failure in achieving the rhetor\u2019s goals and in strengthening or weakening democratic principles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 0pt;\">The previous chapter defined public communication analysis as an approach to rhetorical criticism that helps critics determine a rhetorical artifact\u2019s features and ascertain their likely consequences. It guided you through the first two steps of this rhetorical method: identifying an appropriate rhetorical artifact and reconstructing its historical context.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In this chapter, we focus on analyzing the artifact itself by describing the next two steps of public communication analysis. First, we will explain how to describe and interpret an artifact\u2019s rhetorical features. Then we will instruct you on how to evaluate an artifact\u2019s functions and consequences, focusing on whether or not the artifact achieved the rhetor\u2019s goals and strengthened democratic principles.<\/p>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Describing and Interpreting the Rhetorical Features<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">Public communication analysis begins with description. In chapter 30, we defined <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">description<\/em><\/span> as noticing, identifying, and explaining a rhetorical artifact\u2019s content, form, and absence. In this chapter, we will introduce you to more specific types of features, from argumentation to delivery. Some of these features focus more on an artifact\u2019s content (e.g., pathos, ethos) while others emphasize its form (e.g., organization, style), though many features consider both aspects (e.g., argumentation). You should find, label, and observe each feature with specificity. You should also always ask what might be missing or absent from the artifact.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Public communication analysis follows description with <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">i<\/em><em class=\"import-i\">nterpretation<\/em><\/span>. In chapter 30, we defined interpretation as making inferences about how an artifact\u2019s content, form, and absence function persuasively. Interpretation explores the artifact\u2019s symbolic action, which we defined in that same chapter as the power of symbols to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">do<\/em><\/span> things\u2014to shape our thoughts, values, and actions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Notice that critics <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">infer<\/em><\/span> interpretations; you can rarely prove your inferences as definitively as you can describe rhetorical features. For example, you can name an artifact\u2019s organizational structure (\u201cNotice how the speech moves chronologically from past to present to the future\u201d), but you infer how that structure functioned (\u201cBy moving chronologically, the speaker shifted the audience\u2019s attention from the past crisis to the more hopeful future, leaving them feeling more optimistic and comforted\u201d).<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p>Remember the insight we provided in chapter 30: A critic\u2019s interpretations should use <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">active verbs<\/em><\/span> to accentuate the symbolic action. If you are not using verbs when interpreting a rhetorical artifact, then you are probably still describing, rather than interpreting, its persuasive functions or symbolic action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.1 Describing and Interpreting a Rhetorical Artifact<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For each rhetorical feature,<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">find<\/strong><\/span> the feature in the artifact,<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">describe<\/strong><\/span> the feature with specificity, and<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">interpret<\/strong><\/span> how the feature may have influenced the audience\u2019s beliefs, attitudes, or courses of action.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Not every rhetorical feature you examine will be important or even present in every artifact, but you cannot know that until you closely attend to the artifact and determine its central features. We recommend you conduct your rhetorical criticism by initially describing and interpreting each element systematically and then deciding which elements provide the most important rhetorical insights to share with others.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">We now turn to specific rhetorical features to describe and interpret for your artifact. They include the following: argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, rhetor\u2019s credibility, construction of the desired audience, construction of the undesired audience, organization, style and framing, and delivery. For each, we will explain the feature, provide prompting questions for your own description and interpretation, and offer an example.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Argumentation<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image342.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"120.866666666667px\" height=\"120.866666666667px\" \/>Recall from chapter 26 that an argument is the advocacy of an idea, position, or course of action that is supported by evidence. Drawing from Stephen Toulmin\u2019s model, we identified the three main components of any argument as including a claim, data (evidence), and warrant(justification for using the data to support the claim).<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958).\" id=\"return-footnote-514-1\" href=\"#footnote-514-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a> In chapter 25, we noted that Aristotle considered argumentation to be a form of proof he called logos.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.2 Argumentation Reminders<\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"twocolumn\">\n<p class=\"import-sbahaft\" style=\"font-size: 22px; text-indent: 36pt;\"><strong>Patterns of Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>deductive reasoning<\/li>\n<li>inductive reasoning<\/li>\n<li>reasoning from example<\/li>\n<li>reasoning from analogy<\/li>\n<li>reasoning from cause<\/li>\n<li>reasoning from sign<\/li>\n<li>reasoning from authority<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-sbahaft\" style=\"font-size: 24px; text-indent: 36pt;\"><strong>Reasoning Fallacies<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>hasty generalization<\/li>\n<li>faulty analogy<\/li>\n<li>faulty cause<\/li>\n<li>slippery slope<\/li>\n<li>appeal to authority<\/li>\n<li>appeal to popularity<\/li>\n<li>appeal to common practice<\/li>\n<li>begging the question<\/li>\n<li>ad hominem<\/li>\n<li>false dilemma<strong>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Describing<\/em><\/span> an artifact\u2019s argumentation does <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-iu\">not <\/em><\/span><span class=\"import-u\">mean simply restating<\/span> its main point(s) or message. Rather, it means doing the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>carefully identify the artifact\u2019s claims, data, and warrants to determine the type and validity of the argumentation<\/li>\n<li>note the patterns of reasoning utilized as well as any inclusion of fallacies, which we described in chapter 27 as flaws or defects in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument<\/li>\n<li>consider whether and how an artifact includes counterarguments to its claims or proposals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">Rhetorical criticism requires going beyond merely describing these aspects, however, to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpreting<\/em><\/span> how they may have persuaded (or failed to persuade) an audience to accept the rhetor\u2019s position. Box 33.3 offers questions to help you describe <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">and<\/em><\/span> interpret your rhetorical artifact\u2019s argumentation.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.3 Questions to Ask About Argumentation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What claims, data, and warrants did the artifact provide or not provide?<\/li>\n<li>Did the artifact use valid and sound arguments, or did it make use of fallacies? How so?<\/li>\n<li>What patterns of reasoning did the artifact include?<\/li>\n<li>How well did the artifact identify and reasonably respond to counterarguments?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How might the artifact\u2019s claims, data, and warrants have resonated\u2014or failed to resonate\u2014with the audience(s), given the historical context?<\/li>\n<li>How might the argument(s) have persuaded, or failed to persuade, the audience of the speaker\u2019s viewpoint, given the historical context?<\/li>\n<li>What kinds of attitudes, values, conclusions, or actions did the argumentation encourage or discourage?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.4 Argumentation in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the previous chapter, we turned to President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, speech to exemplify the criteria for an appropriate rhetorical artifact and how to identify its historical context. We return to this artifact in this chapter to illustrate how to analyze each rhetorical element. Descriptive labels are bolded, and interpretations are underlined.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In his January 6 speech, President Trump constructed an argument about the 2020 election using <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">inductive reasoning<\/strong><\/span>. Early in the speech, he made his <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">thesis<\/strong><\/span> clear: \u201cToday, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.\u201d His <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">data (evidence)<\/strong><\/span> included the three common types of evidence explored in chapter 26: example, statistics, and testimony. Trump alleged specific <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">examples<\/strong><\/span> of illegal actions in several swing states that resulted in fraudulent votes for Biden, cited numerous <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">statistics<\/strong><\/span> for ballots illegally counted against him in those states, and occasionally integrated <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">testimony<\/strong><\/span>, mostly from unnamed people like a \u201creal pollster,\u201d \u201ceyewitness testimony,\u201d and \u201ca career employee\u201d of Detroit. Indeed, Trump provided <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">no sources<\/strong><\/span> for his examples and statistics of fraud, and most of his sources for testimony were <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">vague references<\/strong><\/span> (\u201cpeople,\u201d \u201can eyewitness,\u201d \u201ca real pollster,\u201d \u201cpoll watchers,\u201d \u201ca career employee\u201d of Detroit).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">By inundating listeners with multiple forms of apparent evidence and repeatedly referring to them as \u201cthe facts,\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Trump <span class=\"import-u\">created the impression of validity and truth<\/span><\/span>. He <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">encouraged the audience to accept<\/span><\/span> his <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">inductive conclusion<\/strong><\/span> that, based on the numerous instances he named, he easily won the election and that Democrats were lying and \u201cstealing\u201d the election for Joe Biden.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This claim, however, required the audience to place tremendous trust in Trump to have ethically researched the topic and presented his findings\u2014a trust undercut by many legal decisions. By January 6, 2021, the Trump administration, lawyers, and supporters had presented their evidence in courts to support lawsuits to overturn the election; they lost sixty-one cases and won one.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"\u201cResults of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,\u201d Campaign Legal Center, accessed 15 May 2024, https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections; U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2022), 210\u201313, https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/GPO-J6-REPORT\/pdf\/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf, archived at https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-2\" href=\"#footnote-514-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a> Indeed, the House of Representatives Committee that later investigated the US Capitol attack <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId729\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">concluded<\/span><\/a><\/span> that Trump had been made aware by this point that his claims of fraud were baseless but persisted anyway with the \u201cBig Lie,\u201d making false claims \u201cmore than 100 times during his [January 6] speech.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"U.S. House of Representatives, Final Report, 197, 204-10, 232.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-3\" href=\"#footnote-514-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_397\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-397\" style=\"width: 128px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-397\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image343.png\" alt=\"Speech bubble with an X inside\" width=\"128\" height=\"128\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image343.png 128w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image343-65x65.png 65w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-397\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Logical_Fallacies_Fallacy_Icon.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Logical Fallacies<\/a> by SkepticalScience via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/4.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA <\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Consequently, Trump\u2019s use of argumentation was likely only persuasive to supporters who already accepted the claim or wanted it to be true. For those listening critically, Trump\u2019s lack of sources to support his evidence and his use of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">reasoning fallacies<\/strong><\/span> significantly <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">weakened his claims<\/span><\/span>. Trump relied on multiple fallacies, including <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">false dilemma<\/strong><\/span>. He offered listeners only two possible outcomes based on whether they accepted or rejected his thesis that he won the election. Acceptance would \u201csave our democracy\u201d while rejection means \u201cour country will be destroyed.\u201d Such a false dilemma appeared as reasoning but actually <span class=\"import-u\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">played, instead, on American\u2019s feelings for their country<\/span><\/span>. It also <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">ignored additional possible outcomes<\/span><\/span>, such as helping save the country by rejecting his attempt to alter official election results.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Thus, in place of sound argumentation, valid reasoning, and verifiable evidence, Trump\u2019s speech made points that <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">sounded like arguments but offered falsehoods instead<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Appeals to Emotions and Loyalties<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image344.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"131.533333333333px\" height=\"131.533333333333px\" \/>Rhetorical artifacts typically appeal to the audience\u2019s emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness) and loyalties (e.g., liberty, family), or what Aristotle called pathos. As we explained in chapter 25, pathos is concerned with the psychological state of the audience; it is a measure and reflection of the extent to which we are moved by and feel invested in a topic and a message.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Describing<\/em><\/span> an artifact\u2019s appeals to emotions and loyalties means that you identify<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">specific<\/em><\/span> emotions and\/or loyalties elicited by the artifact and<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">how<\/em><\/span> the rhetor appealed to these emotions and loyalties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">You then <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how the pathos appeals functioned persuasively. Infer how soliciting particular emotions and loyalties may have aided (or hurt) the rhetor\u2019s goal, such as by<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>relating pleasurable feelings and allegiances with the rhetor\u2019s position or<\/li>\n<li>associating painful emotions and the disloyalties the audience rejects with counterproposals, a standing policy, or a problem (as described in chapter 25).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">You might also pay attention to the balance or imbalance of positive and negative appeals to emotions and loyalties as well as to the balance or imbalance of these appeals with argumentation. Recognizing an artifact\u2019s extensive reliance on fear appeals, for example, may indicate that a rhetor attempted to frighten the audience into accepting their position.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.5 Questions to Ask About Appeals to Emotions and Loyalties<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Which specific emotions and\/or loyalties did the artifact invoke or appeal to? Where? How?<\/li>\n<li>Which pleasurable emotions and\/or loyalties did the artifact associate with the position advocated?<\/li>\n<li>Which painful emotions and\/or disloyalties did it associate with counterviewpoints or the problem itself?<\/li>\n<li>To what extent did the artifact balance positive and negative emotions and loyalties?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How might the artifact\u2019s appeals to emotions have made the audience(s) feel moved by and interested in the message\u2014or failed to do so?<\/li>\n<li>What did the rhetor gain or lose from the emphasis or de-emphasis on appeals to emotion and audience loyalties?<\/li>\n<li>How did the emotional appeals focus the audience(s)\u2019 attention? Toward what? Away from what, given the historical context?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.6 Pathos in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image345.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"106.666666666667px\" height=\"106.666666666667px\" \/>In his January 6 speech, President Trump elicited <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">pleasurable feelings of pride and the loyalties of patriotism and democracy<\/strong><\/span> by praising \u201cthe magnitude of this crowd\u201d and calling his audience \u201cpatriots\u201d who \u201clove our country,\u201d \u201cdo not want to see our election victory stolen,\u201d and want \u201cto save our democracy.\u201d Trump\u2019s language\u2014magnitude, patriots, victory, democracy, save\u2014<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">instilled feelings of righteousness and confidence<\/span><\/span> in rejecting the election results. He lamented that \u201cweak\u201d Republicans like Mike Pence lacked such \u201ccourage and guts.\u201d He ended his speech by encouraging his audience to walk to the Capitol and give the \u201cweak\u201d Republicans the same \u201cpride and boldness that they need to take back our country.\u201d He <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">implied that insufficient <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-iu\">feelings<\/em><\/span><span class=\"import-u\"> of courage and pride were what prevented congressional leaders from rejecting the Electoral College votes<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image346.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"105.733333333333px\" height=\"105.733333333333px\" \/>Trump paired such appeals with <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">painful feelings of anger, outrage, and even hate<\/strong><\/span>. His very first sentence\u2014\u201cThe media will not show the magnitude of this crowd\u201d\u2014immediately expressed outrage at the \u201cfake news media\u201d for allegedly refusing to show the audience\u2019s size. He associated the news media with the disloyalty of communism, comparing their \u201csuppression\u201d with \u201cwhat happens in a communist country.\u201d He went on to accuse Democrats of \u201cstealing\u201d the election by \u201ccheating,\u201d stoking anger at the election outcome and hatred toward the opposing political party.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">By pairing such extreme and antithetical emotions (pride and shame, love and hate) and loyalties (democracy and communism), <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Trump <span class=\"import-u\">left little room for Republican supporters to accept the election results<\/span><\/span>. To do so was to no longer love your country and to side with despicable criminals and even communism. He also <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">amplified the magnitude of Congress\u2019s January 6 meeting<\/span><\/span> as a historical moment in the battle between courage and shame: \u201cWe\u2019re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity, they\u2019ll be ashamed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This showdown of feelings corresponded closely to the false dilemma analyzed earlier as part of logos, revealing that Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">emphasized feelings over sound argumentation and verifiable facts<\/span><\/span>. Trump <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">implied that the crowd might help<\/span><\/span> these leaders choose the \u201ccourage\u201d to deny the election. He <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">encouraged his audience to demonstrate the \u201cstrength\u201d of their feelings<\/span><\/span> to congressional members, \u201cbecause you\u2019ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Rhetor\u2019s Credibility<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image347.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"111.066666666667px\" height=\"111.066666666667px\" \/>A third feature typically found in rhetorical artifacts are appeals to credibility, or what Aristotle called ethos. In chapter 5, you learned that ethos refers to the state of a rhetor\u2019s public character or persona. This definition should draw your attention to the rhetor\u2019s credibility as a rhetorical creation. That means the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Analyzing ethos involves examining how the artifact presented the rhetor as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">character<\/em><\/span> that the audience(s) would perceive as credible.<\/li>\n<li>Although a rhetor\u2019s previous reputation plays a role in this perception, the critic is more interested in how an artifact <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">strengthens, modifies, or builds the rhetor\u2019s credibility through the public message under examination<\/em><\/span>. Beginning critics can make the mistake of merely explaining a rhetor\u2019s prior reputation without examining the artifact itself.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.7 Credibility in President Obama\u2019s July 19, 2012, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_402\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-402\" style=\"width: 375px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"wp-image-402\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348.png\" alt=\"President Obama speaks at a podium\" width=\"375\" height=\"239\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348.png 512w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348-300x191.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348-65x41.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348-225x143.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image348-350x223.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-402\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Obama_delivered_remarks_on_debt_limit_and_deficit_reduction.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[President Barack Obama]<\/a> by David Lienemann via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>President Obama <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId736\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">addressed the nation on July 19, 2012<\/span><\/a><\/span>, a few days after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator for his Sanford, Florida, community, fatally shot Martin, a seventeen-year-old African American boy who was walking home through the neighborhood.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Saying Obama had credibility when speaking because he was the president would ignore the persona he emphasized <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">in the speech<\/em><\/span> as an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">African American man<\/strong><\/span>: \u201cTrayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.\u2026There are very few African American men in this country who haven\u2019t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Barack Obama, \u201cRemarks by the President on Trayvon Martin\u201d (transcript, Washington, DC, July 19, 2013), President Barack Obama White House Archives, https:\/\/obamawhitehouse.archives.gov\/the-press-office\/2013\/07\/19\/remarks-president-trayvon-martin, archived at https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-4\" href=\"#footnote-514-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a> Looking to the speech for ethos reveals that Obama <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">drew upon his personal experience as an African American man and as a member of the African American community<\/strong><\/span> to <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depict himself as an authoritative source on race conflicts<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">As box 33.7 exemplifies, you must specifically <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe<\/em><\/span> what <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">kind<\/em><\/span> of credibility or persona the rhetor attempted to construct <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">within the artifact being analyzed<\/em><\/span> and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">how that credibility was developed<\/em><\/span>. In chapters 5 and 25, we suggested rhetors typically try to establish their credibility in terms of one or more qualities:<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"See Richard D. Rieke, Malcolm O. Sillars, and Tarla Rai Peterson, Argumentation and Critical Decision Making, 7th ed. (New York: Pearson, 2009), 155\u201356.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-5\" href=\"#footnote-514-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>competence (expertise, preparation, intelligence)<\/li>\n<li>trustworthiness (moral standing, integrity)<\/li>\n<li>goodwill (having the audience\u2019s best interests at heart)<\/li>\n<li>dynamism (charisma).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">Rhetors may use a variety of rhetorical means to establish any of these qualities, including but not limited to all the other rhetorical features highlighted in this chapter: argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, construction of the audience and the other, organization, style, and delivery.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.8 Questions to Ask About the Rhetor\u2019s Credibility<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What type(s) of credibility did the rhetor try to cultivate through the artifact? How?<\/li>\n<li>What type of character did the rhetor present for themselves? How?<\/li>\n<li>What overall impression did the rhetor attempt to create for themselves?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Why might the rhetor have chosen to develop the credibility they did, given the historical context?<\/li>\n<li>How did the rhetor\u2019s credibility appeals leave the rhetor vulnerable to attack or refutation?<\/li>\n<li>How did the qualities emphasized in the rhetorical artifact relate to the rhetor\u2019s reputation at the time?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.9 Credibility in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021 Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In his speech, President Trump developed at least three types of credibility through a variety of rhetorical features:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Competence<\/strong><strong class=\"import-b\">:<\/strong><\/span> His reference to multiple examples and statistics cultivated the impression that he was well researched on election fraud; he even claimed that \u201cnobody, until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were.\u201d<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Goodwill<\/strong><strong class=\"import-b\">:<\/strong><\/span> His expression of outrage, along with praise for advances made by his presidential administration, suggested he wanted what was best for the country.<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Dynamism<\/strong><strong class=\"import-b\">:<\/strong><\/span> His use of humor and coarse language\u2014such as \u201cThey\u2019re all running around like chickens with their heads cut off.\u2026Nobody knows what the hell is going on\u201d\u2014suggested a gregarious and straight-talking personality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Together, these three qualities\u2014competence, goodwill, and dynamism\u2014<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">presented Trump as a forceful spokesperson against the election results, helping cultivate some audience members\u2019 trust in his claims and evidence<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Of course, these very rhetorical appeals <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">also <\/span><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-iu\">hurt<\/em><\/span><span class=\"import-u\"> Trump\u2019s ethos in the eyes of critics and those who acknowledged the courts\u2019 decisions against his claims of fraud<\/span><\/span>. His use of unverified evidence weakened perceptions of his competence, his outrage at the election results reflected someone willing to hurt the country\u2019s democratic process, and his coarse manner of speaking reflected someone unfit for the presidency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Construction of the Desired Audience<\/h2>\n<div class=\"wp-nocaption alignleft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image349.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"106.666666666667px\" height=\"106.666666666667px\" \/><\/div>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">In addition to analyzing how an artifact developed the rhetor\u2019s credibility, you can also examine how it constructed the desired audience. You might think of the desired audience as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">another character<\/em><\/span> the artifact constructs, similar to how it develops the rhetor\u2019s own persona. In chapter 11, we explained that through speech, a rhetor can offer a vision of a desired audience\u2014that is, of an audience that does not yet exist. That vision may emphasize key qualities and attitudes the rhetor wishes actual audience members to adopt. It might also attempt to unite listeners into an idealized community for a better future.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"This rhetorical feature is based on the \u201csecond persona\u201d developed by Edwin Black and \u201cthe people\u201d developed by Michael McGee. Edwin Black, \u201cThe Second Persona,\u201d Quarterly Journal of Speech 56 (1970): 109\u201319; Michael Calvin McGee, \u201cIn Search of \u2018the People,\u2019\u201d Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (1976): 235\u201349\" id=\"return-footnote-514-6\" href=\"#footnote-514-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.10 Questions to Ask About the Desired Audience<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Who was the desired audience? Who was the \u201cyou\u201d or \u201cus\u201d the artifact associated with positive qualities?<\/li>\n<li>What positive qualities or characteristics did the artifact associate with the desired audience? How? Where?<\/li>\n<li>Through what strategies did the artifact construct the desired audience?<\/li>\n<li>What kind of relationship did the artifact create between the rhetor\u2019s presentation of themselves (ethos) and their desired audience?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How did the desired audience encourage those who actually heard, viewed, or read the artifact to think or act?<\/li>\n<li>How did the construction of the desired audience attempt to entice actual listeners to adopt its qualities or perspective?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.11 Construction of the Desired Audience in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>President Trump developed two different desired audiences in his January 6 speech.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">First, he presented a desired audience of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Republican leaders who would reject the Electoral College votes<\/strong><\/span> to overturn the election results. He particularly identified <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Vice President Mike Pence<\/strong><\/span> as becoming part of this group:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<figure id=\"attachment_404\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-404\" style=\"width: 256px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-404\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image350.png\" alt=\"Mike Pence\" width=\"256\" height=\"369\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image350.png 256w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image350-208x300.png 208w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image350-65x94.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image350-225x324.png 225w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-404\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Mike_Pence_(50765077402)_(cropped).jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Mike Pence<\/a> by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY-SA<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">I hope Mike is going to do the right thing.\u2026I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.\u2026All Vice President Pence has to do is send it [the electoral vote tally] back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.\u201d Trump also included in this desired audience currently \u201cweak\u201d Republicans who needed to become \u201cstrong\u201d by supporting this effort: \u201cSo we\u2019re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue\u2026to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don\u2019t need any of our help, we\u2019re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This desired audience functioned as not just an invitation to but also <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">pressure on Republican leaders to execute Trump\u2019s wishes<\/span><\/span> to remain in the good graces of Trump and his supporters. For politicians, the fear of losing public support\u2014and thus their political office\u2014was real and ongoing.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump constructed a second desired audience of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">supporters who would give these Republicans the \u201ccourage\u201d to reject the election results<\/strong><\/span>. This audience consisted of true \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">American patriots<\/strong><\/span>\u201d who would remain committed, together, to \u201cstop the steal\u201d because they \u201ccannot take it anymore.\u201d Trump frequently constructed this audience with \u201c<span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">we<\/strong><\/span>\u201d: \u201cWe will never give up. We will never concede.\u201d \u201cWe\u2019re gathered together in the heart of our nation\u2019s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: to save our democracy.\u201d Trump constructed this desired audience as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">victims<\/strong><\/span> of the \u201cfake news media,\u201d \u201cbig tech,\u201d Democrats, and many others who conspired to \u201csteal\u201d the election for Joe Biden. Rather than give in or admit defeat, Trump\u2019s desired audience would remain banded together with Trump to buoy Republican congressional leaders to overturn the election results.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This desired audience <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">functioned as a savvy adaptation to Trump\u2019s target audience<\/span><\/span>. Trump\u2019s supporters likely felt defeated and deeply disappointed by the election outcome\u2014even confused by it. Trump\u2019s vision offered a clear action they could take (walk to the Capitol) to remain on the winning side and overcome their sense of victimization.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Construction of the Undesired Audience<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image351.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"99.5333333333333px\" height=\"99.5333333333333px\" \/>Yet another rhetorical feature you can examine is how the artifact constructed the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">un<\/em><\/span>desired audience. This is the audience the rhetorical artifact negates by denying or dismissing their relevance or existence.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"This rhetorical feature is based on the concept and theory of the \u201cthird persona\u201d as developed by Phillip Wander, \u201cThe Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory,\u201d Central States Speech Journal 35 (1984): 210.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-7\" href=\"#footnote-514-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a> Artifacts typically construct an undesirable audience in one of two ways:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>First, they may silence a group by <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">failing to include them<\/em><\/span>, even though that audience is directly affected by the artifact. (We referred to this group in chapter 10 as the implicated audience.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-blp\" style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 18pt;\">A history textbook that relates the United States\u2019 westward expansion without ever referencing the perspectives of Native American peoples, for example, negates these groups\u2019 existence and silences their voices, thereby making them an undesired audience.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Second, a rhetorical artifact may construct an undesired audience by <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">characterizing it negatively<\/em><\/span>, typically associating the person or group with the \u201ccharacteristics, roles, actions, or ways of seeing things to be avoided,\u201d making the undesired audience the opposite or flipside of the rhetor\u2019s desired audience.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Wander, \u201cThird Persona,\u201d 209.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-8\" href=\"#footnote-514-8\" aria-label=\"Footnote 8\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[8]<\/sup><\/a> (We referred in chapter 10 to groups spoken for as the implied audience.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-blpl\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">If the history textbook referenced earlier included Native Americans in its explanation of the United States\u2019 westward expansion but presented a racist depiction of them as bloodthirsty, unreasonable, and uncivilized, then it would negate the Native Americans\u2019 human existence by portraying them as animalistic and, thus, undesirable\u2014possibly in contrast to the qualities ascribed to the white settlers. Of course, just like the rhetor\u2019s credibility and desired audience, the undesired audience is a rhetorical construction that does not necessarily bear resemblance to the actual existing group it represents.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Recognizing undesired audiences can help you discover how artifacts rationalize favored positions, foster unity among the desired audience by creating a common enemy, or discourage the adoption of alternative perspectives.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.12 Questions to Ask About the Undesired Audience<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Whose perspective or voice, if any, was missing from the artifact that could or should have been included?<\/li>\n<li>Who was the \u201cthey,\u201d \u201cthem,\u201d \u201che,\u201d or \u201cshe\u201d the artifact associated with negative qualities?<\/li>\n<li>What negative qualities, actions, or viewpoints did the artifact associate with the undesired audience?<\/li>\n<li>How did the artifact relate the desired audience with the undesired audience? Typically, they are presented as opposites. How did the artifact offer such a construction, or what other kind of relationship did it build?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What attitudes and actions might the construction of the undesired audience have attempted to rationalize or encourage (or debunk\/discourage)?<\/li>\n<li>What type of community did the undesired audience help unify (against it) or define?<\/li>\n<li>How did the construction of the undesired audience possibly mobilize actual listeners to adopt qualities of the desired audience?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.13 Construction of the Undesired Audience in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In his January 6 speech, Trump used negative characterizations to construct an undesired audience consisting of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">the \u201cfake news media,\u201d \u201cbig tech,\u201d \u201cradical left Democrats,\u201d and many others<\/strong><\/span>. He depicted these groups as wanting to \u201csteal\u201d the election. The news media and \u201cbig tech\u201d \u201csuppress[ed]\u201d thought and speech and downplayed the size and success of Trump and his supporters. After \u201cyears\u201d of getting \u201caway with election fraud\u201d and enacting poor policies, Democrats \u201cus[ed] the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots [to]\u2026attempt the most brazen and outrageous election theft.\u201d Trump also included in this undesired audience any \u201cweak\u201d Republicans who allowed Democrats to succeed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In so doing, Trump <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">presented all groups who might oppose, counter, or hold Trump accountable as detestable<\/span><\/span>, representing the worst elements of society and driven by widely rejected vices: personal greed, unchecked power, and corruption. This portrayal <span class=\"import-u\">attempted to justify their undoing<\/span> through an overwhelming and outraged public response.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Organization<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image352.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"105.733333333333px\" height=\"105.733333333333px\" \/>An artifact\u2019s organization can also be a useful feature to analyze. The ordering of points or arguments\u2014what Aristotle called arrangement\u2014can do the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Reveal the rhetor\u2019s logic or way of thinking. In chapter 13, we explained that patterns of arrangement depict common ways of thinking.<\/li>\n<li>Identify the rhetor\u2019s presumptions about the audience: as knowledgeable or ignorant about the topic and as favorable, apathetic, or hostile toward the rhetor\u2019s thesis.<\/li>\n<li>Suggest what the rhetor deemed important or unimportant, based on the amount of time or space the rhetor devotes to each topic, reason, emotion, and so forth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">One of the best ways to determine the artifact\u2019s organization\u2014especially its pattern of arrangement\u2014is to create an <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">outline<\/em><\/span> of the artifact, noting its main points and sections. Doing that will help you avoid the mistake of simply restating what the rhetor said in the order they said it: \u201cShe started by saying\u2026then she claimed\u2026and she ended by concluding that\u2026\u201d Notice that such statements do <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">not<\/em><\/span> describe or interpret the artifact; they merely summarize or restate it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Once you identify an artifact\u2019s pattern of arrangement, you can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how the organization took the audience on a rhetorical journey. Infer how each part of the artifact, starting with its beginning, may have shaped or influenced how the audience received what came next in the artifact; how that section of the artifact then affected how the audience received what followed; and so on until the artifact concludes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image353.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"118.2px\" height=\"118.2px\" \/>Such rhetorical movement is like what rhetoric scholar Stephen Lucas has called the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">textual context<\/strong><\/span>, which is the evolving environment created <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">within<\/em><\/span> an artifact that conditions the audience\u2019s responses to the artifact from its beginning to its ending. Lucas explains that \u201ca text [artifact] creates its own internal context as it unfolds in time and is processed by the listener or reader.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Stephen E. Lucas, \u201cThe Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical Criticism,\u201d Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1988): 249.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-9\" href=\"#footnote-514-9\" aria-label=\"Footnote 9\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[9]<\/sup><\/a> The textual context is quite different from how we used the word \u201ccontext\u201d earlier in this chapter, for textual context exists entirely <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">within<\/em><\/span> the artifact itself. It forces the critic to infer how the structure may have impacted the audience\u2019s reaction to the text <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">because of<\/em><\/span> the organization. It prevents organization from being undervalued by suggesting that how a rhetor moves strategically from the beginning to the end of the artifact matters.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.14 Questions to Ask About Organization<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What pattern of arrangement did the artifact follow? How would you label the structure employed by the artifact?<\/li>\n<li>What logic or way of thinking was suggested or encouraged by the artifact\u2019s organization?<\/li>\n<li>What parts of the artifact received the most emphasis or time? The least?<\/li>\n<li>What presumptions about the audience(s) were revealed by the artifact\u2019s organization?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How did the artifact rhetorically build, flow, or grow from beginning to end (or fail to do so)? How might each part have influenced the impact or meaning of the part(s) that followed?<\/li>\n<li>How might the artifact\u2019s structure have impacted audiences\u2019 impressions of the topic\/issue?<\/li>\n<li>Why might the rhetor have chosen the structure, given the historical context?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.15 Organization of President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image354.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.733333333333px\" height=\"113.733333333333px\" \/>President Trump\u2019s speech at first seems to be organized a little like stream-of-consciousness, jumping from idea to idea. After a more careful inspection, however, the speech appears to come closest to the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">nonlinear pattern of a star<\/strong><\/span>. We explained in chapter 13 that a star pattern provides multiple main points\u2014like the tips of a star\u2014that may appear disparate from one another, but all support the thesis.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Interestingly, Trump\u2019s speech emphasized <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">five main points<\/strong><\/span> that focused on the problem (the election result was fraudulent, and the news media are suppressing that information) and the solution (we will stop the steal, but Mike Pence and other Republicans need to reject the electoral vote count, which is why we need to march to the Capitol and give them the courage to do that). These points made logical sense together and supported the thesis, \u201cWe will \u2018stop the steal.\u2019 Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">In a star pattern, one main point is typically focused upon and developed at a time, though the ordering of main points can be altered for different audiences and situations. In his speech, however, Trump <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">frequently moved back and forth among the five main points<\/strong><\/span> in various orders. That gave it the feeling of stream-of-consciousness as he bounced from one point to the other in no predictable pattern. By doing so, Trump could speak in a somewhat impromptu manner, which some <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">might have interpreted as more authentic and engaging than reading a manuscript speech, while also emphasizing his thesis and main points<\/span><\/span>. Indeed, the five main points became so interrelated that the structure<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"> <span class=\"import-u\">may have helped audience members remember<\/span><\/span> each point. However, speakers who repeatedly shift from point to point run the <span class=\"import-u\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">risk of sounding disorganized, appearing frenetic or undisciplined, and boring the audience through repetition<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Style and Framing<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image355.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"128.866666666667px\" height=\"128.866666666667px\" \/>We defined style in chapter 16 as language or expression. You are already analyzing an artifact\u2019s style when you consider the rhetorical features previously discussed. To enhance your analysis of an artifact\u2019s style, however, you can attend to at least three additional aspects of an artifact.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">First, examine the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">level or type of language<\/em><\/span> the artifact employed. You might <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe<\/em><\/span> the simplicity or complexity of the language (e.g., folksy versus grandiloquent), the informality or formality of the style (e.g., colloquial versus learned), or even the type of voice\u2014manner of expression\u2014it reflects (e.g., lawyerly, sermonic, motherly, etc.). Then <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how these choices may have shaped the audiences\u2019 impressions of the rhetor, the audiences themselves (how they were addressed), and the topic or issue.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Second, consider the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">stylistic devices<\/em><\/span> the artifact employs. Recall from chapter 16 that such devices are language techniques and literary tools that clarify meaning, express ideas in a compelling manner, and appeal emotionally to an audience. Identifying and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describing<\/em><\/span> these devices can aid you in <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpreting<\/em><\/span> how the artifact used them to create a sense of rhythm, encourage visualization, enhance argumentation, or develop a sense of community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Finally, analyze the artifact\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">persuasive<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">framing<\/em><\/span> of the issue addressed. In chapters 21 and 25, we defined framing as the use of language to order and make sense of the world. We explained that framing is how we employ language to help shape perceptions of reality. Use guidance in chapter 25 to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe and interpret<\/em><\/span> how the rhetor framed the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">problem<\/em><\/span> and its <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">cause<\/em><\/span> (i.e., who\u2019s to blame) in ways that appear worthy to the audience and logically set up the desired <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">solution<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Analyzing how an artifact framed the issue enables you to determine how its presentation of the problem matched, or failed to reflect, the actual issue that prompted the artifact (the \u201cwhy\u201d in the historical context). Drawing from chapter 25, you can also consider whether the framing appears to be an honest attempt to persuade the audience to adopt the rhetor\u2019s solution or a potentially dishonest effort to win supporters by intentionally confusing the audience\u2019s understanding of the issue.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.16 Questions to Ask About Style and Framing<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>What level or type of language did the artifact adopt?<\/li>\n<li>What stylistic devices did the artifact employ?<\/li>\n<li>How did the artifact persuasively frame the issue (define the problem, cause, and solution)?<\/li>\n<li>How well or poorly did the artifact\u2019s persuasive framing reflect the issue that motivated the artifact? How did the framing relate to (or contrast with) alternative framings of the same issue at the time?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How might the artifact\u2019s style and framing have shaped audiences\u2019 impressions of the issue? How might those impressions have encouraged audiences to adopt the rhetor\u2019s perspective (or not)?<\/li>\n<li>How did the stylistic devices create a sense of rhythm, encourage visualization, enhance argumentation, or develop a sense of community?<\/li>\n<li>How did the style and framing complement or contradict the other rhetorical features, such as argumentation, appeals to emotion, and the desired and undesired audiences?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.17 Framing and Style in President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>President Trump\u2019s framing of the election explicitly defined the problem, its cause, and the solution. As mentioned previously, he identified the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">problem<\/strong><\/span> as mass election fraud; the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">causes<\/strong><\/span> as Democrats\u2019 corruption, the news media\u2019s suppression efforts, and \u201cweak\u201d Republicans\u2019 failures to respond; and the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">solution<\/strong><\/span> as supporters\u2019 pressure on Republican leaders to overturn the election results.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">This framing <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">dishonestly diverted attention from the actual problem<\/span><\/span>\u2014Trump lost the election\u2014to an invented problem of election fraud. That diversion <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">whipped his supporters into outrage and action <\/span><\/span>instead of acceptance and contemplation. Trump\u2019s framing also <span class=\"import-u\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">left somewhat unclear what that action or their pressure on Congress should look like<\/span><\/span>. Trump encouraged rally attendees to \u201cwalk\u201d and \u201cmarch\u201d to the Capitol and even once said \u201cto peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.\u201d Yet his framing emphasized the causes of the fraud as so despicable, coordinated, and strong that peacefully marching and protesting would be an insufficient solution, leaving open the possibility that supporters might need to escalate their response.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_410\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-410\" style=\"width: 375px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"wp-image-410\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356.png\" alt=\"A burglar uses a crowbar to get into a door\" width=\"375\" height=\"249\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356.png 518w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356-300x199.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356-65x43.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356-225x149.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image356-350x232.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-410\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/photos\/thief-burglary-break-into-1562699\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Kris via Pixabay, <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/service\/license-summary\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pixabay Content License<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump\u2019s <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">stylistic choices<\/strong><\/span> contributed to that escalation. Trump drew heavily on the stylistic device of <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">metaphor<\/strong><\/span>. One of his most heavily used metaphors likened the election results to <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">theft<\/strong><\/span>: \u201cYou don\u2019t concede when there\u2019s theft involved.\u201d \u201cDemocrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft. There\u2019s never been anything like this. It\u2019s a pure theft in American history.\u201d \u201cThey want to steal the election.\u201d \u201cWe must stop the steal.\u201d \u201cThis is a criminal enterprise.\u201d By likening the results to a crime, Trump\u2019s metaphor <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depicted himself and his supporters as innocent victims<\/span><\/span> of nefarious lawbreakers; thus, they were <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">justified in defending and retrieving<\/span><\/span> what was rightfully and legally theirs.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_411\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-411\" style=\"width: 375px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"wp-image-411\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357.png\" alt=\"Two men boxing\" width=\"375\" height=\"249\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357.png 525w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357-300x199.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357-65x43.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357-225x150.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image357-350x233.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-411\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/photos\/boxing-fighting-sports-ring-7490185\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Lee Murry via Pixabay, <a href=\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/service\/license-summary\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pixabay Content License<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">How they might do that was informed by a second popular <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">metaphor<\/strong><\/span> in Trump\u2019s speech: Their response was like a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">physical fight<\/strong><\/span>. Trump instructed, \u201cAnd we fight. We fight like hell and if you don\u2019t fight like hell, you\u2019re not going to have a country anymore.\u201d He characterized the Republicans who objected to the results as \u201cwarriors\u201d who were \u201cfighting. The House guys are fighting.\u201d He criticized the \u201cweak\u201d Republicans who \u201care constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It\u2019s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we\u2019re going to have to fight much harder.\u201d Through this metaphor, Trump <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">likened their response to an unrestrained physical assault that was both required and justified to win<\/span><\/span>. Some supporters took this metaphor literally.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Delivery<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image358.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"113.733333333333px\" height=\"113.733333333333px\" \/>To analyze a rhetor\u2019s delivery of an artifact, you must have access to an audio or visual recording. In chapter 17, we defined delivery as the actual means of expression: \u201cIt is how a speaker physically conveys words and ideas, verbally and nonverbally, to the audience.\u201d You can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">describe<\/em><\/span> a rhetor\u2019s<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>vocal delivery (how the voice and mouth are used to deliver words),<\/li>\n<li>nonverbal delivery (how the body is used to communicate),<\/li>\n<li>televisual delivery (how a speech is presented through a screen), and<\/li>\n<li>use of memory (how one stores and recalls the information shared in a speech).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">You should then <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">interpret<\/em><\/span> how the rhetor\u2019s delivery functioned persuasively, given the historical context. As explained in chapter 17, delivery is situational; its effectiveness depends on the rhetor\u2019s ability to adjust to situational factors (e.g., occasion, purpose, audience composition, and size) and conditions and constraints (e.g., distance from the audience, use of a camera, the arrangement of the speaking platform or lectern, etc.). You can identify the delivery choices the rhetor made for their speaking situation and infer whether and how they met the demands of that situation to achieve their persuasive goal.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.18 Questions to Ask About Delivery<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Description<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How would you characterize the rhetor\u2019s vocal delivery in terms of their volume, tone, rate, pauses, articulation, pronunciation, and vocal fillers?<\/li>\n<li>How would you characterize the rhetor\u2019s nonverbal delivery in terms of their eye contact, facial expressions, gestures and movement, and appearance?<\/li>\n<li>If the artifact was delivered through a screen, how would you characterize the rhetor\u2019s use of, or adaptation to, the camera\u2019s framing, angle, and distance; the lighting and background; and the camera\u2019s movement or steadiness?<\/li>\n<li>How did the rhetor adjust their delivery to suit the historical context, or how did they fail to do so?<\/li>\n<li>What mode of delivery did the rhetor adopt (extemporaneous, memorized, impromptu, manuscript)?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>How might the rhetor\u2019s delivery have influenced audiences\u2019 impressions of the rhetor? How might those impressions have compared or differed if audiences watched in person or via a screen?<\/li>\n<li>How might the rhetor\u2019s delivery have aided or hurt their attempt to persuade their audiences?<\/li>\n<li>How did the rhetor\u2019s delivery complement or distract from the artifact\u2019s other rhetorical features?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.19 Delivery of President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>President Trump\u2019s speech delivery appeared to strengthen his claims by <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depicting him as presidential<\/span><\/span>. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Dressed<\/strong><\/span> in a black, long overcoat with a white collared shirt and red tie, he looked presidential. The <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">setting<\/strong><\/span> helped. His podium featured the presidential seal, American flags waved in the breeze on either side of him onstage (and in the camera\u2019s frame), and the White House was easily visible behind him. The stage placed him physically above audience members, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">reflecting his <\/span><span class=\"import-u\">power over them<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">His nonverbal delivery was restrained. He remained <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">standing<\/strong><\/span> behind a podium. He frequently <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">gestured<\/strong><\/span> to underscore his points, such as shrugging his shoulders, pointing at the crowd, or dropping his hand with specific words. But his gestures were made fairly close to his body. His <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">vocal tone<\/strong><\/span> and <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">volume<\/strong><\/span> stayed rather consistent, with only occasional vocal emphases on particular words or phrases. While the speech was scripted and teleprompter screens stood on both sides of him, Trump appeared to mostly <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">look<\/strong><\/span> out at the crowd and cameras. He <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">paused<\/strong><\/span> occasionally when the crowd cheered or chanted.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Consequently, Trump\u2019s delivery <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span class=\"import-u\">depicted a man who was\u2014and was ready to remain\u2014the US president<\/span><\/span>. He talked directly to the people as their leader and their choice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h1 class=\"import-ah\">Evaluating the Rhetorical Artifact<\/h1>\n<p class=\"import-paft\"><img class=\"alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image319-1.png\" alt=\"image\" width=\"99.5333333333333px\" height=\"99.5333333333333px\" \/>Once you have systematically described and interpreted your artifact for features such as the ones listed previously, you can judge the artifact\u2019s functions and consequences. Focus on whether the artifact successfully achieved the rhetor\u2019s goals (or not) and strengthened or weakened democratic principles. We will discuss both assessments in turn.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Did the Artifact Achieve the Rhetor\u2019s Goals? Why or Why Not?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">You should judge if and why the artifact achieved the rhetor\u2019s goals. Use<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>your research and understanding of the historical context (i.e., evidence from outside sources) and<\/li>\n<li>your description and interpretations of the rhetorical features (i.e., evidence from the artifact)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"import-pcon\">to argue how the artifact helped the rhetor achieve their goals or why they fell short.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Of course, determining success can be complicated. What counts as success, with what audience, and how quickly must it occur? As a critic, you must decide and ultimately argue how to define success or failure for the artifact, given its context.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p>Speech scholar W. Norwood Brigance claimed, \u201cThe success of any speech is determined, not by whether it carries the day, but by how far it moves toward that goal.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"William Norwood Brigance, \u201cWhat Is a Successful Speech?,\u201d Quarterly Journal of Speech Education 11 (1925): 376.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-10\" href=\"#footnote-514-10\" aria-label=\"Footnote 10\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.20 Evaluation of Whether President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech Achieved His Goals<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>President Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">fulfilled his immediate goal<\/strong><\/span> of motivating rally attendants to march to the Capitol and pressure Republican congressional leaders to object to the Electoral College votes. After Trump\u2019s speech, a large portion of the approximately 10,000 people in attendance joined the tens of thousands of protesters already gathered near the Capitol.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Jie Jenny Zou and Erin B. Logan, \u201cKey Facts to Know About the Jan. 6 Insurrection,\u201d Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2022, https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/politics\/story\/2022-01-05\/by-the-numbers-jan-6-anniversary.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-11\" href=\"#footnote-514-11\" aria-label=\"Footnote 11\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_414\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-414\" style=\"width: 450px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"wp-image-414\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359.png\" alt=\"Tear gas and rioters outside the Capitol\" width=\"450\" height=\"232\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359.png 512w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359-300x155.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359-65x34.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359-225x116.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image359-350x180.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-414\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Tear_Gas_outside_United_States_Capitol_20210106.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tear Gas outside United States Capitol<\/a> by Tyler Merbler via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"attachment_415\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-415\" style=\"width: 400px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img class=\"wp-image-415\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360-300x225.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360-300x225.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360-65x49.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360-225x169.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360-350x263.png 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image360.png 512w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-415\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Sherrod_Brown_January_6_4.jpg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Image<\/a> by Sherrod Brown via Wikimedia Commons, <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/public-domain\/pdm\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Public Domain<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Unfortunately, their presence strengthened a physical attack on the building that had already begun. According to the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId748\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">House of Representatives Select Committee\u2019s final report<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cThe Proud Boys and other extremists initiated the attack shortly before the joint session of Congress was set to begin at 1:00 p.m. The rioters who streamed down Pennsylvania to the U.S. Capitol from the Ellipse then provided crucial momentum for the attack.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"U.S. House of Representatives, Final Report, 612.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-12\" href=\"#footnote-514-12\" aria-label=\"Footnote 12\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[12]<\/sup><\/a> In that attack, over 140 law enforcement officers were injured, five people died (on that day or soon afterward), $2.9 million in damages was done to the Capitol, and congressional leaders had to end their meeting suddenly and be escorted by police to safe hiding spaces.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"\u201cThe Jan. 6 Attack: The Cases Behind the Biggest Criminal Investigation in U.S. History,\u201d All Things Considered, updated May 14, 2024, https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-13\" href=\"#footnote-514-13\" aria-label=\"Footnote 13\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[13]<\/sup><\/a> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId750\" href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">According to NPR<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cThe FBI has estimated that around 2,000 people took part in criminal acts on Jan. 6,\u201d and they continued to investigate and make arrests through 2024.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"\u201cJan. 6 Attack.\u201d\" id=\"return-footnote-514-14\" href=\"#footnote-514-14\" aria-label=\"Footnote 14\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\"><span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">Did Trump\u2019s January 6 speech cause the Capitol attack?<\/strong><\/span> On the one hand, the answer is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">no<\/strong><\/span>. The attack started before his speech ended, and most people who walked to the Capitol did not directly engage in violence or enter the building. He never told his audience to enter the building or attack congressional leaders or Capitol police officers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">On the other hand, the answer is <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">yes<\/strong><\/span>. His <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">speech<\/em><\/span> contributed to his previous rhetoric that encouraged supporters to travel to Washington, DC, to stop congressional leaders, especially Pence, from certifying the votes. He whipped up his audience\u2019s outrage through <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">false evidence and fallacies<\/em><\/span> as well as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">contrasts of love and hate<\/em><\/span>. He depicted the encounter as a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">showdown between patriots and enemies<\/em><\/span> and encouraged his supporters <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">to \u201cfight\u201d the \u201cthieves\u201d to \u201csave\u201d the country<\/em><\/span>. Such rhetoric overly simplified the situation and downplayed the weighty implications of attempting to overturn a democratic election.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">While Trump did not overtly tell the crowd to attack the Capitol, he stoked feelings and beliefs that helped justify such violence. <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId751\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">As one professor noted for the BBC<\/span><\/a><\/span>, \u201cHe clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Garrett Epps, quoted in Sam Cabral, \u201cCapitol Riots: Did Trump\u2019s Words at Rally Incite Violence?,\u201d BBC, February 13, 2021, https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/world-us-canada-55640437, archived at https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-15\" href=\"#footnote-514-15\" aria-label=\"Footnote 15\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[15]<\/sup><\/a> Several investigations made a similar conclusion, resulting in Congress impeaching Trump for a second time and the <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><a class=\"rId752\" href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span class=\"import-url\">Justice Department indicting him<\/span><\/a><\/span> on four counts, including the \u201cObstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, \u201cTrump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated,\u201d New York Times, August 1, 2023, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2023\/08\/01\/us\/politics\/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html, archived at https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB.\" id=\"return-footnote-514-16\" href=\"#footnote-514-16\" aria-label=\"Footnote 16\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">failed to fulfill his ultimate goal<\/strong><\/span> of overturning the 2020 election results. Congress reconvened the following day to finish their certification of the Electoral College votes, officially confirming Joe Biden\u2019s election victory as the forty-sixth US president.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"import-bh\">Did the Artifact Strengthen or Weaken Democratic Principles? How?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">In addition to assessing the artifact\u2019s ability or failure to achieve the rhetor\u2019s goals, public communication analysis requires you to also consider the artifact\u2019s impact on democratic principles.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_383\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-383\" style=\"width: 333px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img class=\"wp-image-383\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330.png\" alt=\"U.S. Capitol Building exterior\" width=\"333\" height=\"500\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330.png 358w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330-200x300.png 200w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330-65x98.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330-225x338.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/77\/2025\/05\/image330-350x525.png 350w\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-383\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.pexels.com\/photo\/facade-of-the-capitol-building-7016963\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Facade of the Capitol Building<\/a> by Ramaz Bluashvili via Pexels, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pexels.com\/license\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pexels License<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">We argued in chapter 31 that rhetoric that addresses public affairs should strengthen democracy, and we suggested that critics evaluate an artifact\u2019s impact on democracy by determining whether it strengthens or weakens democratic principles. In that chapter, we defined democratic principles as the behavioral standards necessary for democratic governance to exist and thrive, and we gave examples such as the participation of ordinary people in civic affairs, the equality of all people, and the tolerance and protection of a variety of voices. Artifacts that prioritize, reinforce, and\/or practice such principles strengthen democracy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">To help you assess your artifact\u2019s impact on democratic values, we will delve into this idea a bit further by considering, separately, how an artifact might support democratic principles directly <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">or<\/em><\/span> indirectly.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"import-ch\">How Did the Artifact <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Directly<\/em><\/span> Support or Hurt Democratic Principles?<\/h3>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">A rhetorical artifact might <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">directly<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">strengthen<\/em><\/span> democracy by advocating for or addressing one or more democratic ideals. We might think, for example, of Martin Luther King Jr.\u2019s calls for freedom and equality in his \u201cI Have a Dream\u201d speech. Alternatively, an artifact can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">directly<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">weaken<\/em><\/span> democratic principles by explicitly calling for their dismissal, subjugating them to other values, or refusing their application to particular groups of people.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"import-ch\">How Did the Artifact <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">Indirectly<\/em><\/span> Support or Hurt Democratic Principles?<\/h3>\n<p class=\"import-paft\">An artifact can <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">strengthen democracy<\/em><\/span> <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">indirectly<\/em><\/span> by modeling or practicing democratic principles. Any artifact that qualifies as <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">responsible public discourse<\/em><\/span>, for instance, reinforces democratic principles. Recall in chapter 4 we defined responsible public discourse as public communication that draws on the qualities of productive discourse to produce a more inclusive and equitable public sphere. It may or may not be polite or civil. Alternatively, some artifacts <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">indirectly weaken democratic principles<\/em><\/span> by practicing irresponsible public communication that uses the qualities of unproductive discourse and restricts the public sphere in inequitable ways.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-p\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">A rhetorical artifact may fall along a <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><em class=\"import-i\">sliding scale<\/em><\/span> between strengthening and weakening democratic principles. Most artifacts probably improve some principles and hurt others. Clearly, the more ways a single artifact strengthens democratic principles, the better. You will need to decide in which direction your artifact tends by paying close attention to the artifact\u2019s rhetorical features and historical context.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p><strong>Box 33.21 Evaluation of the Effects of President Trump\u2019s January 6, 2021, Speech on Democratic Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>President Trump\u2019s speech <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">directly hurt<\/strong><\/span> democratic principles. Though he claimed to \u201csave our democracy,\u201d his speech called to overturn a democratic election. That directly violated such principles as the rule of law, the importance of the common good in balance with personal gain, and the accountability of officials and public leaders to the will of the people.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 36pt;\">Trump\u2019s speech also <span style=\"border: none windowtext 0pt; padding: 0;\"><strong class=\"import-b\">indirectly weakened<\/strong><\/span> democracy by making heavy use of division, dichotomous thinking, certainty, combativeness, and winning and by attempting to restrict valid voters to those Americans who voted for him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--exercises\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Summary<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p class=\"import-paft\">This chapter provided the final steps necessary to conduct a public communication analysis. After identifying a suitable rhetorical artifact and reconstructing its historical context, you should continue to analyze the artifact itself:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>You describe and interpret several rhetorical features, including argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, the rhetor\u2019s credibility, the desired audience, the undesired audience, organization, style and framing, and delivery.<\/li>\n<li>You next make two types of judgments about the artifact, using what you learned from the historical context and rhetorical features. You evaluate whether the artifact was successful or failed to achieve the rhetor\u2019s goals, recognizing the need to argue for what counts as success or failure. You also judge whether the artifact strengthened or weakened democratic principles by considering the principles the artifact attempted to directly reinforce (or violate) and indirectly practiced or modeled (or failed to do so).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--key-takeaways\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Key Terms<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p>textual context<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Review Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>How do you describe and interpret an artifact\u2019s argumentation, appeals to emotions and loyalties, organization, and style and framing? What mistakes should you avoid?<\/li>\n<li>What is the difference between the rhetor\u2019s construction of themselves (credibility), the desired audience, and the undesired audience?<\/li>\n<li>By what means might you evaluate an artifact\u2019s success in achieving its goals?<\/li>\n<li>By what means might you evaluate an artifact\u2019s impact on democratic principles?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Discussion Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<ol>\n<li>Which of the rhetorical features seems most important to analyze? How should you decide which to focus on or to include when sharing your work?<\/li>\n<li>What kinds of evidence best support a critic\u2019s interpretations of an artifact\u2019s rhetorical features? How does a critic know when their inferences are right? How should we judge the merit of a critic\u2019s interpretations, especially when two critics disagree about how a rhetorical feature functioned?<\/li>\n<li>How can you ever really make judgments about an artifact\u2019s success or failure or impact on democratic principles? What kinds of evidence does that require?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-514-1\">Stephen Toulmin, <em>The Uses of Argument<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958). <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-2\">\u201cResults of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,\u201d <em>Campaign Legal Center<\/em>, accessed 15 May 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections<\/a>; U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., <em>Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol<\/em> (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2022), 210\u201313, https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/GPO-J6-REPORT\/pdf\/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/9EAM-SMZ8<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-3\">U.S. House of Representatives, <em>Final Report<\/em>, 197, 204-10, 232. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-4\">Barack Obama, \u201cRemarks by the President on Trayvon Martin\u201d (transcript, Washington, DC, July 19, 2013), <em>President Barack Obama White House Archives<\/em>, https:\/\/obamawhitehouse.archives.gov\/the-press-office\/2013\/07\/19\/remarks-president-trayvon-martin, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/4HH8-2CQC<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-5\">See Richard D. Rieke, Malcolm O. Sillars, and Tarla Rai Peterson, <em>Argumentation and Critical Decision Making<\/em>, 7th ed. (New York: Pearson, 2009), 155\u201356. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-6\">This rhetorical feature is based on the \u201csecond persona\u201d developed by Edwin Black and \u201cthe people\u201d developed by Michael McGee. Edwin Black, \u201cThe Second Persona,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 56 (1970): 109\u201319; Michael Calvin McGee, \u201cIn Search of \u2018the People,\u2019\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 61 (1976): 235\u201349 <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-7\">This rhetorical feature is based on the concept and theory of the \u201cthird persona\u201d as developed by Phillip Wander, \u201cThe Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory,\u201d <em>Central States Speech Journal<\/em> 35 (1984): 210. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-8\">Wander, \u201cThird Persona,\u201d 209. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-8\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 8\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-9\">Stephen E. Lucas, \u201cThe Renaissance of American Public Address: Text and Context in Rhetorical Criticism,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech<\/em> 74 (1988): 249. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-9\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 9\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-10\">William Norwood Brigance, \u201cWhat Is a Successful Speech?,\u201d <em>Quarterly Journal of Speech Education<\/em> 11 (1925): 376. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-10\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 10\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-11\">Jie Jenny Zou and Erin B. Logan, \u201cKey Facts to Know About the Jan. 6 Insurrection,\u201d <em>Los Angeles Times<\/em>, January 5, 2022, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/politics\/story\/2022-01-05\/by-the-numbers-jan-6-anniversary\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/politics\/story\/2022-01-05\/by-the-numbers-jan-6-anniversary<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-11\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 11\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-12\">U.S. House of Representatives, <em>Final Report<\/em>, 612. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-12\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 12\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-13\">\u201cThe Jan. 6 Attack: The Cases Behind the Biggest Criminal Investigation in U.S. History,\u201d <em>All Things Considered<\/em>, updated May 14, 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2021\/02\/09\/965472049\/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-13\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 13\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-14\">\u201cJan. 6 Attack.\u201d <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-14\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 14\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-15\">Garrett Epps, quoted in Sam Cabral, \u201cCapitol Riots: Did Trump\u2019s Words at Rally Incite Violence?,\u201d <em>BBC<\/em>, February 13, 2021, https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/world-us-canada-55640437, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/GS8F-6EZQ<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-15\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 15\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-514-16\">Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, \u201cTrump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>, August 1, 2023, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2023\/08\/01\/us\/politics\/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election-annotated.html, archived at <a href=\"https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/3X8U-9ZTB<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-514-16\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 16\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":33,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/514"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":68,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/514\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3278,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/514\/revisions\/3278"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/514\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=514"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=514"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/publicspeakinganddemocraticparticipation\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}