Emotional Appeal to help AIDS in India

I read Mike's analysis of Melinda French Gates's article titled "AIDS and India". I feel like her use of emotional appeal as a means of persuasion deserves further analysis.

Melinda is writing to the people in the Pacific Northwest who subscribe to the Seattle Times. Her goal is to motivate the readers to help out the AIDS situation in Africa through donations, not necessarily to her own foundation. She wants the people to be helped and if she’s not the one doing it she’s fine with that as long as someone else is. The readers know very little, if anything, at all about AIDS in India. It isn’t affecting their everyday lives because they live in Seattle or it’s surrounding areas. Much like the commercials on TV that ask for money to feed starving children in Africa, she has to make the reader feel sorry for the victim and convince him that it will really be used to help the people and will be effective.

The Pacific Northwest is a very liberal region. Seattle is the only major US city to perform a city-wide strike through labor unions in order to receive higher wages. They are more accepting and protective of gay and lesbian rights than the rest of the country. Oregon and Washington were the first two states to allow for assisted suicide, where someone in bad health is given the tools to kill themselves, in the United States, the only other being Montana. In the past, it was known as a hotspot for socialists. Perhaps even more pertinent to this subject is that Washington passed a law in 2007 that made comprehensive sex education, one that includes the use of condoms and other contraceptives, mandatory in any school that wishes to teach sex education. This shows that a majority of the people are in support of teaching about condom use in order to prevent STDs. In other areas where the religious right has a larger influence they might be more interested in how to teach the Indian people fidelity in marriage and abstinence.

Melinda isn’t writing to everyone in the Pacific Northwest however, she is writing specifically to subscribers of the Seattle Times. The demographics for the Seattle Times show us that approximately sixty-eight percent of the population has an income of fifty thousand dollars or more and nearly fifty percent make seventy five thousand or more. The Seattle Times reaches at least seventy percent of both groups. Seventy-three percent of the population owns their own home and the Times reaches over seventy percent of those people as well. This information suggests that a large portion of these readers are well established and have the capacity to donate when they feel inclined to do so. Melinda’s foundation supports their ideology on the use of condoms to prevent STDs and they have money to contribute, she just needs to make them feel like they should help and that their money will help. Melinda uses emotional appeal through positive, successful examples as a means to create sympathy for those affected and to illustrate that the program is working.

Diction is her first technique to create sympathy in her reader. Phrases such as "crippling poverty," "AIDS catastrophe," "the epidemic," and “disaster” appear in the first paragraphs. Her use of these words paint a dismal landscape where AIDS infects men, women, and children from North to South and East to West. Often times these words seem almost unavoidable. Nobody can escape an epidemic. Everyone is damaged in a catastrophe. Being crippled by poverty makes it seem insurmountable. This word choice becomes more effective when she cites projections that "as many as 20 million Indians could be infected by the end of the decade--that's more than twice the population of New York City." The reader is now rather sickened and softened so that he wants to learn more.

Just as important are the words she doesn’t use. 4 million and 20 million are pretty big numbers until the reader realizes that if India’s population is rounded DOWN to 1 billion, 4 million and 20 million make up a meager .4 and 2 percent of the whole population respectively. Doesn’t sound quite like an unavoidable epidemic when you put it in those terms but the reader was too distracted by thoughts of all of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, and Philadelphia dying of AIDS to realize it.

Melinda then capitalizes on the created sympathy by shifting the argument; in the fifth paragraph she says, “A range of HIV-prevention measure are working in India.” The situation is dire, but not unconquerable. She follows with a story about a “sex worker” (prostitute) and how these measures have helped her. Mike already discussed how her choice of the word “sex worker” instead of “prostitute” “appeals to the reader’s ability to pity.” Visualizing a person fighting AIDS in India makes the situation more real and immediate to the reader. Nobody wants to throw their money or efforts into a hopeless black hole where the people won’t help themselves. The progress made by these individuals assures the possible donator his money will be used effectively to help people who are trying to do it themselves but don’t have the means.

She uses another concrete example, this time about truck drivers who have been educated about condoms. This example does the same as its predecessor, allowing the reader to see that his money will be put to good use. This time however she focuses on the fact that these people knew nothing about AIDS before the people got there. Many of the readers instantly will feel sorry for the wives of these truck drivers and the sympathy grows even more after thinking that it if the husband wasn’t educated about AIDS he could contract it and then pass it on to the family. This creates the need for a foundation like hers. The reader sees that there is more work to do in order to reach all of India so his money is needed just as much as it will be effective in educating those men. These examples allow the people to feel good because they can see that progress is being made and a lot of times people want to feel good and shy away from bigger problems they may face.

The next endeavor at creating emotional appeal, “a woman whose husband dies of AIDS is often blamed for his death, and thrown out of the home with her children” illustrated again how dire the situation can be at times but after reading this the reader may question, “How can a woman be thrown out of her own home if her husband is dead?” because he probably doesn’t know that extended families live together in India. An explanation of the social background would have been helpful. Melinda continually uses sympathetic stories to create sympathy in the reader.

She closes her article with the donation and call to action pitch. In her pitch she says, “rich countries” in an off-handish way that reminds the reader that they may not have everything they want but they have a lot more than anybody else. The most effective portion of her pitch was that she provided other organizations that could be donated to, which shows that she’s more interested in helping the people rather than getting more money for donations. She doesn’t care if she is the one helping or if it is somebody else. She concludes by bringing back her concrete example of the sex worker “women like Gita really shall overcome” which is her last attempt to make the reader feel connected to these people and that they can help them. Her use of the phrase “shall overcome” is an allusion to the song “We Shall Overcome” which was a very popular song associated with the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights movement was very successful and now she is throwing her cause along with that one, something positive, something that will work. This was her last move to use emotion to sway her audience into action, all the while assuring that their efforts would be effective

Michelle Obama's Olympic Plea

Michelle Obama pleaded to the IOC for a Chicago Olympics in 2016 and walked away empty-handed as they were sent to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Her speech was much more of a plea than a confident assurance that Chicago was the right place. Michelle tried to shift the focus of the IOC from why Chicago was the right place for the Olympics to why the Olympics would be right for Chicago, “Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic movement is about so more than what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us.” Rio understood what the IOC wanted and, “convinced Olympic officials that the city would keep spectators and athletes safe with an increased police presence and other measures.” Rio continues to show that they will increase security in order to alleviate the fears of the IOC. In literature shifting the focus of an argument to something of much less relevance is called a red herring. The application process is explained here. The cities answer questionnaires about how the athletes will arrive. Will they be safe? Are there enough hotels? Can the city handle the huge crowd? What about traffic and food? Is the atmosphere ideal for such a big event? Instead of answering these types of questions, Michelle focuses on other issues.

For example, Michelle tried to create emotional appeal by telling us the stories of how the Olympics impacted her life. The problem with her logic in this area is that it was in direct opposition of her emotional appeal. She tells us that watching Olympic greats like Nadia and Carl Lewis inspired her to believe that she could accomplish something great as she watched from her father’s knee. She follows this by saying, “today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world; that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.” This hasty generalization never explains to us how the other cities will be lit up by an Olympics in Chicago. In the previous sentences she had just convinced us that it didn’t matter where the Olympics were, children across the world would be impacted. Nadia go her perfect 10 in 1976 in Montreal and it apparently affected Michelle a great deal. Carl Lewis first competed in 1984 in Los Angeles, which isn’t exactly Chicago’s back yard. We’ll just send the Olympics to Rio Michelle, it’s the same to you.

Michelle again tries to create sympathy in the reader by talking about Chicago’s poor inner neighborhoods, ““Ours was a neighborhood of working families -- families with modest homes and strong values.” I’m sure the homes in South Chicago are modest by American standards but in most other countries they would be considered mansions. Some voters at the IOC come from third world countries where most people would do anything to be a working family with a modest home. She didn’t get sympathy from the IOC on that one. Let’s compare the average downtown Chicago home with the downtown Rio home and Chicago might just win. In fact let’s pull up the “pathetic rating level” statistics for major cities. In Africa AIDS is a rampant epidemic in almost every country. Russia is still behind decades economically compared to the US. A lot of people in Paraguay still live in huts. People are willing to risk death crossing the border between Mexico and the US in order to have a shot at a better life. People are starving in Ethiopia. If the IOC were principally concerned with helping a city out, they would have the Olympics in sub-Saharan Africa every 4 years. Instead they choose cities like London, Atlanta, Turin, and Barcelona to host.

Here’s another example of how she tries to paint Chicago as the victim of the world. She says that her dad from Chicago had a really hard life but never gave up. By sending the Olympics here you’ll be helping people like him. My dad could have seen the Olympics and it would have made him happy. Michelle, I doubt your dad would have gone to every event, if even one. The poorer people in Chicago, that she feels so bad for and that will receive so much help, won’t have money to attend the games. He would have watched from home if they were held in Chicago or Beirut. I bet there’s some people in the world with rougher lives than your dad Michelle. Maybe a 50 year old from Cambodia who has worked in a sweatshop since he was 5 and no longer has his right hand because it got ripped off by unsafe machinery. Should the Olympics go there to make up for his hard work and sacrifice too?

Michelle never explains why the Olympics should come to Chicago. She talks about poor neighborhoods needing something to cheer for, something to motivate them. She never connects that need to why the Olympics should be sent to Chicago. Chicago is sad so the Olympics should come here is her entire argument. She needs to connect Chicago’s struggles with the Olympics really supplying that help to the struggling town. That would be much more effective.

This is what we learned from Michelle: she was born from Chicago, the Olympics changed her life and will impact the lives of the whole world no matter where they are held, the Olympics can offer a lot to Chicago just like it could to every other city in the world, her dad taught her how to fight, her dad had a hard life, and some people have small homes in Chicago. To sum up everything into one phrase, “Chicago is so bad and hard that we need the Olympics, therefore the games should be in Chicago.” Or maybe she thought they were supposed to go to Chicago because it doesn't matter where they go but because she was born there they should be there. There’s no logical connection in there at all is there? Michelle tried to make the IOC feel like the world owed her and Chicago the Olympics. She tried to reason with us but came up to no sensible conclusion. She tried to get votes for Chicago, but instead got the least amount of votes and a quick exit from competition.

A Prophet's Plea

Often in the Church we don’t give heed to all of the counsel from prophets. If we did they wouldn't be telling us to read our scriptures everyday, hold family home evening, and attend the temple often because we'd all be doing it. Sometimes we find ourselves thinking the talk isn’t for us or that it’s a good idea but our circumstances exempt us from that counsel. We need a reason to listen to the prophet's voice because being a prophet sometimes isn't enough. The prophet, just like any other speaker must give us a reason that we should heed his message. Speaking as the prophet, President Benson tells us that something is different about this talk, "Beware of Pride". We need to listen. We have to listen. He draws us in and motivates change in us to be more humble. How did he do it?

President Benson first alludes to other prophets found in the Book of Mormon to remind us who he really is, “This message has been weighing heavily on my soul for some time. I know the Lord wants this message delivered now.” A few other prophets have used similar language, for example Jacob says in Jacob 2:3, “I this day am weighed down with much more desire and anxiety for the welfare of your souls than I have hitherto been.” This allusion places him in the same position as Jacob and other ancient prophets. We as members of the church tend to place more trust and obedience to old ancient prophets, many times because we read the stories of what happens when the people didn't listen to that bit of counsel. By placing himself with them, he is telling us that he has seen, just as Jacob, Nephi, and Mormon saw what the people needed. We begin listening because we actually believe this message is not an old man's counsel, but comes from the Lord.

President Benson talks to us as if he were not exempt from pride. That he is one of us. This makes us want to listen to him. If he comes in accusing us of being prideful we’ll prove him right by being offended. Instead he allows us to convict ourselves by defining pride by using phrases such as "The proud are not easily taught,” and, “The proud stand more in fear of men’s judgment than of God’s judgment.” Then when discussing the effects of pride he uses “we” and “us” to make it ever more personal. This diction moves all focus off of him as the speaker and towards us and our pride. His credibility is greatly increased because we see him as one of us who has worked hard to overcome his own pride.

Two anaphora are used to motivate us to action. In the first one, President Benson implores us to think again and again how much better our lives would be if we were to eliminate pride. By not defining the specific blessings he allows us to think about what we want. How it would affect us personally. Then playing off of those emotions he uses another anaphora by telling us we can choose to eliminate pride from our life. By continuing to speak as “we” and “us” we feel like we are going to try with everyone else to improve ourselves.

President Benson uses language tools such as anaphora, allusion, and diction in order get our attention and realize that he is the prophet, and that this particular message is from him as a prophet, and not your everyday grandpa.

Celestial Marriage

The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement in June 2008 too all of its church members in support of Proposition 8 in California. The Proposition when passed would change the Californian constitution to define marriage as only between a man and woman. With a lot of help from the Church and its members, the Proposition was passed in November and no more gay marriages were performed.

Elder Russell M. Nelson from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave and address titled, "Celestial Marriage" in General Conference in early October. As he prepared for his address slated for the first weekend of October, there was no doubt he was looking at the poll results (Sept. 9-16, Sept. 23-24) for the impending referendum that showed a resounding “NO” to Proposition 8. If the proposition were to be passed, more effort would be needed to sway the vote the other direction. General Conference also has as diverse audience of 13 million people, more than half of whom live outside the United States. If Elder Nelson were to specifically mention the upcoming proposition he would risk alienating more than half of the audience who do not live in the United States. While he never mentions Proposition 8 specifically, he was speaking directly to those involved in the referendum. A few days after the discourse, Elder Ballard is quoted, “We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it's place in our Father's plan.” This is why E. Nelson decided to address celestial marriage. The following paragraphs discuss how E. Nelson said the right thing, at the right time, in the right place to motivate the church members to action.

He begins his address with an analogy of shopping and marriage. Some marriages are of the best quality, some less, and then some are shoplifted, which would include homosexual relationships or marriages as well as those who choose not to be married but are living together. By associating these marriages with something as distasteful as shoplifting, the audience is more disgusted with the low morals of the world. Shoplifting is a crime that we are trying to prevent in America. It is something we are cracking down on. E. Nelson tells us indirectly that these shoplifted marriages should be treated the same. In order to ensure that his US audience associates these shoplifted marriages with homosexuals he states in the following paragraph that his purpose is “to declare as an Apostle of the Lord that marriage between man and a woman is sacred.”

He then continues to expound on the role of gender and family in the exaltation individuals, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose…The earth was created and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally…the man [is not] without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” In other words he is saying that our gender matters because without our families we cannot be exalted and live with our Father in Heaven again and families are formed with a man and a woman bonded in marriage. Homosexual marriage is an obvious opponent to such values. His bold declarations leave no other viable option than that of eternal marriage.

E. Nelson continues, “Some marital options are cheap, some are costly, and some are cunningly crafted by the adversary.” He doesn’t define which options fall into these three categories but let’s the reader decide on his own. With the upcoming proposition weighing on their minds, there is no doubt that thoughts of homosexual marriages entered their minds. The audience was left to make its own decision on the matter based on their understanding of the doctrine which was explained earlier.

This address was used to morivate the members of the Church to take a stand at a time when the going would be very rough. By having their testimonies of the doctrine strengthened and fortified, they were willing to act. The timeliness of his message no doubt played a big part in getting the bill passed, considering that over 40 % of the out of state contributions to support Proposition 8 came from Utah, the headquarters of the Church. Their contributions played the key role in swinging the referendumb.

Brandon Hellewell