Rhetorical Analysis Of Edward Snowden's Speech
Edward Snowden’s speech about the NSA and its deceitful practices was more effective in persuading the audience than Barrack Obama’s speech defending the NSA. This is due to Snowden‘s speech having a greater appeal to the viewer’s sense of logos, ethos in comparison to Obama’s speech.
Snowden’s speech is more persuasive then Obama’s speech in terms of logos because of the flawed reasoning behind Obama’s central messages. Obama’s tries to convey that the American people should “focusing on facts and specifics rather than peculation and hypotheticals”. This displays that he is trying to undermine the speech of Snowden by saying it is based on speculation and hypotheticals. However he does not deny the authenticity of the leaked documents showing
that Obama’s speech is devoid of logic and reasoning. Snowden’s point that “If we are denied the information that we need ... about the policies that we want in this country… we are no longer free” is backed up by anecdotal evidence of the government abusing its power to use a warrantless wire-tapping program. This shows how the lack of information is causing the government to constrict people’s freedom and hence proves Snowden’s point as logical and effective in persuading the audience through logos.
Snowden speech also utilises ethos much more effectively than Obama by to the use of rhetorical devices. Edward uses inclusive pronouns by referring to the viewer as “we”, framing his argument as that of the “American people” to try to gain credibility. He also uses anecdotal evidence through the example of the Bush administration using wire-tapping programs even after it has been deemed unconstitutional by the Department of Justice in the United States. This reaffirms the idea of abuse of power and secrecy surrounding these programs through the use of anecdotal evidence. This also creates a false sense of credibility towards Snowden by the viewer. Obama also uses inclusive pronouns by referring to the viewer as “we” and describing the system of government as “our democracy” in order to utilise ethos to regain the trust of the American people however it is nowhere as effective as Snowden’s use of ethos.
Snowden’s speech is more persuasive then Obama’s speech in terms of logos because of the flawed reasoning behind Obama’s central messages. Obama’s tries to convey that the American people should “focusing on facts and specifics rather than peculation and hypotheticals”. This displays that he is trying to undermine the speech of Snowden by saying it is based on speculation and hypotheticals. However he does not deny the authenticity of the leaked documents showing
that Obama’s speech is devoid of logic and reasoning. Snowden’s point that “If we are denied the information that we need ... about the policies that we want in this country… we are no longer free” is backed up by anecdotal evidence of the government abusing its power to use a warrantless wire-tapping program. This shows how the lack of information is causing the government to constrict people’s freedom and hence proves Snowden’s point as logical and effective in persuading the audience through logos.
Snowden speech also utilises ethos much more effectively than Obama by to the use of rhetorical devices. Edward uses inclusive pronouns by referring to the viewer as “we”, framing his argument as that of the “American people” to try to gain credibility. He also uses anecdotal evidence through the example of the Bush administration using wire-tapping programs even after it has been deemed unconstitutional by the Department of Justice in the United States. This reaffirms the idea of abuse of power and secrecy surrounding these programs through the use of anecdotal evidence. This also creates a false sense of credibility towards Snowden by the viewer. Obama also uses inclusive pronouns by referring to the viewer as “we” and describing the system of government as “our democracy” in order to utilise ethos to regain the trust of the American people however it is nowhere as effective as Snowden’s use of ethos.