Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "What in the World Are They Spraying?"

In this blog post I will be analyzing how "What in the World Are They Spraying" appeals to one's credibility and character, emotions, and logic, and their subsequent effectiveness.

Ingodsgarden, Lyn. "Chemtrails NOT Contrails". November 6, 2010 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Appeals to Credibility or Character

• Murphy continually references to credible sources, acknowledges the counterargument and refutations, and appeals to the values or beliefs shared by the audience.

• Whenever Murphy interviews or mentions a new person, he always prefaces with their background information. For example, when introducing G. Edward Griffin, Murphy state that, "Before we started filming we had the opportunity to sit down with one of our favorite authors and documentarians G. Edward Griffin. . .". Even when referring to the opposing sides leader, David Keith, Murphy provides context.

• The fact that Murphy interacts with so many scientists gives him the appearance of being credible. He plays on the sense of protecting the people and looking out for them in order appeal to his audience.

• Knowing that Murphy invested so much time into researching the different individuals he interacted with makes the documentary more effective. He also makes himself seem more relatable - always looking out for the betterment of the public. It draws the audience in and captivates them because they feel like they can trust Murphy and his opinions.

• One of the biggest problems with Murphy is that he has a tendency to assume that the government is conspiring against its people. Although it draws some individuals in, others will see him as a psychopath that follows conspiracy theories, making him seem less credible.

Appeals to Emotion

• Throughout the documentary there are references to personal stories, keywords are repeated many times, statistics are used, and the music changes with the mood.

• By using these appeals, Murphy is trying to spark anger and concern out of his audience. The repetition of keywords such as "the government" or "human health" are especially good at achieving this. For example, he takes a clip from a government meeting in New Zealand and focuses on when the man says, "They claim the American government, with the secret approval of the national government is covertly using geoengineered aircraft to spray population segants with aluminium, barium and strontium . . .". The fact that the government is apparently doing this in secrecy is meant to anger the audience.

• The clips and language Murphy uses effectively causes the audience to be both angry and concerned. People are more likely to be invested in an issue if it seems like it is directly impacting their lives. It makes them wonder why the government is implementing these methods and why they don't seem to care about the people that they are supposed to be protecting.

• Considering the audience, people who care deeply about the environment or conspiracy theorists, the emotional appeals used help to establish credibility. By presenting information on certain findings and following up with the health effects it creates a foundation that the audience can recognize. The predictable format keeps the documentary flowing and helps to emphasize the particular emotions Murphy is trying to portray.

Appeals to Logic

• In order to appeal to the audiences' logic, Murphy conducts interviews or has expert opinions, uses statistics, and arranges clips in a certain way for emphasis.

• By employing these strategies, Murphy comes across as a well-rounded individual who knows what he is talking about. When the audience knows that the author has refutable sources and has clearly done an adequate amount of research they are more likely to be open to other points of view. 

• For example, around the 6:20 mark, Murphy inserted an image with the statistical data for the amount of aluminum in the atmosphere. Not only does it visually aid the reader, but it helps them to connect different strings of information together. The image mentions coagulation rates, and if one knows what that means they can understand why sulfuric aerosol injections are particularly dangerous. It seems ridiculous to inject something into the atmosphere that could harm us, and appeals to the audiences' sense of logic.

Reflection:

For this reflection I again read through the posts of Laurence and Chloe. The analysis of appeals in Chloe's text about audiobooks was well done, but there was a significant lack of quotes. The usage of quotes allows the reader to easily see how these appeals are being portrayed. Laurence's use of quotes made it easier for me to understand how passionate his author was about cars, and even though I'm not a car expert I could understand the points he was trying to get across. I feel like my own post was well-developed, but could have been a bit clearer with the transitions between points. It also seems like either credibility or emotional appeals will be the strongest points when doing our analysis.