This video annoys me very much. If you hold the opinions that were mentioned in the video, why would you have worked for an extremely one-sided network such as fox for so long? Would it just be so that you can make a good bit of money before you are forced to retire? I don't think this video helps much. Sure the guy is pointing out the flaws in our governmental system, but he is giving no solution to the problems, and that is not very productive. I guess if everyone felt this way and acted on their feelings things would be different, but one man among the many can not change a nations governing body.
@Adam Hipp who said this was the first time the Judge voiced his opinions? His program was a libertarian talk show, and those were pretty libertarian views he was expressing. His show was also not one Fox News, but on Fox Business Channel. So I think it is a little unfair of you to say he was just in it for the money. Is he one man trying to change the government? Or is he trying to change the way everyone feels, so an actual difference can be made? Could that be the reason he took a job on a network were maybe their views did not completely match his own, but he would have the opportunity to reach a much larger audience? Also are you quite sure he did not offer any solutions? Maybe you should give the video another view, and see if he truly does not address any of the concerns you had with it initially.
The video is kind of overwhelming. To be honest, I could catch up with the host at first but lost my attention latter. So I had to watch it again and forced myself to be concentrated. The host is aggresive and kind of angry. I noticed the host use the same structure which is " what if..." from a to z to strength the idea and the emotion of himself and I can sense the content should be more and more serious from begining to the end. But I ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｄｏｎ＇ｔ ｋｎｏｗ ｗｈｙ Ｉ ｌｏｓｔ ｉｔ ａｇａｉｎ．
I like rhetorical questions when they come in ones and twos, not in an unending stream of hundreds. I think that's a mistaken rhetorical choice. Other than that, it's a pretty brazen pitch for Ron Paul.
I agree with what Michel said. The speaker in the video wants to use rhetorical questions to convince people his idea. The speaker argue that although people, especially presidents, in the government can change, citizens could not beneficial from new policies made by new governments. Rhetorical questions, in essence, belong to ranges of critical reasoning. These questions foster critical thinking. When a matter is critically analyzed, audiences lose some of their belief on that issue. In turn, listeners start to believe critics’ idea.
What if questions always make you think and those rhetorical questions are effective. I also agree with Michael that rhetorical questions are probably more effective in ones and twos not 5 whole minutes of them. I personally need to research more on politics so I know whats happening in the election. Some of his questions I didn't understand and can't relate to because I am uneducated on those topics. I thought it was a somewhat good and effective way to promote Ron Paul it made me want to learn more about him to see if that is where my vote will go.
All this video does is ask questions. The speaker shoots a never ending stream of questions at the viewer. The questions did not hold my interest at all. I only caught the first couple of them before the presentation merely turned into a swirl of words. Perhaps my lack of knowledge is to blame for my inability to pay attention. I believe this video's target audience is the politically active and motivated people of America. The one thing the video did accomplish was to make me aware of how ignorant I am of the happenings in the presidential election.
I agree that rhetorical questions can be very useful, but in smaller doses. This video is effective in making the audience think about all the questions he presented. I'm not interested in politics so it does not grab my attention that much, but he does make a strong argument in favor of Ron Paul.
This is a very interesting take on the US government and the two-party system that has taken over. While I don't agree with him on everything, I do agree that Ron Paul is being ignored in the media, probably because he doesn't fit into a nice category, he's for less military spending, but also for legalizing marijuana. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on most issues, I still think that the media shouldn't ignore him. The video, though, was generally interesting, although after awhile the rhetorical questions became a little overwhelming, like said earlier. I feel that this format works well for people to start asking questions. Using "What if..." questions seems like a way to mask his own opinions in a less forceful way. Overall, I like the video since it's an opinion that you don't usually hear in the media and it's good that a show like this existed (especially on a fox affiliated network)
I definitely agree that he begins to become very scattered when he starts bombarding us with all these political questions but at the same time I do see that he is really trying to get us to be like, "Huh, maybe he has a point." When he starts to promote Ron Paul it did sort of catch me off guard because he didn't make it seem like it was going to be apart of his argument at all. If I were him I would caught off some of those rhetorical questions that just make your head hurt.
In this video, the host tries to use rhetorical questions to persuade people and show his opinions. But he keeps using “What if” questions all the time and looks like angry. I agree that rhetorical questions are good to use in public speech and public publications. But he uses so much same words during whole 5 minutes which must make me lose attention. Actually, I don’t know and care much about politics, so it is a little hard for me to understand what’s his opinions and what’s he talking about. But his large amounts of questions make me think and try to find related background information about election.
Even though this video has lots of bias, the tone the host uses is very compelling. I think we can learn a lot from him, the way he emphasize his voice and the rhetorical questions he uses are quite good examples for us to whether give a presentation or write a paper. But too many questions can cause the audience dislike your article.
Almost everything about this video makes me squirm. At first it seemed interesting, but as it went on I immediately got turned on by all the "What if?" questions. What if this, what if that? The way he stands there and pounds the questions in the audiences mind is extremely irritating. I could not seem to make myself finish the whole video. He makes some good points, but the way he goes about doing so is frustrating beyond belief in my eyes.
It’s a very impressive video of politics. He kept asking the obvious questions to remind audiences to think about his issues. And he also lead the audiences to convince his assumptions. I think it may make sense to some people who are in a changeable stand. However, it’s hard to make sense to people who have their firm stand, even having negative influence on people who hold opposite attitudes.
When watching this video, being bombarded with questions isn't exaactly the best thing to focus on. The focus should be on the statements that could be made from the questions. He is clearly supporting one side, even though he is questioning both sides. He is clearly supporting one person even though he is talking about all the candidates. It's on fox news, so it's obviously being projected to a republican audience. That is what I focused on.
15 comments:
This video annoys me very much. If you hold the opinions that were mentioned in the video, why would you have worked for an extremely one-sided network such as fox for so long? Would it just be so that you can make a good bit of money before you are forced to retire? I don't think this video helps much. Sure the guy is pointing out the flaws in our governmental system, but he is giving no solution to the problems, and that is not very productive. I guess if everyone felt this way and acted on their feelings things would be different, but one man among the many can not change a nations governing body.
@Adam Hipp who said this was the first time the Judge voiced his opinions? His program was a libertarian talk show, and those were pretty libertarian views he was expressing. His show was also not one Fox News, but on Fox Business Channel. So I think it is a little unfair of you to say he was just in it for the money. Is he one man trying to change the government? Or is he trying to change the way everyone feels, so an actual difference can be made? Could that be the reason he took a job on a network were maybe their views did not completely match his own, but he would have the opportunity to reach a much larger audience? Also are you quite sure he did not offer any solutions? Maybe you should give the video another view, and see if he truly does not address any of the concerns you had with it initially.
The video is kind of overwhelming. To be honest, I could catch up with the host at first but lost my attention latter. So I had to watch it again and forced myself to be concentrated. The host is aggresive and kind of angry. I noticed the host use the same structure which is " what if..." from a to z to strength the idea and the emotion of himself and I can sense the content should be more and more serious from begining to the end. But I ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｄｏｎ＇ｔ ｋｎｏｗ ｗｈｙ Ｉ ｌｏｓｔ ｉｔ ａｇａｉｎ．
I like rhetorical questions when they come in ones and twos, not in an unending stream of hundreds. I think that's a mistaken rhetorical choice. Other than that, it's a pretty brazen pitch for Ron Paul.
I agree with what Michel said. The speaker in the video wants to use rhetorical questions to convince people his idea. The speaker argue that although people, especially presidents, in the government can change, citizens could not beneficial from new policies made by new governments. Rhetorical questions, in essence, belong to ranges of critical reasoning. These questions foster critical thinking. When a matter is critically analyzed, audiences lose some of their belief on that issue. In turn, listeners start to believe critics’ idea.
What if questions always make you think and those rhetorical questions are effective. I also agree with Michael that rhetorical questions are probably more effective in ones and twos not 5 whole minutes of them. I personally need to research more on politics so I know whats happening in the election. Some of his questions I didn't understand and can't relate to because I am uneducated on those topics. I thought it was a somewhat good and effective way to promote Ron Paul it made me want to learn more about him to see if that is where my vote will go.
All this video does is ask questions. The speaker shoots a never ending stream of questions at the viewer. The questions did not hold my interest at all. I only caught the first couple of them before the presentation merely turned into a swirl of words. Perhaps my lack of knowledge is to blame for my inability to pay attention. I believe this video's target audience is the politically active and motivated people of America. The one thing the video did accomplish was to make me aware of how ignorant I am of the happenings in the presidential election.
I agree that rhetorical questions can be very useful, but in smaller doses. This video is effective in making the audience think about all the questions he presented. I'm not interested in politics so it does not grab my attention that much, but he does make a strong argument in favor of Ron Paul.
This is a very interesting take on the US government and the two-party system that has taken over. While I don't agree with him on everything, I do agree that Ron Paul is being ignored in the media, probably because he doesn't fit into a nice category, he's for less military spending, but also for legalizing marijuana. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on most issues, I still think that the media shouldn't ignore him. The video, though, was generally interesting, although after awhile the rhetorical questions became a little overwhelming, like said earlier. I feel that this format works well for people to start asking questions. Using "What if..." questions seems like a way to mask his own opinions in a less forceful way. Overall, I like the video since it's an opinion that you don't usually hear in the media and it's good that a show like this existed (especially on a fox affiliated network)
I definitely agree that he begins to become very scattered when he starts bombarding us with all these political questions but at the same time I do see that he is really trying to get us to be like, "Huh, maybe he has a point." When he starts to promote Ron Paul it did sort of catch me off guard because he didn't make it seem like it was going to be apart of his argument at all. If I were him I would caught off some of those rhetorical questions that just make your head hurt.
In this video, the host tries to use rhetorical questions to persuade people and show his opinions. But he keeps using “What if” questions all the time and looks like angry. I agree that rhetorical questions are good to use in public speech and public publications. But he uses so much same words during whole 5 minutes which must make me lose attention. Actually, I don’t know and care much about politics, so it is a little hard for me to understand what’s his opinions and what’s he talking about. But his large amounts of questions make me think and try to find related background information about election.
Even though this video has lots of bias, the tone the host uses is very compelling.
I think we can learn a lot from him, the way he emphasize his voice and the rhetorical questions he uses are quite good examples for us to whether give a presentation or write a paper. But too many questions can cause the audience dislike your article.
Almost everything about this video makes me squirm. At first it seemed interesting, but as it went on I immediately got turned on by all the "What if?" questions. What if this, what if that? The way he stands there and pounds the questions in the audiences mind is extremely irritating. I could not seem to make myself finish the whole video. He makes some good points, but the way he goes about doing so is frustrating beyond belief in my eyes.
It’s a very impressive video of politics. He kept asking the obvious questions to remind audiences to think about his issues. And he also lead the audiences to convince his assumptions. I think it may make sense to some people who are in a changeable stand. However, it’s hard to make sense to people who have their firm stand, even having negative influence on people who hold opposite attitudes.
When watching this video, being bombarded with questions isn't exaactly the best thing to focus on. The focus should be on the statements that could be made from the questions. He is clearly supporting one side, even though he is questioning both sides. He is clearly supporting one person even though he is talking about all the candidates. It's on fox news, so it's obviously being projected to a republican audience. That is what I focused on.
Post a Comment