While primarily an entertainer, I admire Dr. Phil McGraw’s public communication skills. He is able to engage with his guests while also effectively communicating with his audience. He is able to guide the discussion to demonstrate his points and convey his message. His power of persuasion comes from a combination of ethos and logos. His own personal character gives him credibility. He combines this credibility with basic, common sense logic to provide a compelling message. While he is often sympathetic, he does not primarily appeal to the emotions of those with whom he is trying to communicate (although he may appeal to his audience’s emotions to keep them watching). He is willing to challenge his guests to “get real” and take ownership of their own self-destructive behavior, rather than appealing to their emotional desires.
My own ability to persuade comes primarily from logic and reasoning, and fits well within Aristotle’s classification of logos. However, my focus on logic can also be a weakness at times. I may feel that my position is logically correct, so it should be obvious to my audience. I may overlook the emotional response of those I am trying to persuade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I did not think to use talk show hosts as public speakers but I really liked your example of Dr. Phil as a public speaker. He is an interesting speaker because of his unique personality. He is so blunt and says things in such a matter-of-fact kind of way and I think many of us wish we could be more like him sometimes. He gets to tell people with problems to ‘get real’ as you mentioned. Metaphorically speaking, he gives a slap in the face to senseless people in hopes to improve their lives. I do not watch his show often but when I do it’s because it seems to be realistic – real people with real problems who desperately need help.
ReplyDeleteI also liked how you pointed out how Dr. Phil’s techniques do not come from pathos. No matter what the problems of his guests are, he stays on track and gets down to business in helping them solve them. He does not let his emotions show or affect his work.
I think Dr. Phil is a great example of a speaker who is a well-balanced communicator, just as you explained. I think opposite would be the Jerry Springer type whose show dwells on emotions alone, and seeks to incite riots from the audience for the sake of ratings.
ReplyDeleteThe way Dr. Phil comes across, both in his speech and his body language really do convey a sense of sincerity. Usually doctors and psychologists have a stigma of being too callous, blunt, and arrogant, yet his personality puts his guests and audience at ease.
The ability to be tactful yet direct is a talent that most people do not have. While I admire Dr. Laura Schlessinger, sometimes I cringe at the bedside manner she portrays to her callers on the radio. Still, each speaker has their own style, and both Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil are successful at what they do.
Hello Maisy! If you were up on Dr. Phil's stage, do you think you would be receptive to his communication/speaking style? Are there times where he has offended someone, or perhaps portrayed a less than stellar 'performance'? Are there any other examples of people that are great speakers that you can think of? :)
ReplyDelete