Reading Reponse for 10/12/2009: Ethos and Reluctance

1) Woodward and Denton call to mind the power of an audience to determine whether or not a persuader has good character. It seemed obvious to me that this process of determining ethos is highly subjective even though some would argue that a persuader’s good sense, good moral character, and goodwill often cannot be disputed if it does exist. The authors do reference this by stating that “an audience is more likely to accept the speaker’s evidence and conclusions if the persuader seems to see the world in the same terms as the audience.” In other words, Bill O’Reilly and I do not see the world in the same terms therefore it is not likely that I will accept anything he has to say; but I am also not his intended audience. I understand that all persuasive messages are catered to an intended audience but I’m not clear on whether or not these catered messages also serve a limited audience. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a persuasive message? Aren’t you just preaching to the choir if you deliver a persuasive message to an audience that already agrees with you?

2) I was interested in what Woodward and Denton termed a reluctant source and their explanation of it because the idea of a source taking a position that goes against their own interests seems perfectly in place in the legal world, but in the persuasive communication world it seems like a bit of an outsider. As an audience we are expected to identify sources that are not “too willing” or too interested in one worldview that they fail to see merit and reason in an opposing point of view. However, I am not sure how or if reluctant testimony would benefit, say, a business or corporation. It seems tantamount to admitting that your competition actually has it better. My question would be is reluctant testimony beneficial or damaging? What if the linked commercial were a PC commercial instead of an Apple commercial, would it make audiences say “Microsoft is a trustworthy company for admitting the flaws of their software”? In other words, when would reluctant testimony work?