Megan Handerhan June 21 2012 COM 3155 Dr.

Clark Editorial Analysis There are plenty of controversial topics on the table for discussion in current American discourse. One in particular is getting the attention of people all over the country due to its rapid growth across the fifty states. Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial way to drill for natural gas, and the discussion revolves around the environmental risks as well as the economic benefits that come from this drilling process. The main issue is whether states should continue to jump on the hydrofracking bandwagon, or should they discontinue the practice until strict regulations are put into place or a more environmentally friendly way to drill is found. There are plenty of persuasive documents that argue both sides. A persuasive artifact that is worth analysis is an editorial from the New York Post that advocates the process of hydraulic fracturing in the state of New York. The editor, Col Allan, writes in response to the anti-fracking Preservation League and states his pro-fracking stance. I found this editorial to be very different from ones of other newspapers because of its satirical tone. Given that the New York Post is considered more of a tabloid paper, I was shocked to see a witty response to a topic that is under harsh scrutiny. In this analysis, I plan to pick apart the satire-saturated editorial to better understand the rhetorical tricks the editor used to get his point across. After reading the editorial and getting a sense of what the pieces main goal is, Allan is speaking out against an anti-fracking group that claims the Marcellus shale is a historical part of

New York. Allan goes on to say that this is a ridiculous excuse for not allowing hydraulic fracturing wells and that these types of anti-fracking groups will make up any excuse to put off the drilling process. Allans overall goal is to persuade the readers to realize that New York is missing economic opportunities and Governor Cuomo should give permission to proceed with hydraulic fracturing. Persuasive messages can be full of rhetorical tricks. At times, it becomes difficult to see the main goal of the writer and what the main point of the message is. For this New York Post editorial, I will analyze the writers use of humor, satire and the slippery slope argument. For each of these persuasive tricks, I will explain how they are effective and pull examples from the editorial. With a better understanding of how and why the writer used these tricks, I hope to see exactly what his argument is and what he wants from his readers. In a study published in Sociometery, Dorothy Markiewicz (1974) analyzes the effects of humor on persuasion. She suggests two theoretical approaches that are relevant to the interaction of humor and persuasion effects. The first theoretical approach, the learning theory, implies that humor acts as a positive reinforcement when placed in close proximity to persuasive messages (p. 418). Going deeper into the applications of the learning theory, she claims humor acts as a reward, and affects the success of persuasion. The second theoretical approach is the distraction effects of humor. Markiewicz claims that in order for humor to have a significant impact on persuasion, recipients must be motivated to argue against the point initially, and recipients must be capable of counter arguing (p. 419). Humor can have two significant impacts on persuasion. It can enforce positive or an agreeing response, and can act as a distraction for readers who are apathetic to the topic.

For example, when analyzing the New York Post editorial, Allan (2012) pokes fun at the idea of heritage tourism and the entire goals of the anti-fracking Preservation League. He pokes fun at how the whole idea of heritage tourism is just one of many excuses created by the anti-fracking group. Allan makes the excuse seem petty by putting quotation marks around the words several times throughout the piece. In the first sentence, he suggests that the Preservation League will do anything to stop fracking: Foes of hydraulic fracturing are opening a new front in their war to ban the practice in New York: Theyre claiming its a threat to the regions heritage and tourism (n.p.). By applying the learning theory in using humor to get his profracking point across, Allan wants readers to identify with the piece and have a positive feeling. Since he is bashing the group altogether, he must use humor to elicit some sort of agreeing sentiment and have readers agree with his point about New York losing out on economic activity. The use of humor can also be a source of distraction. In this editorials case, the writer uses humor to distract from fallacies of his argument. For example, he debunks all scientific evidence of environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing by saying, other foes have warned of environmental and health risks from the technique none of which, of course, has ever been borne out by history or science (n.p.). The use of humor throughout his piece can distract, according to Markiewicz, if low ego-involved readers are exposed to the humor. This can further serve the readers apathy towards the subject. However, if readers are motivated to counter argue before reading, the distraction of using humor is not effective. For the editor to use humor, this suggests that he assumes the readers are not highly involved in the issues of hydraulic fracturing. As suggested by Powell (1975), the very goal of satire is to present and point out the fallacies of the opponents position (p. 38). He also claims that satire is very effective in

reinforcing attitudes than it is in changing attitudes (p. 35). However, when low ego-involved subjects are exposed to a satirical message, there is a change of attitude and persuasion is effective. On the other hand, if the reader finds the topic important, he or she experiences the boomerang effect (p.36). This effect moves the readers attitudes about the subject in the opposite direction of what is advocated by the writer. Charles Gruner (1987) also points out that the persuasive effect of satire is prevalent only when the readers see the thesis of the writer as a serious one. According to Powell (1975), the use of satire is extremely effective in reinforcing and changing attitudes in low-ego involved subjects. With the heavy usage of satire in Allans editorial, it is safe to assume that he wants to change attitudes of people who are not involved in the subject in the first place. The New York Post is considered a tabloid newspaper that tends to focus more on the celebrity elite instead of pressing, controversial issues such as hydrofracking. Considering this, by using satire, does Allan expect his readers to not care about the issue? The first instance of satire is prevalent in the first sentence of the piece: Foes of hydraulic fracturing are opening a new front in their war to ban the practice in New York: Theyre claiming its a threat to the regions heritage and tourism (n.p.). I used this sentence before to show the use of humor; however, this time I will focus on the sarcastic and ridiculous tone of the sentence. For example, by labeling the group against fracking as foes, he uses satire to label the entire group as an enemy of the general good will. He also uses a possessive pronoun when labeling the movement against fracking as their war. By doing this, he labels the people against fracking as the others who have ill-fated opinions. By using Powells argument, using satire in this sentence reinforces the attitudes of low-ego involved readers and brings the readers and the writer to an agreement. Another example of satire that Allan uses is when he discredits all

scientific proof that claims hydraulic fracturing as a harmful practice: other foes have warned of environmental and health risks from the technique none of which, of course, has ever been borne out by history or science (n.p.). By using the transition of course he assumes that the audience shares his opinions while poking fun at the obliviousness of the foes. Again, he is reinforcing the attitudes of low-ego involved readers. The final use of satire that I will point out is when Allan labels the various reasons to stop hydraulic fracturing as lame, but the excuses to kill the idea, lame as they are, are starting to build (n.p.). By labeling the arguments against fracking with such a negatively connotative word, he debunks all credibility of the efforts against hydrofracking. The final tool I will use to analyze the New York Post editorial is a rhetorical tool called the slippery slope argument. According to Corner & Oaksford (2011), this argument is wrong but persuasive and includes four steps: i. An initial proposal (A) / ii. An undesirable outcome (C) / iii. The belief that allowing (A) will lead to a re-evaluation of (C) in the future / iv. The rejection of (A) based on this belief (p. 135). An essay published in the Harvard Law Review (2003) suggests that this type of argument calls attention to small changes. In his essay, Volokh (2003) claims that people tend to underestimate the importance of gradual changes because their previous experiences teach them the dramatic changes are what deserve their attention. He claims that small change tolerance gives the appearance of one who wants to avoid seeming extremist or petty. Volokh goes on to point out that these small changes eventually lead to bigger ones that have a significant impact on peoples lives (p. 1105). These small change tolerance slippery slopes can happen when a laws opponent does not want to seem extreme but when the laws supporters do not mind being perceived that way. This may be because the laws opposition is extreme by nature or because the current situation is so bad that they feel obligated

to do something. The slippery slope argument is useful to a writer when he or she wants an article to be read and admired. According to Volokh (2003), no one wants to read an article about a small change and a slight mistake (p. 1113). Attitude-altering slippery slopes are prevalent in areas that are viewed as controversial and call for expert, factual or moral judgment (p. 1082). The slippery slope argument is a very effective tool when one wants to call attention to a small change. Allan uses a perfect example of a slippery slope argument in hopes of bringing attention to a small change. According to Corner & Oaksfords (2011) previously stated outline of a slippery slope argument, Allan (2012) uses one perfectly in tune with the outline: i. If Governor Cuomo keeps waiting to give the okay for hydraulic fracturing, (A) ii. New York will lose out on jobs and economic benefits. (C) iii. If Governor Cuomo gives the okay (A), New York will gain economic benefits (C). iv. Therefore, Cuomo should not keep waiting to give the go-ahead (A). By setting up this argument, Allan calls attention to the small change of just letting Governor Cuomo allow hydraulic fracturing in New York. As I mentioned before, Allan mentions a grave outcome, New York losing economic benefits, to bring attention the impact drilling will have. Allan uses this small change tolerance in order to avoid seeming extremist or petty to his readers. In this scenario the law supporters are the ones who keep Cuomo from giving the go-ahead and the laws opponent is the writer himself. By using this small change slippery slope, Allan does not seem extreme but the Preservation League does. By doing this, Allan can effectively persuade a low ego-involved audience to be in agreement. Throughout Col Allans editorial, he uses humor, satire and a slippery slope argument to get the readers on his side. By using these persuasive tools, Allan can successfully persuade a

low-ego involved audience. However, the persuasive impact of his editorial might not change attitudes or beliefs if the reader is highly involved in the controversies of hydraulic fracturing. The use of humor and satire in the editorial can solidify already existing attitudes that are against fracking as well as distract from the core argument. By using the slippery slope argument, Allan brings attention to a small change and how it can have a significant impact. For future implications, it is important to analyze the rhetorical tricks one uses when trying to persuade in order to understand the messages true meaning and the writers true goals.

Reference List Allan, C. (Ed.). Historic Hooey [Editorial]. (2012, April 18). The New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/historic_hooey_PROEgu8c1RY4iOpE 7TxhQP Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal Of Memory & Language, 64(2), 133-152. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.10.002 Gruner, C. (1987). Note on editorial satire and persuasion. Psychological Reports , 60, 884-886. doi: 10.2466 Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37(3), 407-422. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391 Powell, J. (1975). The Effects of Ego Involvement on Responses to Editorial Satire. Central States Speech Journal, 2634-38. Volokh, E. (2003). The mechanisms of the slippery slope. Harvard Law Review, 116(4), 10261137.