Use of Persuasion on TV: Russian-Ukrainian War

      To say that "persuasion" plays an essential part in all our lives is nothing special or earth - shaking. Nor does anyone need a lecture on the subject.

     What is needed, however, is an understanding of the role it particularly imparts dealing with the TV coverage of the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

      Where do we start? How about in the distant past when Aristotle developed the idea of argumentation by observing it at work in the market places, the government and the courts? From there he evolved three types ( or proofs ) of persuasion which still operate today: emotional, logical and charisma/credibility. 

      Of all these various appeals, emotional ones seem to be the most potent over the years.  For instance, consider how TV has used finely crafted images to impact on our voting choices and politics generally.  And why not?  Emotional persuasion is probably the easiest one to convey by the medium and received by the viewers.  Emotions are also a significant part of what defines us as human beings. We also tend to understand an emotional appeal quicker and longer than one relying on logical facts, data, examples, and the like.  By the same token, an appeal centered on credibility /charisma depends on our perceptions of someone, his/her reputation or physical image, and it takes longer to figure out. In a word, an emotional proof is immediate and more direct.

     Consider some recent examples of how emotional persuasion works. True, many instances are obvious, but as viewers it's important to be conscious of how manipulation works on TV. And to be aware that there are diverse, yet similar, kinds of examples. First, with visual imagery, it appears that the more simple the picture, the better. In other words, the less busy the composition, the easier for us to be moved by it. Consider a young refugee playing with a soccer ball, her smile a welcome relief from the sad expressions on most everyone else trying to leave their home.  There were lots of images of mothers with their children as well, each picture showing only two subjects at most.

      This same idea of simplicity applies to the words used by people or correspondents directly speaking to the TV viewers. ( That has been true particularly with President Zelenskyy's statements, like when he said," I don't need a ride; I need ammunition," or when refugees proclaimed, " We will never be able to go home.")

     How about one  Ukrainian man expressing the short sentence, "If I can't walk, I will crawl, " when conveying his determination to fight the Russians. Or another isolated refugee  saying, "Give us a chance." 

     Using these short sentences, simple one-syllable words and easily understandable syntax remind us of "catch phrases" common  in TV commercials or in print ads. 

     Another technique involves TV's ( or film's ) potential for subjectivity when a correspondent entered a train packed with fleeing refugees. The hand- held camera is moving through the train , the camera becoming the refugees and the viewer alike. True, it's a familiar cinematic device, but it's an effective one, too. One that is a Alfred Hitchcock favorite.

     Despite the effectiveness of emotional persuasion on TV, political discourse generally speaking is usually most potent, in this critic's opinion, when it combines all three types of appeals. Last week, a TV speech by a female Ukrainian member of Parliament did just that. Her command of powerful, simple language, logical arguments for implementing the No - Fly Zone, and her credibility as a government official made a winning presentation. 

     Winning is all that matters nowadays.