Michael Moore – King of Rhetoric

There is no one that I can think of who uses extremely convincing rhetoric more than Michael Moore. Love to hate him, or hate to love him; he is brilliant at creating controversy. For the purpose of this blog, let’s reference his article on GM’s downfall. The article can be found at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php.

The article is titled “Goodbye, GM”. The article requests that we, the readers, view the GM demise with open minds. Moore often stands on the platform of preventative action, and states that although tragic to many American families, the collapse was foreseeable, and most importantly preventable. Through proving this point, he then has a basis to explain how we can use this tragedy to prevent further catastrophes, and potentially provide new work for these displaced families.

Moore uses a myriad of rhetorical tactics in his movies and articles. In this particular article, he blatantly uses irony to prove his point. He states “It is with sad irony that the company which invented ‘planned obsolescence’ -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete.” Once the reader digests this statement, Moore has set the reader up to lose some sympathy for GM.

Figurative language and analogy are two key strategies used by Moore as well. “So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold…”, “The things we call ‘cars’ may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature.” These are merely two examples, but it showcases the dramatic effects that Moore utilizes to make the reader feel more emotional concerning his points. A great example of analogy is “Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.” These analogies allow the reader to see an instance of Moore’s ideas in our very own history. It helps make his ideas not seem so “far-fetched.”

Without staying too technical on this conversation, I wanted to say that I enjoy Michael Moore. I generally agree with his mindset, and I am curious as to his point of view. However, when I do watch one of his movies, or read his articles, I question how much is biased. It’s not often he shows two sides to a story, and he tends to drill in on small clips of time and focus on one to two lines of a document, whatever proves his points. Regardless, he’s convincing and has definitely made his place in the media world. Most people know who he is, and for the most part, understand his style. He’s made a business of rhetoric.