Jerry on the Couch:  Analyzing The Jerry Springer Show

The purpose of this exercise is to:

1) Practice approaching an argument critically and analyzing its persuasive method. 

2) Compare the differences between an effective argument and a valid argument.

3) Further show you how persuasive arguments operate by appealing to the following:

            -- the audience’s (reader/listener/viewer) emotions (pathos)

            -- common values shared between the author and the audience

            -- logic and evidence (logos)

            -- the audience’s perception of the author’s character (ethos)

4) Prepare for the next, analytical essay.

Before viewing The Jerry Springer Show, make notes on the following questions:

1) What is the explicit purpose or purposes of the show’s producers?  What is it they hope to gain from their viewers? 

2) How will the producers know they have succeeded at their purpose; that is, what evidence will the producers need to gain from their audience to know they have succeeded at their purpose or purposes?

3) How do you think the producers will achieve their purpose or purposes (this is the main question we will discuss after we watch it, but it is helpful to think about the question before watching also).  In other words, what sort of rhetorical strategy do you think the producers will use to achieve their goal?

4) Who is the target audience of this show?  How do you know this?

5) For awhile The Jerry Springer Show was America’s most popular TV program. Why do you think this program was so successful? What did it appeal to in the American public?

While Critically viewing The Jerry Springer Show. 

First and foremost, if we are going to say that “everything is an argument” than we must view the entire Jerry Springer experience as the argument;  that is, the “argument” begins even before the show itself starts (with the lead-in or “tease”) and continues, without stopping, until even after the show ends (with the previews of other up and coming Jerry Springer episodes).  The argument is the entire experience itself, and it is important to realize that this entire experience is carefully designed and manipulated, heavily and carefully edited, by the producers.  Which shot follows which shot, and which advertisement follows which segment etc, is carefully controlled of “structured” by the editing process.

As you view the program, I want you to be aware of and make notes on the following:

1) Your emotions (pathos) throughout the show.  How do you feel as you see certain things happening? What upsets, excites, disgusts, frightens or makes you feel good or bad?  Do you get an adrenaline rush during certain segments and feel relaxed during others?

2) How the producers play to what they believe are common values shared with their viewers.  Make connections between the values presented on the show itself as well as those presented on the advertisements.

3) How the producers present the characters (ethos) of everyone on the show, including Springer himself, the audience, and everyone brought on stage, as well as the characters in the advertisements.

4) How the producers use logic and reason (logos) to appeal to their viewers.  Look specifically at logical links or connections between The Jerry Springer Show itself and the advertisements.  How does what happens on the show serve as evidence for the claims (both explicit and implicit) made in the commercials; that is, how does what you see on the show persuade you to buy the products?  Why does it make sense logically to purchase the specifically advertised products?

Logic is often described as the process used to deduce the probability of an unknown (the conclusion) based on what is known (a series of premises).  A logical syllogism usually looks like this:

            IF A is true and IF B is true, THEN C is likely also true.

            IF A is truly 2, and IF B is truly, THEN C likely truly equals 4.

IF people in countries with naturally fluoridated water have fewer cavities, and IF people without naturally fluoridated water have more cavities, and IF you don’t want cavities, and IF Crest has fluoride, THEN you should brush your teeth with Crest.

IF Michael Jordan is tall and healthy, and IF Michael Jordan scarfs Big Macs (or, actually, IF TV shows pictures of Jordan in McD’s THEN we should assume he scarfs Big Macs) and IF you want your children to grow up to be tall and healthy, THEN you should let your children scarf Big Macs whenever they want to.

IF Tiger Woods wears Nike brand jock straps, and IF Tiger Woods wins every golf title known to man, and IF you want to win at golf, THEN you should wear a Nike brand jock strap.

Also important is to note how images play off of one another, or how the producers purposefully cut between, for example, specific images of specific people on stage and specific images of specific people in the audience.  You might consider this from a linguistic or philosophical perspective:  we define what something is by showing what it is not;  we define what black is, for instance, by knowing that it is not white or another color;  we define what is morally correct or right by explaining what is morally incorrect or wrong; Bush defines himself as not being Gore and Clinton, etc.  So, how do the producers define character, values, etc, by contrasting images of the different characters and their different values?

After Viewing

The final steps are to:

Re-assemble your analysis (all the stuff you took apart in the steps above) and begin looking for patterns which suggest the producer's rhetorical methods.  To borrow a literary term, what are the guiding themes you see by comparing the different elements of your analysis?  What are the main ideas you see the producers attempting you to buy into, and what reasons are they using to do so? 

Evaluate the effectiveness of the rhetorical method: how well do you think it works on their target audience?

Evaluate the validity of the argument: how much does the message conform to factual reality, as you understand it?

Evaluate the ethical validity of the rhetorical method: in your opinion, why or why isn't it ethical to persuade the target audience using the producers' rhetorical method, guiding themes, and overall approach to the topic?