|Perfect Number of Pages to Order||5-10 Pages|
We’ve finished the third portion and now have the opportunity to reflect on our course material and connect it to current examples of political speech. In our third case study, we’ll look at how social groups, government officials, and
corporations use rhetoric to gain a competitive advantage in ongoing political battles.
As our third case study, we’ll look at the dispute surrounding Georgia Senate Bill 202. Public statements about SB 202 from Stacey Abrams, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, and Coca-Cola Corporation representatives are among the artifacts. For
Case Study #3, read the documents and view the two movies presented in Announcements/Artifacts on Canvas. Then, answer the following questions. There is no minimum length requirement; simply write a thorough response. Don’t just reuse an example from the Anderson reading when you give an example; it has to be original.
What is the rhetorical setting for this debate? Identify at least two examples of rhetorical context that are relevant.
What is going on at the moment or in the videos that helps you figure out the rhetorical context? Make sure to include the speaker’s or artifact’s context. Your examples can be broad aspects of the context or one of Bitzer’s rhetorical situation’s elements exigence, constraint, and/or audience.
What language is being utilized to influence the audience’s perception of events? Choose at least one specific example of terminology from Abrams and Kemp’s comments.
How is language (particularly metaphor) being utilized to negotiate values, build a perspective on the situation, and/or make a recommendation?
How did Coca-Cola weigh the risks and benefits of making public statements about Senate Bill 202?
At least two criteria raised in the Callander (Links to an external site.) and/or Diermier (Links to an external site.) readings that corporations should consider when considering whether and/or how to engage in political controversies should be
identified in your answer.
Assess the level of quality:
Make a first assessment of the rhetorical quality of either Abrams, Kemp, or Coca-Cola based on your answers to questions 1-3. Was this a good reaction to the rhetorical situation? Why do you think that is? Your response should take into
account the actor’s individual motivations.
How to Make the Most of This Project:
Don’t be vague: It’s important to remember that the goal of the assignment isn’t only to view videos. Rather, use the course texts to see what specific, unique observations you can make. What do you think Burke, Nichols, Weaver, Parrish, Bitzer,
Black, Callander, or Diermier would have to say about these works (PDF attached)? Specific examples from the case study articles and videos, as well as the reading, should be provided.
Participate in class: By 11:55 p.m. on May 6th, you must submit your case study solutions to Canvas.
Consider the following grading criteria: you will be graded on the completeness of your answers to each question, the specificity of your video examples, the specificity of your references to course resources, and the correctness of your
application of course information. Each question will earn you 25 points if you answer it correctly.
Watch Stacey Abrams describe the new SB 202 as “Jim Crow in a suit and tie” (7:24): (This is a link to another website.)
Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) and Attorney General Christopher Carr (R-GA) defend SB 202 after Major League Baseball declared that the 2021 All-Star Game will not be held in metro Atlanta (starting at 15:45 and ending at 24:33):
https://youtu.be/sd3ivSwpM5c (This is a link to another website.) Watch Coca-CEO Cola’s explain his company’s stance on Senate Bill 202: https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1377325405468823560?s=2
Read Coca-Cola Corporation’s initial public statement on SB 202 (below):
“Voting is a fundamental right in the United States, and we will seek to expand voting rights and access in Georgia and across the country. We applaud the efforts of the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce to
promote a balanced approach to the election proposals presented in the Georgia Legislature this year. The ultimate goal should be fair, safe elections with broad and inclusive voting participation.”
Case Study of Political Rhetoric in the SB 202 Controversy