Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Without question, as you'll experience firsthand. But in those cases, the jury reaches its decision in spite of rather than because of effective advocacy.
Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I talk about persuasiveness, I'm not talking about whether she or anyone else actually persuades a majority of the great unwashed. You're exactly right -- way too large a segment of the American public will switch views at the drop of the hat and think that People is a news magazine. I'm talking about viewing advocacy through a more objective standard -- sort of the "reasonable person" standard of the law. Would a reasonable person whom one is trying to sway to one's own position find her arguments persuasive. With her, as with Olbermann and others, I think the answer has to be "no."
But, as a cheerleader, that's not really what she's trying to accomplish.
|
I agree.
DST, alright. On a side note, simply saying you're impartial obviously doesn't make it so. I'm sure you realize this. People can infer your political ideology regardless of whether you put a label on it. Doesn't mean they'll be right, but they can surely make informed guesses.