Establishing Credible Ethos

Although I do believe that Aristotle’s quote that ethos, “should result from the speech not from a previous opinion” is based on sound reasoning, it seems impossible for today’s society. Our technology driven society seems to be more concerned with the intricate details of the person’s life rather than what the person is saying in a certain rhetoric moment. Our current age of technology supports the need for us to know every detail regarding the speaker’s life. Due to this, I think that a person’s reputation supersedes their speech or their opinion on a particular topic. A particular speaker could deliver the most eloquent and exigent speech ever, but there is bound to be some bias toward the speech, that effects the outcome of the message received. Aside from my observations of our society, I think that there is a time and a place for the inclusion of reputation.

In general, there are some circumstances where reputation should be taken into account, and other’s where I think that it is important to forget the past. The reputation of a speaker can really harm the result of the speech. In certain situations, the speaker could actually have important contributions to help advance a particular argument, even if he/she had been deemed unreliable or untrustworthy in the past. I am definitely not one to criticize, as I have judged someone based on previous opinions, before actually listening to what they had to say. I think the most recent evidence of this is with the former president, George W. Bush. Looking back at my previous judgments, it seems important to discount his reputation and listen to his speeches without any bias. The past president has a bad reputation with many citizens of this country, most frequently based on the decisions he made during his presidency. Apart from his actual decisions, his speeches also added to the bias of listeners including myself. I have listened to some of the speeches from George W. Bush, and his constant use of fillers and terrible use of language, annoyed me enough, that I stopped tuning in to hear him speak. Nevertheless, he is the most well-known person in America and possibly the world, and I should have listened to him. Obviously, he held the power to make important decisions for the future, and I should have ignored my biases to hear what he had to say, as to be better informed about the future of this country. In his last few speeches he may have informed the world of very important changes, but I will never know. In this context, it is important to ignore reputation and let the speaker’s ethos be formed from the speech.

On the other hand, I think there are times when a person’s reputation is vital for understanding and interpreting the speech. Understanding the background of a person may help the listener understand the speaker’s stance. For example, a person who grew up in a war torn country has more credibility talking about what to do for people in a war torn society, then say someone who was born in a quiet suburb of Milwaukee. Understanding that the person has been through a certain circumstance, provides a sense that they may have some insight into the situation, thus establishing a credible ethos and pathetic appeal with the listeners. If the ethos is established by the listener without knowing the past experiences or expertise of the speaker, it will be biased.

Overall, there has to be a balance between reputation and the current speech when judging the speaker’s ethos. From the examples given, I would conclude that if the speaker’s reputation is bad, it may need to be ignored. However, if the reputation of the speaker is good and relevant it should be advanced. However, this in itself is very biased. Who is to judge whether the reputation is good or bad? And finally, the only way that a person’s reputation will not affect the ultimate message, is if the listener or the speaker are unfamiliar with one another. Otherwise it is impossible to ignore the reputation in today’s age of technology.

-ms