Week 5, Question 3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it. (Choose a topic that has not already been covered in this weeks discussion).

A concept in Chapter 9: Public Communication that I found most interesting

Week 5, Question 2

2). Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States. What is the speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?


The current President of the U.S. posesses many strong characteristics to signify himself as good speaker. The first, but certainly not most important is his attractiveness. President Obama is a good looking man with a slim, tall built and always looks sharp. Even Michelle Obama is plastered all over those weekly magazines as a woman with style. Back to the topic, I think his attractiveness helps with his speaking because people want to listen to him because they percieve him as someone who is well rounded.


I would hope that President Obama has credibility to back up his speaking characteristic, but that is almost a given. He is certainly well educated but with education, you gain power. With his long lists of experience, he possesses all three characteristics with his strongest being power. I feel this is so because power coems with experience.

Week 5, Question 1

1). Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?

I think we all have been influenced by speakers. The introduction in the headline clearly states public communication doesn’t just belong to the famous, but everyday, average people standing up and speaking to audiences to make a difference. With that said, I think one of the most memorable public communication speakers was when my sister gave a speech on donating your body to human research at a community college in Fremont.

Her appeal to the audience was within all realms discussed last week which is why I feel that her speech was memorable. She had confidence on the topic gave an ample amount of reasons why and even brought a light humor to it making it a topic that was not at all morbid or discomforting to sit through.

I don’t think I’ve heard a speaker that was so bad that I would define him or her as the worst, however, I think throughout my college experiences, there have been a few who were noteworthy because of the following: they were nervous causing them to stutter. I think that this makes his or her message impossible to remember.

Week 4. Question 3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.The part of the reading that I found interesting is located on page 19. It's basically an introduction of the chapter but I do find it useful. It states that there are two ways of thinking about the world.

The first is "to assume that it is made up of a phenomena that exist independently of human knowledge". This concept is objective and I don't really agree with it but perhaps the religious side of me can see where it is coming from. I can't help but wonder "why" which is probobly the reason I don't relate to this concept.

The second is "to assume that most of the things we try to define are human constructions". This concept is subjective and I am leaning toward this view of the world. I'm bringing up Nietzsche again who wrote an essay on constructing truth.

I think this concept is what Nietzche believes because in it, he gives a lot of examples on how he thinks that people construct our realities.Also, the second approach also "explains how even the most mundane of objects can have a number of equally valid definitions" this is a concept Nietzche can agree with in which he believe that there are many truths. What is true for one person, can be different for another. Also, he says that the way truth or definitions come about is because someone experienced it and said it was so and it became the truth.

pragmatic perspective

I personally feel that thinking of communication as a patterned interaction is unrealistic. To believe this, one must assume that there is only a sender and a receiver, person A and B, where one initiates conversation and the other responds. However, this is not always the case such that we must consider that no two people are alike and that very important variables are not included in this perspective such as culture and personality.

However, reading through the pragmatic perspective, I can say understand where it is coming from. Similar to a game, people partake in this social interaction and sometimes we take turns. But it is also unlike a game because sometimes when communicating, we don’t get to say anything back, we can be obliged to sit back and just listen to someone communicating to us. There are some times only senders.

Social Constructionist

We “build worlds” through communication in many ways. One way to go about answering this question is analyzing the different types of communication the social constructionist perspective is referring to. The first is through cultural traditions. These include not only traditions through American culture, but possibly from our own ethnic backgrounds. These traditions can range between religion, family lifestyle, and so forth.

Another way we build our worlds is through sets of roles and rules that guide our action (p. 30). This can be through the way we were taught in our families, schools, or by society.
Some ideas that we talk about in our culture that may not exists in other cultures include the baby shower tradition that is pretty an American based tradition set up for a couple to “Get ready” for the birth of their child. However, while planning a baby shower for my sister’s first child, I found out that her fiancé who is from Uzbekistan believes that buying gifts for a baby is bad luck. Also in some Asian cultures, instead of a baby shower, they have a baby “debut” one month after he/she is born.

Another idea that we talk about in my culture that doesn’t exist in other cultures is as a sign of respect for older siblings, we refer to them as “Ate” and “Kuya” which means older sister/older brother.

Concepts similar to this can contribute to our happiness or success in several ways. Some of which include the way in which we put importance to them. Being a first-generation Filipino, I place different forms of communication (such as cultural traditions) above other American cultural traditions and vice versa, this way, I feel more at home.

Persuasive Speakers

*1). Think of a speaker you admire. Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle's classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?

One of the speakers I most admire listening to is Genelle Austin-Lett. I say that not to suck up because she is one of the teachers in the COMM department but because I really do think she speaks very well. I think that she utilizes all forms of persuasion, ethos, pathos and logos depending on the situation or topic of choice. To me, she is a good speaker because of her versatility in speech and her ability to interchange the three accordingly.

When I think about my persuasive skills, I would have to say that that my appeal is based on emotion, pathos. I am not very persuasive and I know that this is not the most credible way to persuade but it is the truth.

Greek Orators

2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?

The Greeks belief that an individual had to be morally good to be an orator is something I do not fully agree with. I personally feel that the ability to communicate publicly is a skill that can be learned with confidence and knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong, but I took a class last semester with Professor Hohmann in which we studied rhetoric in different cultures, we studied Ancient Greece and I think that I remember him saying that no lawyers existed during that time but one could get their speeches written and present it themselves.

I believe that this goes to show that an orator doesn’t necessarily have to be good, but have the ability to persuade effectively. I feel that goodness and truth are not directly connected with public communication because often times the truth is relative. This also reminds to Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” in which he discusses how morality has stemmed from people and is man-made. If we could trace back morality and truth, we will be able to see that over time, stories, events, experiences became truth.

So, I believe that being an orator has nothing to do with being good morally.