Effective Communication

In my opinion, effective communication about contested topics involves a number of components: First, it must be supported by fact or evidence; second, it must be engaging and easy to follow; and finally, it must be delivered in a serious or carefully thought-out manner. To demonstrate this point, I am going to compare two of the videos we were assigned to watch to make up for the missed class on February 5th. The first video I'm going to look at is the Greg Craven video, "The Most Terrifying Video," and the second will be the Trisha Paytas video, "Global Warming is a Hoax."

Greg Craven's video starts with a front-facing view of himself, dressed casually but not distractingly so, and sitting in what appears to be a classroom. He addresses the audience professionally, albeit colloquially, and is not sidetracked or interrupted by things off-camera. With the viewers, he breaks down four realistic, and logical outcomes of climate change, weighing both the possibilities of climate change being real or not, and of us taking action or not. Acknowledging both sides to the argument lends credibility to his stance, and allows the viewers to draw their own (guided) conclusions, which is a principle method in rhetoric used to invoke a stronger alignment of the audience with the conclusion. Greg Crayven adds emotion and relatable examples to further strengthen his argument. So he incorporates all three of my components of effective communication, and appeals to the audience on multiple levels.

Trisha Paytas' video is much different; the camera is angled downwards into her cleavage, giving the audience a clear view of her hair, excessive makeup, plunging neckline, and pigsty of a bedroom. She begins her speech by admitting to audiences that she does not have all of her facts straight, discrediting her almost immediately. She proceeds with her argument, which has clearly been thought through, only to interrupt herself a minute in exclaiming "oh my gosh! I got a text message! *squeal*!" She proceeds to lose her train of thought, and keeps viewers waiting while she works out where she was taking her argument. What Trisha Paytas does very well is present arguments that resonate with viewers in a way that encourages them to feel as strongly as she does. One of her stronger points details how Al Gore - poster child for climate change - owns multiple mansions in locations that he has to fly to, and that his homes do not employ any of the renewable energy sources he preaches about. Trisha aptly states how unfair it is to expect something of society that you are not willing to do yourself. While her delivery is unprofessional and distracting, she does meet two of my three criteria for effective communication: her case is compelling due to the emotion she puts into it, it makes sense to audiences, and she supports her claims with evidence.

At a first glance, many might be compelled to argue that Greg Crayven's video is the more effective communication for climate change. If we compare just the facts, that would be true: Greg's meets 3/3 criteria, whereas Trisha's meets only 2/3. But we must include one final factor, a less tangible or measurable component: impression. I did not find Trisha's delivery academic or professional in any way, but after watching a list of video after video on the same topic, hers was the first to come to mind as having had any impact on my views towards the issue. For this reason, I credit her video as having the most effective climate change communication, because above all else, for change to happen, we need people to be affected, and Trisha Paytas certainly accomplishes that.