Rhetorical Analysis Of Mr. Bollinger's Speech

647 Words3 Pages
According to the text the job of the introductory speaker is to foster mutual interest between the main speaker and the audience. Instead, I think that Mr. Bollinger’s introduction was polarizing. I feel that what Mr. Bollinger delivered was a six minute diatribe. He attacked Mr. Ahmadinejad politically and with such gusto that there was a distinct possibility that he turn off the audience from Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech. I feel that Mr. Bollinger was rude and did not show any respect for Mr. Ahmadinejad. This surprised me because in my opinion the mark of a mature, educated person is to respect differences even if he does not agree with them. It is obvious that Mr. Bollinger understood his audience because the audience seemed to appreciate…show more content…
Bollinger used the most emotive vocabulary to describe Mr. Ahmadinejad. Words like “belligerent, revulsive, persecution, and preposterous” were used to describe Mr. Ahmadinejad’s political practices. As he drove home his point he described the Iranian people as being sensible and embarrassed of their leader. This introduction set the tone for a fiery delivery from Mr. Ahmadinejad. It is to be expected. After all, America and Iran have been at loggerheads for years on issues from hostage negotiations, to Iran’s nuclear proliferation and Israel’s nuclear disarmament (though Israel has never openly admitted to having nuclear…show more content…
Bollinger took this moment to “get some things off his chest”, and I do not believe it should have been done in his introduction of Mr. Ahmadinejad. A question and answer period could have addressed all of his concerns. His concerns were valid. Most people, who keep abreast of politics, want to hear from Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Mr. Bollinger’s behavior got them talking about him as much as they spoke of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Imagine, Mr. Bollinger on that day made the national news. For this reason he did not fulfill his duties as the introductory speaker. The media should be talking about the content of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech not Mr. Bollinger’s. We know Mr. Bollinger did not have a pre-interview with Mr. Ahmadinejad because no one would agree to be spoken of in such a manner. Not one good thing was said about Mr. Ahmadinejad. No background information was given save the negative views many in the West hold of Iran. Mr. Bollinger researched Iranian political issues; nuclear proliferation of Iran, the issues of the holocaust, religious freedom and academic crackdowns. It would have been nice to hear one, neutral, personal piece of information about Mr.

    More about Rhetorical Analysis Of Mr. Bollinger's Speech

      Open Document