James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, delivers a speech to the staff of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum at the annual dinner in Washington D.C. Comey is ineffective at conveying a main point throughout his speech, causing his audience to become confused about his purpose. Although he makes several points in his oratory, he is not able to tie it all together for a main focus. By his use of repetitive diction, misleading rhetorical questions, and a lack of pathos, Comey is not able to clearly convey his purpose. In his speech, Comey is constantly repeating phrases in different context leading the audience to associate the same mental image they got from the last time the phrase was used. Comey’s most constantly repeated word is evil. Not only does he say evil by itself many times he is regularly using the phrase, or an adaptation of the phrase, “evil hold the field”. The first time he uses this remark, and the word evil, is when he says, “Our obligation is to refuse to let bad win, to refuse to let evil hold the field.” In this particular part of his speech, Comey is trying to convince his listeners that we cannot let bad situations get the best of us. The next time this phrase is used Comey says, “There are so many ways to fight evil to ensure it doesn’t hold the field.” And again he uses it in the sentence directly after that saying, “This room is full of people who have made that fight their life’s work – to ensure that evil does not hold the field”. Comey has managed to use this phrase three times within five sentences. Not only is his audience bored of hearing the same expression, but Comey’s audience is getting the same mental image every time this phrase is used. Using a repetitive choice of words can be useful and effective in some texts, but with this one the audience is zoning out and wishing they never have to hear that phrase again. By using this phrase three times in close proximity to each, other Comey sounds as if he is running out of things to say and not trying to prove a point. While Comey is giving his speech, he is ineffective at using the literary device of rhetorical questions and further confuses his audience on what his purpose is.
…show more content…
Before Comey uses rhetorical questions, he is expressing how the Holocaust has always been a horrific event to him and that, “…it has long stood as a stumbling block of faith”. After giving this statement he goes on and asks his audience, “How could such a thing be? How is that consistent with the concept of a loving God?” After giving this background information and these questions the audience would expect most or the rest of the speech to be about how God could let such a horrible event such as the Holocaust happen, but it’s not. In fact, the rest of the speech doesn’t even mention faith or God. Even though rhetorical questions aren’t usually answered, they have some meaning to the passage. The rhetorical questions Comey uses hardly relates to his speech at all. By using rhetorical questions about God and having no further elaboration, the audience is left questioning whether or not Comey’s purpose is to speak about God’s role in the Holocaust or something different. Because of the context in which Comey is giving his speech, you’d think that there would be an abundant amount of pathos directed towards the lives lost but Comey offers no respect or sorrow for them. Although Comey states that the Holocaust was, “…the most horrific display in world history of inhumanity”, he never embellishes on how it was. After stating that, he moves on to talk about how he himself was born in an Irish Catholic family. The second account in which Comey is slightly sympathetic is when he says, “…unimaginable suffering and loss.” But, once again, he does not elaborate on how the Holocaust caused such suffering. Because Comey does not show emotion toward the lives lost, or the families of the lives lost, he gains no sympathy toward his cause. Not only does his audience not feel any emotion they are also
Before Comey uses rhetorical questions, he is expressing how the Holocaust has always been a horrific event to him and that, “…it has long stood as a stumbling block of faith”. After giving this statement he goes on and asks his audience, “How could such a thing be? How is that consistent with the concept of a loving God?” After giving this background information and these questions the audience would expect most or the rest of the speech to be about how God could let such a horrible event such as the Holocaust happen, but it’s not. In fact, the rest of the speech doesn’t even mention faith or God. Even though rhetorical questions aren’t usually answered, they have some meaning to the passage. The rhetorical questions Comey uses hardly relates to his speech at all. By using rhetorical questions about God and having no further elaboration, the audience is left questioning whether or not Comey’s purpose is to speak about God’s role in the Holocaust or something different. Because of the context in which Comey is giving his speech, you’d think that there would be an abundant amount of pathos directed towards the lives lost but Comey offers no respect or sorrow for them. Although Comey states that the Holocaust was, “…the most horrific display in world history of inhumanity”, he never embellishes on how it was. After stating that, he moves on to talk about how he himself was born in an Irish Catholic family. The second account in which Comey is slightly sympathetic is when he says, “…unimaginable suffering and loss.” But, once again, he does not elaborate on how the Holocaust caused such suffering. Because Comey does not show emotion toward the lives lost, or the families of the lives lost, he gains no sympathy toward his cause. Not only does his audience not feel any emotion they are also