Our Shift in Communication Appeals

Make no mistake about it, communication is sure not what it used to be. Whether it is better or worse I will leave for others to decide - for now. The fact it is different cannot be denied. Take a statement made by Stephen Douglas in one of his numerous debates with Abraham Lincoln over 160 years ago: "My friends.......I desire to address myself to your judgement, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasms." This is a public figure running for public office who is seeking to appeal to the intellect of his audience rather than their emotions. How would such a politician or style of communication fare today?

What I call public communication via such outlets as television, motion pictures, public speaking, music, and print advertising relies heavily on emotions. Rarely do we find ourselves audience to public discourse not presented in the swell of bright lights, inflammatory oratory, pounding music or jarring picture images. Singularly or collectively, these and other add-ons are designed to push our emotional buttons, reinforce pre-assumptions or notions, and quell any mental reservations we might have from what just communicated to us. Certainly in the United States, it is the emotional side of us to which public communication and public communicators seek to appeal.

What does this deliberate shift by public communicators to appeal to the emotions of their audiences rather than their intellect mean? What does it say about our society? What does it say about us as individuals? Are we as individuals and as a society making better choices as a result? How do our intellectual and emotional quotients of today compare to what they were back in the time of the Douglas-Lincoln debates? Is this shift good or bad? Either way, what can or should professional and public communicators do about it?