Bias, Rhetorical Devices, and ArgumentationBecause I have never seen the movie I have ordered it to watch. I think watching the whole movie might make this particular scene easier to dissect; knowing the background would help in noticing more bias and rhetoric. However, if the scene assigned is any indication of the content of rhetorical devices in the movie then the movie is a goldmine (metaphor & hyperbole) of rhetorical devices. The scene was very over-acted, which is pretty common for movies of that period, however that threw me off a bit at first.
Charles Foster Kane like most of today's politicians used the attack the opposition style of campaigning it seems. I can say with quite a bit of certainty that Charles Foster Kane was biased against Jim Gettys. Following Kane's introduction his very first words and most of his speech actually, were an attack on Gettys. Probably more than half of the speech made by Kane was personal attack ad hominem of Jim Gettys.
It would right to also say there was a good bit of poisoning the well going on as well as plenty of dysphemisms. Kane's statement, "public the dishonesty, the downright villainy, of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine now in complete control of the government of this State" was a perfect example of poisoning the well; this same statement could also be called argument from outrage.
Kane first uses a rhetorical explanation to regarding not having any campaign promises, stating that he did not have reason to believe he would be elected. The statement, "until a few weeks ago I had no hope of being elected", could also be the rhetorical device known as horse laugh. Horse laugh was also used in Kane's other statement about campaign promises, "too busy trying to keep...