Author: Eshwar Cherkuri
📍Las Positas College

“Mom, why do you always take his side?” I argued. “I know you’re lying; your brother would never hit you on purpose.” “But he did! I swear you have to punish him.” “Stop lying! I’m taking your devices away today!” In this situation, my mom believed my brother over me because she thought he was more trustworthy. People often believe media sources that match their existing views, even if that means ignoring the misinformation those sources provide. This leads them to form biased opinions on topics they care about. In a time of rapid information sharing and sharp political divides, language is a powerful tool that can shape public opinion and influence views on complex social issues. News anchors discussing controversial topics like immigration and deportation use various strategies to sway their audiences. By combining logical reasoning (logos), emotional appeals (pathos), and credibility (ethos), Laura Ingraham and John Oliver demonstrate that effective persuasion relies on understanding one’s audience and presenting information in a manner that earns their trust and support. While Ingraham and FOX News use emotion and authority to appeal to conservatives, Oliver employs humor and facts to persuade his liberal viewers against deportation.

In his “Last Week Tonight” series, John Oliver constantly shifts from critical logical remarks of logos to satirical commentary (pathos) on the Trump administration’s immigration policies. He argues that the administration’s deportation efforts are legally questionable and often target individuals with no criminal records, using misleading propaganda and ignoring due process. His audience consists of liberal-leaning, educated viewers who are already skeptical of the Trump presidency. They seek validation for their views and a clearer, often satirical understanding of complex issues. The rhetorical strategies Oliver primarily uses are logical reasoning and emotional connection. He connects feelings with satire, irony, and humor, all supported by facts and debunking to bolster his argument. For example, he humorously points out how absurd it is, stating that a “deportation Instagram reel is a combination of words that should never exist.” His funny presentation makes the tough topic more digestible and increases his audience’s skepticism. He also uses logic when he mentions that “60 Minutes investigated it and could not find criminal records for 75% of the men” on deportation flights, providing a factual critique of government reports. His emotional appeal is even stronger when he shares the story of a four-year-old boy sent to Honduras without his medication for stage four cancer, directly tapping into the audience’s emotions and moral outrage. Oliver’s fictional tale of Al Madrigal’s “self-deportation” also illustrates the administration’s flawed strategy while entertaining his audience with common but controversial scenarios. His best rhetorical move through using pathos is his ability to validate his listeners’ assumptions with humor and well-researched facts, making his arguments very convincing to his target audience.

In contrast, a Fox News video presents a completely different view, claiming that sanctuary cities create significant dangers by preventing ICE from deporting violent criminals, and that critics of ICE intentionally fuel anti-American sentiment through attacking the credibility (ethos) of liberals. This video specifically targets a conservative, law-and-order-oriented audience invested in border security and public safety, seeking confirmation of their existing beliefs. The rhetorical tools here rely heavily on emotional appeals fueled by fear, along with credibility through testimonials and “exclusive access,” and selective logic. This instills fear by announcing that ICE “arrested a murderer, multiple child rapists, and a fentanyl trafficker, all of whom had been roaming freely on Massachusetts streets,” directly appealing to the audience’s concerns about safety. Credibility is established through “exclusive access to ICE’s elite Boston team,” which gives their coverage a sense of authenticity and authority. Opponents are named and demonized through phrases like “these sanctuary-city politicians create magnets for these criminal aliens to come into these communities,” reducing the problem to an easy “us vs. them” scenario that plays on the audience’s existing biases against these groups.

Another news reporter, Laura Ingraham, in her “The Ingraham Angle,” argues that Democrats prioritize the interests of illegal immigrants over American citizens. Ingram mainly uses pathos from humor to comment on the supposed stupidity of liberals, which also undermines the “ethos” of liberals, making their audience have less trust in their policies. Her rhetoric targets a very conservative audience, characterized by their distrust of mainstream media and Democratic politicians, by reaffirming their current political beliefs. The dominant tactic she employs is emotional appeal, but she also uses credibility through personal attacks. Ingraham’s rhetorical strategies largely depend on emotional appeals using strong language, as well as personal attacks, misrepresentations of opponents’ positions, and exaggerations. She frequently resorts to personal insults, directly targeting political opponents like Congressman Dan Goldman with condescending remarks such as “What a dope.” This approach avoids meaningful debate and attempts to shame opponents, a strategy that often resonates with an audience already predisposed to dislike the politician. She constructs misrepresentations of opponents’ arguments, framing her points as distorted versions of what they would say, making it easy to refute them, like when she claims, “For Democrats, the illegals are the innocent victims; ICE are the criminals.” Her speech contains exaggerated and extreme emotional language, as this type of rhetoric aims to stir strong feelings and reinforce a sense of righteous anger in her audience. Ingraham’s success stems from her ability to legitimize and maximize her audience’s existing discontent and political grievances through stories that vilify opponents, creating a sense of moral confirmation for her viewers.

Finally, the main tactic he uses is emotional appeal because the segment employs humor and mockery to strongly connect with viewers’ feelings. Ronnie Chieng addresses deportation in another “Last Week Tonight” segment, asserting that the Trump administration’s policies show a blatant disregard for due process through dishonest tactics, such as presenting forged evidence that unfairly affects innocent individuals, consistently crossing legal and ethical lines. His audience consists mostly of liberal-leaning, educated viewers looking for validation of their critical views toward the Trump administration and a clearer, sometimes humorous understanding of the absurdity of these policies. These viewers often watch cable for good entertainment they can receive other than from free channels, and he uses this type of humor to target a large audience, furthering his point across while appealing to their emotions (pathos). For example, Al’s character uses absurdity to create both discomfort and laughter when discussing being deported to a war-torn country, making statements like “they took Baby Fufu; he was just a baby” and “I bought myself a hut with a guest hut.” These exaggerated narratives aim to evoke sympathy for real migrants sent to dangerous places. The dark comedy in the South Sudan scene, where Al is attacked with machetes, conveys an underlying sense of urgency and danger amid the humor. By mockingly quoting “Gestapo Hype Reel 3.0,” which ironically challenges authority, the video also raises doubts about the government’s legitimacy. Al, the speaker who “self-deports” despite being a citizen, mocks the system by stating, “$1,000 in what looks like South Sudan…I am living large,” highlighting the absurdity of the policy. These rhetorical choices aim to engage viewers accustomed to late-night satire and effectively connect with an audience that appreciates humorous critiques of political issues. The creators manage to make serious commentary more enjoyable and convincing by acknowledging that the audience expects humor and irony, showing how rhetoric changes based on the viewer.

Overall, the arguments made by Laura Ingraham, John Oliver, and FOX News about immigration and deportation highlight the significant role rhetorical devices play in persuading audiences. John Oliver mostly uses emotional appeal and humor, backed by logical reasoning, to rally his liberal audience against deportation. In contrast, Ingraham and FOX News effectively use credibility and emotional appeal, supported by some logic, to gain support for Trump’s immigration policy among conservatives. This illustrates that a speaker’s comprehensive understanding of how to communicate and insight into their audience’s values are what make persuasive techniques effective, rather than just their strategies. Effective persuasion in public speaking lies in the speaker’s ability to connect facts, credibility, and appeals with the beliefs and feelings of the people they wish to persuade.

Works Cited

Chieng, Ronnie. “America Has a Self-Deportation Option and Al Madrigal Can’t Wait!” The 

Daily Show, YouTube. 23 May 2025. https://youtu.be/3tNV7wjag6U?si=27zB_mHC47g1aS9x. Access date 3 July 2025.

“Exclusive: ICE Arrests Illegal Migrants Accused of Murder and Child Rape,” Fox News, 

YouTube, 30 May 2025, https://youtu.be/frMoY8wISl4?si=uyFp_1WcwUzNSCiT. Access date 3 July 2025.

Ingraham, Laura. “‘PLAYING WITH FIRE’: Dems Victimize Criminals and Villainize ICE, 

Laura Ingraham Say,” FoxNews, YouTube June 2025, https://youtu.be/vfk1f1o8mFw?si=Vc0qFzlDZagDxia1. Access date 3 July 2025.

Oliver, John. “Trump & Deportations: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HB0),”  4 May 

2025, YouTube,https://youtu.be/F2hN3JKZ-Go?si=vONjxQjCcC8lAw2Y, Access date 3 July 2025.