Global Warming Wars: Discourse Analytic Approaches to Exxon Mobils Corporate Public Discourse by Levsey - Article Example

Global warming wars: Rhetorical and dis analytic approaches to Exxon Mobil’s corporate public dis (Levsey, 2002). Introduction: This paper conducts a thorough review and critical analysis of the report written by (Livesey, 2002) in which he draws a comparison of the two approaches namely the Rhetoric and Discourse analytic approaches to study their role in business communication, by studying the writings produced by the ExxonMobil on the matter of climatic change. The link to the online version of this article is mentioned in the references section. In the following text, first Levsey’s article is summarized briefly. The summary is followed by a critical analysis of the validity of the concepts introduced by the author in the very article and their strengths and weaknesses are analysed. Finally, the analysis is concluded and Levsey’s attempt to increase our understanding of the public relations is complimented. Summary of the article: In the beginning, Levsey explained the rhetoric and discourse analytic perspectives with reference to the work of Burke and Foucault respectively to give the reader a general sense of the two analytic approaches. The explanation of rhetoric and discourse analytic approaches was followed by the arousal and development of a climate safety concern which was threatened by the unsafe and unhygienic functioning of the oil industry all over the world as discovered by a few scientists a few decades before. Levsey referred to four articles published by the ExxonMobil company in The New York Times in the months of March and April in the year 2000, in view of not only clarifying its position in response to the claims raised by the environmentalists who held the emission of CO2 by the oil companies as the major cause of global warming and negative climatic changes over the past few years, but also transforming the readers’ opinion in favor of the corporation by claiming that the uninterrupted functionality of oil companies is vital for a country’s development and economic health. ExxonMobil referred to the advancement in technology as the most ethical approach toward the issue by arguing that the climatic changes can be controlled through technology, but ending the world’s technological journey as would be if the oil companies stopped to function, in view of saving climate would be not rational. While analyzing the four advertorials, Levsey pointed toward the specific words or phrases which in his view, facilitated the readers’ psychological inclination toward accepting the corporation’s argument and argued that the texts employed Slanted language to mould the public’s opinion in the favor of Exxon mobile with respect to climatic change. After that, Levsey made a discourse analysis of the same text to highlight the wider influence of the ExxonMobil’s advertorials on the socio-political scenario. He argued that by linking the matter to business, ExxonMobil helped the development of an environment – business conflict in general. The advertorials have in a way, convinced the critiques to think that interrupting oil companies’ business would mean interrupting the process of sustainable development, and this would not be a wise approach toward controlling climatic change, because of its adverse effects on the economy. Critical analysis: The rhetoric analysis of a text refers to an in-depth study of the text to work out how the author has developed his text so that it would convey his point effectively to the reader and make him think the same way as intended by the author. “A rhetorical analysis requires you to apply your critical reading skills in order to “break down” a text.” (Short, 2007). (Fulcher, 2005) refers to discourse analysis as the one which is a means of perceiving social interactions. By clearly mentioning the occasions, durations, socio-political background and mood of the text of the four advertorials, the author has done justice to the explanation of both types of analytic approaches. Levsey has himself at times made use of Slanted language to make the reader believe him and agree to his approach toward analyzing the four advertorials published by the ExxonMobil. Though the author has developed the chain of events in a very systematic manner to show how the issue of climatic change rose. The argument is supported by facts and figures. The article provides a very sound information that can be very useful for somebody who is looking for historical contributions of UN toward climate control. American contribution in supporting the UN mission in comparison to other countries is explained sufficiently to give the reader a clear understanding of her increased interest in the value of her economy in relation to the resulting adverse effects on the climate, for the proceedings of the UN did not go much in favour of the American economy which largely depended on the business of oil. “At the time targets were set, few countries had a clear understanding of what meeting those targets would mean in economic terms. Congress feared that Kyoto would cause undue damage to the US economy.” (Bradley, 2009). The use of complex and complicated words to illustrate the two analytic approaches sound professional but the report could have been even better had the language been keep simple. The complex language keeps an average person from fully grasping the concept that the author tried to develop or the message he tried to convey. Besides, the difficult words limit the number of readers only to good linguists. However, the report is very informative for understanding readers. Overall, the article provides good sense of both rhetoric and discourse analysis of text, as well as reveal how important it is for a company to acquire good public relations. Conclusion: Levsey has tried to prove that ExxonMobil has attempted to safeguard its interests by exaggerating the positive aspects of oil business and nullifying the ways in which that business is affecting the climate due to its unsafe practices. The fact is that everything has both positive and negative aspects. Accordingly, deciding in favor of either of the two parties i.e. ExxonMobil and environmentalists) would not be quite rational. It is true that once we conduct the rhetoric and discourse analysis of the ExxonMobil’s advertorials, we get the sense that the text has been developed strategically so as to project ExxonMobil’s point of view. But that is not wrong. Every author tries to project his / her own view in the text he / she writes and that is the way the text gains sense. The environmentalists also would have made their own point in their reports, that is why ExxonMobil chose to make an explanation. Therefore, I consider rhetoric writing right and an effective way of delivering a convincing speech, but I insist that the approach should only be used to support ethical causes, and not personal interests. From a sociological point of view, ExxonMobil owed the critiques an explanation and rightly chose to publish its approach toward the issue. Also, communication is an effective means of developing public relations. But, ExxonMobil should understand the potential hazards caused by the unsafe practices employed in the business of oil, and should cooperate with the environmentalists in their attempt of finding a solution to the issue. By nullifying the findings of the environmentalists and the researchers without a reasonable justification, ExxonMobil would incur bad public relations. Accordingly, ExxonMobil is facing tough times as reported by (www.npr.org, 2006). “Its profits are huge but there were protestors at the companys yearly shareholder meeting, and today the government is expected to ask the company for more money to clean up the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.” (www.npr.org, 2006). References: Bradley, R., 2009. “Green and Mean: Can the U.S. Economy Be Both Climate Friendly and Competitive?”. Available at: http://www.wri.org/publication/green-and-mean. [Accessed: 19 April 2010]. Fulcher. E., 2005. “What is discourse analysis?”. Available at: http://www.eamonfulcher.com/discourse_analysis.html. [Accessed: 19 April 2010]. Levsey, S. M., 2002. “Global Warming Wars: Rhetorical and Discourse Analytic Approaches to Exxonmobils Corporate Public Discourse”. Journal of Business Communication, 39 (1), pp. 117 – 146. Available at: http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/117 [Accessed: 19 April 2010]. Short, L., 2007. “What in the world is a rhetorical analysis?” NC State University. [PDF]. Available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/tutorial_center/writespeak/download/RhetoricalAnalysis.pdf. [Accessed: 19 April 2010]. www,npr.org, 2006. “Marketplace Report: Exxon Mobils PR Troubles”. Available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5444757. [Accessed: 19 April 2010]. Read More