​

 

 

 

 

 

 

After Gainor’s comments, Bolling then turns to two more experts for answers to his looming question.  And perhaps in an attempt to appear impartial or “fair-minded” in his presentation of his argument, Bolling not only brings on another right-wing colleague and Fox News correspondent, Andrea Tantaros, but he also brings on Professor Caroline Heldman, Ph.D., to represent the opposing perspective.  However, it becomes clear even in the introduction of the two women what Bolling thinks about them. He dryly mentions that “Caroline Heldman is back” in a monotone in between warmly thanking Dan Gainor for his contributions and gleefully introducing his “fantastic co-host” Andrea Tantaros. It is interesting that he neither applies nor mentions the professor, doctor, or Ph.D. moniker with Heldman, but he gushes over Tantaros and even jokes with her to establish camaraderie and demonstrate that they represent the same view point. This siding with Tantaros and nominal slight toward Heldman could be an attempt to discredit Heldman or to disestablish her ethos or “fair-mindedness” to the audience before she even gets a chance to make an argument. He also allows Tantaros to speak first, which furthers his argument and she, like Gainor, serves as a mouthpiece for his main argument when she quickly responds with “it is brainwashing in the most obvious form,” even though he only asked her what was going on and not if it was brainwashing.

Tantaros continues her parroting dialogue as Bolling uses her to employ pathetic appeals that play on the audience’s fears and their love of children. Bolling plays into the conceptual framework of conservatives and dons the role of caring and protective father (Lakoff) and asks, “why do kids have to be exposed to this?” and she answers that “because liberals don’t care.” She consistently represents liberals as predators and claims that she wishes that “liberals would just leave little kids alone” instead of trying to “indoctrinate the children at a young age.” By establishing liberals as predators, Tantaros and Bolling hope to capitalize on the conservative view of protecting children and appeal to their audience’s emotions. Tantaros also attempts to create a syllogism at the end of her argument, but may have missed the mark. She mentions, “Tex Richman—that’s the American dream—to work hard and be successful.” The syllogism that she is attempting to create would be: the American dream is good; Tex Richman represents the American dream; therefore, Tex Richman is good. However, it seems a stretch to think that everyone’s American dream would be to be an oil tycoon; to be successful in its varying degrees, yes; but to be a villainous tycoon, perhaps not.

            Although Tantaros monopolizes this portion of the news segment, Heldman is able to bring in the opposing perspective for brief moments. However, whenever Heldman holds the floor and attempts to make her point, she is either interrupted or discredited by Tantaros, by Bolling, or by both.  Heldman suggests that instead of an oil tycoon, perhaps the Muppets should have used a financial services sector tycoon, but that comment is summarily denied by Bolling who says “I gotta stop you right there,” and he redirects it to back to kids being exposed to a liberal agenda. At this point, he also refers to Heldman as “Doc,” which may be an attempt to minimize or even mock her title and ultimately discredit her ethos and what she is trying to say. This explicit dismissal occurs later in the dialogue when Tantaros accuses the liberals of attempting to indoctrinate the children at a young age and Heldman replies that marketers, including mega-corporation McDonald’s, have been manipulating children for decades. Bolling then scoffs and dismisses Heldman’s comparison with “‘cause in one hand, you’re talking about a Happy Meal with a toy and in the other hand, you’re talking about a huge ideological sea change.” In this particular section of the dialogue, Bolling employs logos by attempting to poke holes in the logic of Heldman’s argument and show that her supporting evidence has no logical basis. Bolling continues this dismissal in the same fashion as he introduced the two women because he made sure to thank Tantaros, but did not extend the same gesture to Heldman. By exposing her lack of logic and discrediting Heldman both as a person and what she stands for, he therefore builds up the foundation of his argument without having to explicitly lay out his own argument point by point.

            Although the majority of Bolling’s argument is parroted through his conservative commentators and is revealed by his disdain for Heldman, he does make one final point to the audience with a fiercely delivered, “we’re teaching our kids class warfare! Where are we? Communist China?” By using this alarmist utterance as his final point, Bolling makes a final appeal to his audience that may in fact appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos. By invoking the image of Communist China, Bolling appeals to the audience’s fear and, for some people, intense dislike of Communist China and what it stands for: totalitarian control. Aside from playing on the audience’s fear’s and predilections, he also appeals to their logic by using the underlying syllogism: class warfare leads to Communism; liberals use class warfare; therefore liberals are creating Communism in America. The Communist China comment may also serve as an attempt to establish ethos because it sets him apart or “others” him from the crazy liberals and communists, thereby establishing him as more “fair-minded” and credible.  Furthermore, he seems to take Aristotle’s advice that “examples from history are more useful…for future events will generally be like those of the past,” (Aristotle 163). Bolling wants his audience to fear that we may be repeating the past (albeit China’s past) if we continue in this type of class warfare that the liberals are creating. Although Bolling seems to add the Communist China remark as a joke at the end of the segment, it can be clear from both the argument he has created throughout the segment as well as his track-record with supposed jokes (such as his crack crack about Rep. Waters) that he intentionally made that connection for the audience. After this segment aired and the Muppets hit back by mocking the validity of the news that Fox News represents, Bolling retracted his anti-capitalist statements about the Muppets. However, he said nothing about his accusations against Hollywood or liberals in general. Perhaps by not saying anything to those offended entities, he was able to insult by ellipsis.

            Even though much of Bolling’s argument is created by what is not said, he also is sure to illustrate the underlying ideological framework of the conservative viewpoint through what he does say. Rene Descartes pointed out that “it is a very remarkable thing that there are no men, not even the insane, so dull and stupid, that they cannot put words together in a manner to convey their thoughts,” (Descartes 42) and Bolling most certainly falls into Descartes’ description. He demonstrates his allegiance as a card-carrying conservative by using the conservative rhetoric and showing that he believes in hard work with his parable of growing up “dirt poor,” that he wants to protect the children with his insistent questions about brainwashing, and that he fears liberals will cause the disintegration of what is American with his remark about Communist China. Bolling not only operates as a successful rhetor with what he says, but also by using what others say. Whether the pundit was liberal or conservative, he was able to exploit both sides of the argument to get his message across through discrediting the former and applauding the latter. Although Jim Henson’s fuzzy characters may rely on liberal Hollywood for animation and voice, it seems that Eric Bolling with his underlying agenda and parroting pundits is the ultimate puppet master.