This video is a perfect example of one reason I want to study the rhetoric of social issues for grad school next year. If you have ever caught an interview on The O’Reilly Factor, you have seen many of the same techniques that are applied in this video. Note the following rhetorical devices:
0:05 Introducing guest as “the original tree-hugger" rather than as a PhD holding, trained physicist who has published over 20 books. More importantly, what is the significance of the “tree-hugger" anecdote in context of the interview?
0:33 "…is that a naive worldview?" [Naive (adj) - having or showing lack of experience.] Interviewer neglects to mention statistical evidence that the argument possesses. The term ‘worldview’ limits the scope of the argument and carries connotations. The significance of this and the previous bullet-point is that the introduction is typically the only part of an interview in which interviewers can speak freely about interviewees without the latter being able to defend themselves. (Also true for squeezing in statements before cutting to commercial breaks.)
1:25 - Interviewee addresses the “tree-hugger" statement despite the interviewers attempts to circumvent
4:30 “You are blaming the seed companies […] for suicides." The word ‘blame’ attempts to diminish the logical integrity of interviewees argument to which she replies “I am first and foremost a scientist," following up with figures.
9:56 “So you accept that cotton yields have doubled." Interviewer reaffirms what the interviewee has already stated but does so in a way that suggests admission to the counterargument. Interviewer also does not acknowledge the details that interviewee just provided which change the circumstances in which any admission would be relevant. An analogy would be if I were to say “I got beat up and my wallet was stolen, but I made it home in time to watch the game," as though catching the game somehow negates the previous statement.
14:04 “Are you seriously saying that…" The interviewer uses the word ‘seriously’ multiple times throughout the interview in an attempt to diminish the interviewee’s argument. ‘Seriously’ implies that it is an absurd impossibility to implement what interviewee is suggesting - which could be appropriate if it were supported with evidence that it were either absurd or impossible.
14:05 “India should go back to…" Interviewer uses the word ‘back’ to suggest that the proposition is somehow the opposite of the contemporary idea of progress (i.e., technological advancement). Interviewee had to repeatedly state that the proposition does not mean to revert or go back to any previous state.
20:15 - Can be interpreted as an indirect ad hominem attack directed at the interviewee’s economic status. It is significant that the interviewer says “those who say to you…" This is either an earnest attempt to persuade the interviewee to defend herself, or a clever way to attack her background.
Also note the interviewer’s nonverbal communication throughout the video. She often expresses looks of disbelief, of humoring the interviewee, and asks things like “are you seriously saying that…" with a smile; leading the viewer to think the suggestion is laughable.
I was about to post the article below separately, but the connections between it and the reblogged post above are interesting:
http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/