Walking down graffiti basted walls in a back alleyway of a Canadian city, Rick Mercer is ranting again. His arms gesture us into his conversation as he speaks, his mannerisms are overall inviting and informal. Mercer speaks at a fast pace, using a variety of different comedic and sarcastic approaches to capture his audience. Many different camera angles are utilized as the camera man struggles to keep up with him. This relatively fast pace approach is just fast enough to keep the audience listening and just slow enough that they can follow what he is saying. Periodically Mercer stops and turns to the camera to speak, allowing time for the camera man to catch up. This stop-go walking style adds to how his mood is portrayed by the audience.
The topic of today’s discussion is centered around the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his decision to initiate a giant panda captive breeding program within his nation's boundaries. “Rental pandas” were purchased with $10 million worth of Canadian government funds which Mercer sarcastically implies could have been used towards other more important matters (his examples include: paying off national debt, increasing funding to help supply jobs for young people, or improvements for aboriginal schools); a red herring in Mercers argument.
The importance of this panda investment to Stephen Harper is demonstrated by his presence during the pandas’ arrival. As noted by Mercer this was one of only three times in which the prime minister went out of his way to be present for an event (the other two were to meet Obama and the Queen) (this is an example of appeal to authority). CBC’s proactive news coverage of the event was astonishing to Mercer who seemed to imply that this extent of coverage is rare and would have been useful during more important events of the past (i.e. landing on the moon and the end of WW2). Such criticism to CBC has only some evidence to back it and as a result is an example of stereotyping.
Mercer’s comedic nature is important to holding his audiences attention. Mercer uses inflection often when making sarcastic remarks in order to cue the audience in on his actual stance and opinion. Aside from sarcasm, cheek-in-tongue humor (a joke about John Muir is one noteworthy example, which serves as an additional appeal to authority) is another common theme throughout his rant.
Though towards the beginning of the clip, Mercer claims he is in favor of the captive breeding program (he is a fan of pandas and thinks it is “cool” that the pandas will be breeding in Canada), at the close of his argument he appears to be in opposition to his original stance (particularly when he mentions more logical ideas for money expenditure). Both of these stances are lined with sarcastic tones, making Mercers personal stance appear flimsy and unclear. However, by presenting both stances within this clip Mercer draws in a diverse audience which includes those people who: believe the money should have been invested elsewhere (i.e. the economy of Canada: schools, debt, jobs); are wildlife enthusiasts who see the effort as a step in the right direction for conservation; are wildlife activists believing that panda transport was unnecessary and was not in the pandas best interests.
The Panda is a very charismatic species who many people view as adorable and conservation worthy. As a result, Mercer’s choice in topic for this clip automatically appeals to pathos. Mercer also introduces pathos with his mention of the pandas journey from Chengdu, China to Toronto, Canada. He does this by vaguely describing the transport process in which pandas are fed bamboo laced with Benzodiazepine and shipped to Toronto where they awake to a crowd of noisy, rambunctious people who harass them, and amongst this crowd is Stephen Harper (which is an attack on Stephen Harper's character and an appeal to authority). This description makes us feel a bit bad for the pandas because the whole movement and reintroduction process to the new surroundings and handlers can be a stressful ordeal (appeals to pathos by playing on our emotions; appeals to ethos because it makes us question whether this was the right way of helping the species. By presenting this idea, Mercer's argument is in some ways truthful, but he creates a logical fallacy with his approach by oversimplifying the transportation process and he leaves out information which could change the argument. The panda’s were of course transported with excessive care and consideration as an endangered species and stress factors were likely very minimal. Mercer's argument does not do justice to this process.
As a rant, this video reaches diverse audiences and though fairly vague is able to portray big concepts in a simplified manner. This can be good and bad. The use of sarcasm also makes ideas unclear at times so it is important for viewers to do their own research pertaining to the topic. The rant serves as more of an introduction or wrap of the topic than anything for the public.
Though from a conservation perspective, Canada’s involvement with these pandas is a step in the right direction, the fact that Canada is spending so much money on other countries endangered species rather than its own is odd to me. However, it is good that ties between Canada and China are being strengthened and having these ties centered around conservation issues could be considered a good thing from an environmental perspective.
