Catherine Cerdedo

Dr. Aaron Zacks

Rhetoric of Guilty Pleasure

15 October 2013

Author Andrew Romano of Newsweek wrote an article, “The Way They Hook Us—For

13 Hours Straight” describing “why we are addicted to TV.” His argument throughout the article is about changes in “the way we watch” causing changes in the creation of TV shows, which plays into the already addictive properties of TV according to the way our brains function.

Basically, he is arguing exactly as the title suggests, that he has gathered the information to answer this question. He uses a combination of logos and ethos throughout his appeal, while appealing to our emotions, since most of his logical and character appeals tie into emotions we experience as viewers and the subjects of this article. That’s the key to this article; the author is speaking about the audience that is meant to read it. This lends to his argument, because many of his assertions do not need a reputable source; the general public already knows that a lot of people currently watch TV on Netflix and the reader may even watch Netflix. He also uses second person throughout giving the piece a more intimate and informal tone. First, he convinces us that TV has changed by giving us a history of what we’ve watched and how we’ve watched it, second, he gives us a personal story on how he was addicted to a TV show, and third, he gives us the science behind how we as human beings are wired to be addicted to TV, but especially the kind of TV that is currently airing.

Romero begins with an introduction on how the general public currently watches TV— namely Netflix, On-Demand, and a DVR. Then, he goes on to describe the most popular shows on TV right now—Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, etc. Introducing these two points leads to his next point: “How We Watch may be changing. But it’s changing What We

Watch as well.” This is a cause and effect argument, so it’s logical. We now watch TV shows all at one time rather than waiting once a week, hence TV shows are becoming more serialized and less episodic. He further supports this claim with the idea that these serialized shows are actually

“hyperserialized,” compared to their predecessors. While The Wire and The Sopranos were shows that needed to be watched in order, the plot of the show was secondary to the “intersection of characters and society.” Nowadays, with shows like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, the plot is just as essential as the characters. He says, “The bottom line is that binge watching is more than just a business story—more than just a story about new technologies and new modes of distribution. It’s really a story about the science of storytelling itself. Bingeing, it turns out, is how our brains want to watch television. And the best storytellers on TV are beginning to figure this out.” This logical argument is strengthened by his audience, once Romero points out this change we see it, since the average reader has probably seen a show from what he dubs “the

Golden Age predecessors” and one from today.

As we move on in the article, two charts are included: one compares “households viewing nontraditional TV” in 2007 and 2013 and the other compares “how people watch TV on delay” in 2009 and 2013. This is an ethos appeal to the logical argument I laid out above.

Romero is showing the audience the specific number of people that watch TV on something other than a TV and how people choose to delay TV. This rhetorical strategy is successful, because it visually confirms what the reader probably knew, or, if the reader was skeptical, this clears up any doubt that Romero is correct in saying that most of the public watches TV nontraditionally and delayed. The negative implications of hyperserialized TV is that its harder to become relevant or “breakthrough” into the business. Since we now know that the way we watch TV is making TV shows more serialized and suspenseful—the goal is to make these page turning shows good, or at least better, than the other shows vying for an audience. Next, the author explores an answer to what’s happening in our brains to make us addicted to these shows that are made for “binge-watching,” but not before giving the reader an anecdote about his own life.

Andrew Romero uses a combination of pathos and ethos appeals in this anecdote about his personal addiction to the TV show, Lost. His pathos appeal stems from this section being a personal anecdote in itself, but also from the language he employs. He starts the story with,

“Before we go any further I have a confession to make. My name is Andrew and I’m a Lost- aholic.” This introduction has a friendly and informal tone, as if he is our friend telling us a story, with the use of his first name and the “confession” nature of the statement. He then goes on to give details of the nature of being a Lost-aholic, how it included his wife, and even that he may have watched Lost at work. His ethos appeal stems from the credibility that follows after a personal connection is made with the audience. Now, the author is not just an anonymous writer from Newsweek, but Andrew, a Lost-aholic who binge-watched a TV show with his wife. This rhetorical strategy is successful, because we now see him as our friend, as someone we can trust, and as someone who understands us, his audience. He’s a Lost-aholic and maybe I am too, or maybe I’m a Breaking Bad-aholic, but either way the relationship is established, so the appeals were successful.

There is a significant jump after his story, where he begins with, “According to scientists, the reason an otherwise reasonable person like me can wind up devoting so much time to TV is simple: it feels good.” Now the audience is taken into the realm of scientific theories surrounding the addiction to TV. He uses logos and ethos as appeals in these paragraphs. There are various responses and mechanisms in our brains that contribute to being mesmerized by TV and feeling relaxed while we watch. These include the “orienting response” and “neurological activity” switching “from the left hemisphere to the right—that is, from the seat of logical thought to the seat of emotion. Whenever this shift takes place, my body is flooded with the natural opiates known as endorphins…” He cites a media studies professor and psychologist at one point, but he does not give any specific studies or scientists that have proposed or tested these theories. This is where his ethos strengthens his argument, since we trust the credibility of the author; we accept his assertions on these facts of science without clear sources. Also, the ethos of Newsweek plays a role in the believability of this section. The reader might assume that a national magazine would check these sources and would not feel the need to question the scientific assertions made.

Again, Romero knows his audience and his rhetoric is simple and concise—the scientific jargon is accessible after he explains it. This continues to be helpful when he talks about what kind of

TV shows make for a more attentive audience. A study by Hasson called “neurocinematics” meaning “the neurobiological study of how films interact with the brain.” People were shown three film clips and their brain activity was measure to see which clip people reacted to the same.

The study found that Alfred Hitchcock’s “Bang! You’re Dead” got the most unanimous response. Hasson’s conclusion was: “the more “controlling” the director—the more structured the film—the more attentive the audience.” This is another rhetorical strategy in logic—further showing the reader that Romero is really answering the question of why we are addicted to TV.

The last section of his piece includes interviews or correspondence with Carlton Cuse, the showrunner of Lost, Beau Willimon, the head writer for House of Cards, and Mitch Hurwitz, the creator of Arrested Development. This rhetorical strategy has more ethical and emotional appeals. These shows were all extremely successful and these were the leaders for the creation or vision of each show. Romero personally communicated with Carlton Cuse and Mitch Hurwitz, further strengthening his ethos and supporting his argument that even if we don’t believe him for his reasoning behind “why we’re addicted to TV”—we should believe these experts. He also argues that this move towards serialized television is bettering TV by using the example of

House of Cards. The creators were given a commitment of two seasons right away from Netflix and then the first season was released all at once on February 1st. He follows with, “According to internal Netflix data, thousands of subscribers finished all 13 episodes in the first 14 hours after the show debuted online—the ultimate testament to its Hyperserial appeal.” New innovations in technology could lead to new innovations in the creation of television.

Andrew Romero successfully convinces his audience that the reasons he presents are

“why we are addicted to TV.” His use of pathos, ethos, and logos are persuasive because he stays connected to his audience. The changes in viewing and creation of television coupled with our physical responses to TV seems to make it impossible not to be addicted to TV.