Rhetorical Analysis of the Debate over Mask Mandates During the Coronavirus Pandemic
Emma Kief
Instructor’s Introduction
This short rhetorical analysis was the first major assignment given to students in my WR 152 course on Medical Debates. This course has always started with a rhetorical analysis of some kind, but during Covid it was clear that all of us, especially the students, needed to openly discuss all the many debates directly related to the pandemic as we tried to continue our academic journey. This assignment asked students to look objectively at the cacophony of voices in the public sphere debating everything from mask wearing to church going. Ms. Kief chose to focus on the very vocal and virulent debate about mandatory mask wearing and she found several public documents from participants in this debate. She did an excellent job analyzing the different rhetorical techniques used by these participants and placing them within the context of the pandemic and the heightened political divide. By identifying how these voices were using rhetoric to shape the opinions of the public, Ms. Kief was able to take back some control during a chaotic time.
Rebecca Kinraide
Rhetorical Analysis of the Debate over Mask Mandates During the Coronavirus Pandemic
As our nation faces the Covid-19 pandemic, widespread illness is not all the country faces. In troubling times when people are losing their jobs, their lifestyles, and their loved ones, many would hope that it would bring everyone together in solidarity, but instead we find ourselves a nation especially divided. Debates are widespread over each new sanction enacted, whether it be state-wide lockdowns, businesses asked to close their doors, or the ban on public gatherings over a certain number of people. One of the most rampant debates lies in this question: “To mask or not to mask?” This debate, like many others surrounding the Coronavirus, has been expanded far beyond its premise of simply wearing a face-covering. It has evolved into a question of free-will and passivity for some, while evolving into a question of selflessness and community-safety for others. At its heart, it has been turned into a partisan debate. In analyzing the rhetoric in favor of wearing masks and against wearing masks, the presence of extensively differing techniques can be found. Those in favor of wearing masks tend to use logic, reasoning, and credibility to back their argument, as they present scientific evidence and experimental data regarding the relationship of the spread of the virus and mask-wearing. Meanwhile, those against the mask-sanction appeal to emotions, stirring up feelings of fear towards government control as well as questioning the trustworthiness of medical experts supporting the mask mandate. Those who argue in support of mask wearing have a much steeper slope to climb, as they must convince the public to change their daily lives, to leave their routine behind and accept that they are living in a new world. Supporters must also face the mass misinformation that has spread and taken hold just as much as the virus has.
The scientific community is the primary leader of the mask supporting group. The two most prominent rhetorical elements they employ are ethos, establishing credibility, and logos, presenting evidence from a multitude of studies and analyses to support their argument. While addressing misinformation, scientists find themselves having to defend their claims against conspiracy theories and “fake news”. They’re faced with an uphill battle as they try to convince those who believe these misinformation campaigns that what they have been told is wrong, without ostracizing these groups or losing them in the actual science. They address the public in a way that can be easily understood by the general population. In an article published by the American Medical Association, five doctors across all fields of medicine shared what they thought was most important for the public to know about mask wearing. Presenting the titles and positions of each doctor helped to establish their credibility on this medical topic. Information was presented such as, “if 95% of Americans wore masks, the expected U.S. death toll between [August] and November 1st would be cut by nearly 34,000 cases.”1 While this statistic is one of the many that should be able to convince anti-maskers that wearing face-coverings will contribute to curbing this pandemic and bringing it to an end, it actually highlights one of the main weaknesses in the mask-mandate debate. It is merely a hypothetical, as there hasn’t been enough time for much solid scientific research on Covid-19 to be conducted. This virus swept the world at such a wild pace that scientists themselves have struggled to keep up with understanding it as it evolves, and their research can only be completed so fast. This leads to the confusion the public is feeling and also contributes to mistrust in the research, as recommendations made one week can be advised against the very next. However, as far as the mask debate goes, medical professionals don’t see much latitude for questions about the protection a mask provides. This presents as problematic in statements such as, “It’s very straightforward. If you’re indoors anywhere, so the grocery store, (…), those are all scenarios where you should be wearing a mask.”2 Use of wording such as “straightforward” can actually act against the scientific community’s stance as it implies that the concept of mask-wearing should be easily understood, which can make the general public feel snubbed or talked down to.
The opponents of mask mandates tend to employ different techniques to gain support for their ideas. Many employ appeal to emotion, inciting fear of government control. Others, sometimes subtly and sometimes outright, use attacks on the credibility and intentions of those campaigning for universal mask-wearing. Fox News is on the forefront of those questioning the usefulness of masks and the trustworthiness of those who preach their use, saying in one article, “It’s also the hallmark of the people who lead us. They know nothing.”3 They present the government as rash actors, claiming that they think they “speak God’s word”4 and never acknowledge when they “are completely wrong.”5 They want the public to question the credibility of the medical community and the government and employ Argumentum ad Hominem logical fallacies to support their claims. They also choose their words in a way that ridicules people who wear masks, asserting that those people believe masks are “magic (…), a holy amulet that protects us from disease.”6 There is an obvious bias present in this argument, both against the government and against the concept of wearing a mask. While these techniques may appeal less to logic, they do succeed in appealing to human nature, that is by questioning something that changes daily life and pushes people out of the comfort zone. Fox News is also known for its tendency towards opinion pieces that oppose any kind of government restriction and this bias is seen in their writing regarding the mask debate.
While the debate has become partisan, many people do not see masks as a political statement. They see them as live-saving devices, protection for their loved ones, themselves, and the whole community. This argument is among the most effective, as it heavily appeals to emotion and human desire to protect family at all costs, as well as urges people to act selflessly. Videos that play into these emotions often contain charged images of intubated children and elderly as well as healthy adults struggling for their lives in the hospital. The Centers for Disease Control produced a short video asking doctors and patients alike why they wear masks.7 Showing a mother holding her six-month-old baby on her hip, the video established that the virus affects everyone, not just the elderly and at-risk. One father stated, “I wear a mask because I want to feel safe sending my kids to school.”8 Another shared, “I’ve grown fond of seeing people smiling with their eyes.”9 These statements highlight just how hard this virus has hit everyone across the world, and how daily life has changed. It plays into our desire to return to normal, and implies that by wearing masks, we can do so. Videos such as these are gauged towards the general public. They do not show statistics and scientific fact, rather they aim to be bias-free and touch the hearts of the people watching them in order to change their minds and convince them to wear masks.
The mask debate is multi-faceted, it does not just regard the scientific debate about the efficacy of preventing the spread of Covid-19. It has morphed into a political statement and a question of the adequacy of the medical research across the world. The supporters of mask mandates employ a multitude of rhetorical tools and have scientific facts to back up their claims. They can employ appeal to emotions just as successfully as appeal to logic, but supporters still face a strong resistance. Mass misinformation campaigns and mistrust in the government allow sources like Fox News to play off the emotions of many Americans and yield logical fallacies and biases to their advantage so they can discredit the argument for masks. For supporters to successfully address the audience of non-supporters and convince them to wear face-covering, they must adopt a feeling of compassion for the confusion misinformation has caused and create an atmosphere where people can grow and learn, instead of being ridiculed.
1 Sara Berg, “The 6 things doctors wish patients knew about masks,” American Medical Association, August 21, 2020.
2 Sara Berg, “The 6 things doctors.”
3 Tucker Carlson, “Tucker Carlson: The Cult of Mask-Wearing Grows, with No Evidence They Work,” Fox News, October 14, 2020.
4 Tucker Carlson, “The Cult of Mask-Wearing.”
5 Tucker Carlson, “The Cult of Mask-Wearing.”
6 Tucker Carlson, “The Cult of Mask-Wearing.”
7 “I Wear a Mask Because…,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2020.
8 “I Wear a Mask Because…”
9 “I Wear a Mask Because…”
Works Cited
Berg, Sara. “The 6 things doctors wish patients knew about masks.” American Medical Association, August 21, 2020. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/6-things-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-masks.
Carlson, Tucker. “Tucker Carlson: The Cult of Mask-Wearing Grows, with No Evidence They Work.” Fox News, October 14, 2020. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-cult-of-mask-wearing.
“I Wear a Mask Because….” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Department of Health and Human Services, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/i-wear-a-mask-because.html#print.
Emma Kief is a sophomore from Connecticut studying human physiology on the pre-medical track. As she approached this work, she was hoping to understand the complexities of the mask debate at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. At Boston University, it was made clear to all of the students and faculty what was expected of them regarding Covid guidelines on campus. Emma was so thankful to be allowed to be on campus and have some in-person classes, so it confused her that there was such a large population of anti-maskers at other schools and in general. She chose to explore the rhetoric of the mask debate in the hopes of understanding the reasoning behind the other side, so that she could be better educated in all aspects of the first of many divides sparked by this pandemic.