Johanna Was In The Midst Of Preparing Her Speech She Did It ✓ Solved

Johanna Was In The Midst Of Preparing Her Speech Shed Done The Resea

Johanna was in the midst of preparing her speech. She’d done the research and found a number of great sources for her speech. The specific purpose of her speech was to persuade a group of wildlife experts to step up their help for saving the water channel between the islands of Maui and Lanai, an area where humpback whales migrate during the winter to give birth. Johanna had a very strong first point and a strong third point, but she just couldn’t shake the fact that her middle point really was underdeveloped and not as strong as the other two. In fact, the middle point was originally going to be her last point, but when her research went bust she ultimately downgraded the point and sandwiched it in between the other two.

Now that she looked at her second point, she realized that the sources weren't credible and the point should probably be dropped. In the back of Johanna’s head, she heard that small voice reminding her of the fact that most audiences don’t remember the middle of the speech, so it really won’t matter anyway.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Addressing the ethical considerations and strategic decisions in speech preparation, particularly when dealing with underdeveloped or less credible content, involves understanding the principles of honesty, integrity, and audience trust. Johanna’s situation exemplifies common dilemmas faced by speakers: whether to include weak or questionable information or to omit it altogether, balancing persuasive intent with ethical responsibility.

Ethics of Using Underdeveloped Main Points

It is generally considered unethical to present a main point that the speaker knows is underdeveloped, misleading, or unsupported by credible evidence. According to communication ethics, honesty with the audience is paramount (Beauchamp, 2018). Deliberately including weak or incomplete points can distort the audience’s understanding and undermine trust. If Johanna knowingly presents an underdeveloped point, she risks deceiving her listeners to strengthen her argument superficially. This compromises her integrity and sets a dangerous precedent for responsible communication. While it might be tempting to bolster a speech with weak points to maintain structure, doing so without proper development or credible evidence can diminish the overall quality and credibility of the presentation (Murphy & Hesson, 2007). Ethical speaking entails transparency about the strength and limitations of the evidence provided, even if that means reworking segments of the speech.

Inclusion of Less Credible Information in a Speech

Purposefully including less credible information, especially in a critical part of the speech like the middle, is ethically dubious. The "serial position effect" indicates that audiences are more likely to remember the beginning and the end of a speech, while the middle tends to be less memorable (Murdock, 1962). This cognitive bias may tempt speakers to sacrifice credibility in the middle segment, assuming it’s less impactful. However, ethically, a speaker should not intentionally include information known to be less credible. Misrepresenting facts—even for strategic reasons—can erode trust and damage the speaker’s reputation. Moreover, misinformation can have real-world consequences, especially on important issues like wildlife conservation, where accurate information can inform policy and community action (Druckman et al., 2013). Ethical communication requires a commitment to truthfulness and the responsible presentation of information, regardless of perceived memorability or strategic positioning.

What Johanna Should Do

If I were Johanna, I would prioritize honesty and integrity over strategic manipulation. First, I would revisit my research and seek additional credible sources to strengthen my middle point or consider removing or rephrasing it. If the evidence is weak or unreliable, it is better to omit the point than to include questionable information. Transparency with my audience builds trust and enhances my credibility (Fisher, 1984). Moreover, I would focus on framing my strongest points with compelling storytelling and supporting data, ensuring that each claim is well-founded. If necessary, I could reorganize my speech to emphasize the strongest points at the beginning and end, which are more memorable, leaving the middle less critical or more generalized. This approach aligns with ethical communication standards and maximizes the effectiveness and integrity of the speech (Seeger, 2006). Additionally, acknowledging the limitations of my research, if appropriate, can demonstrate humility and honesty, strengthening my rapport with the audience.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ethical speech-making involves honesty, responsibility, and a commitment to providing accurate information. Using underdeveloped or less credible points solely for strategic reasons is ethically problematic and can erode trust. It is better to strengthen, reframe, or omit such points, ensuring the speech remains truthful and effective. As Johanna’s case illustrates, prioritizing credibility and ethical responsibility ultimately leads to more persuasive and trustworthy communication, especially on critical issues such as wildlife conservation.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L. (2018). Ethical theory and edge cases in communication. Journal of Communication Ethics, 12(3), 169-183.
• Druckman, J. N., et al. (2013). The importance of fact-based communication in political contexts. Political Communication, 30(4), 525-547.
• Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narrative fidelity: A theory of story in public communication. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22.
• Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482-488.
• Murphy, J., & Hesson, S. (2007). Effective public speaking: Strategies and ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-248.