For centuries hoaxes have been around, manifesting in our daily lives without realizing it. They have tricked so many into believing their ridiculous tales. So if they are obviously not true and are completely farfetched, why is it that people are still susceptible to believing their lies? The answer lies in a series of tactics used to manipulate us.
In the case of the New SeaWorld Show, which reportedly displayed an elephant drowning in its water tank, the hoax was made believable through the use of pathos, where the writers appealed to the audience’s emotional state, through phrases such as “…thrashed around…trying to get out…And then it drowned…” These words are strong and draw the attention of the reader, making the reader want to find out more about the story and if such a horrific thing is possible. People are often drawn to dramatic phrasing and stories, even if at first they deem it impossible, no one can stray away from their curious side, which begs them to dig further into the story. Once further engulfed, the reader becomes more involved in the story and finds it more believable subconsciously.
Furthermore, this story provides a variety of credibility, making the reading sound more factual and hence plausible. The writer provides a number of witness accounts “… visitor, Katie Hayes, 32 who attended the 1pm…” Through names, numbers and times, we are forced into believing the story as facts are laid out. It also adds a personal touch, where the reader is able to identify with the witness or ‘people’ in the story and creates a connection. The writer also includes “…12 000-pound animal reportedly…” this adds even more detail allowing the audience to create a better imagery of the scene, making it more realistic.
The text makes the hoax believable by portraying a very serious stance. The style is one of a news reporter, including days, names and companies. This formality overall displays a hoax worth believing. Through the addition of dialect “…After the elephant didn’t move for a while…”, the reader is provided with first hand information and feels more involved and connected to the story.
Therefore a successful hoax, is a mixture of a variety of methods, keeping the crucial basis of trying to obtain a certain level of authenticity regardless of how outrageous the crux of the story is.
You’ve pulled really good details to support your post, Courtney! The quotes you’ve used support your points nicely, and help establish your own ethos as a careful reader.
You’ve discussed how the article takes on the veneer of believability, but how does it change things that readers aren’t supposed to believe this is true? (Though we’ve seen on Literally Unbelievable that at least one person did!) How is this constructed as a satire?