Shannon 1

Kyle Shannon

Professor Kate Kimball

ENC 2135-206

A Rhetorical Analysis of Two Different Media Forms on Dietary Supplements

Everyday over half of all Americans take a dietary supplement of some kind (Docherty,

Niel), however it has become more and more evident over time that the lack of regulation in the

supplementation industry is a serious and dangerous issue that the government seems to refuse to

address. The media and experts use different rhetoric in analyzing the issue. This essay will

explore the similarities and differences in rhetoric of a peer reviewed article and a documentary.

The peer reviewed article titled “Dietary Supplements” by Maughan, Ron J, Doug S

King, and Trevor Lea takes a scientific look at the supplement industries and its successes and

failures as an industry. They use a very formal rhetoric, they use ethos throughout the paper to

support their argument in a professional way. They take a balanced view on the subject and

simply aim to educate about the industry rather than to sway the opinions of readers to support or

refute greater regulation of the industry. This balanced view helps to further this use of ethos by

making the article feel purely academic. They went into great detail about the benefits that the

proper use of safe supplements can have saying “ Some supplements do offer the prospect of

improved performance; these include creatine, caffeine, bicarbonate and, perhaps, a very few

others”(Maughan, Ron J.). It is clear they view the subject with an educational skepticism,

saying that the supplement industry has had some successes, however many of the other products

do not provide effective improvements on health nor improved performance. The tone created in

this section is that of an informatory paper, it doesn’t elicit an emotional response, but rather is

more of a regurgitation of research findings.

 Shannon 2

Another form of rhetoric that is used in this article is logos. They use logic and reasoning

to explain their findings, oftentimes pointing out possible flaws in the experiment that could have

altered the results, this use of logos helps the reader to fully understand the information in the

passage and how it relates to the dangers that the results from the experiments show. By

including this use of logos it allows the reader to easily see the results in an understandable way,

instead of having to interpret the results themselves. All of these examples of rhetoric lead to an

overall very educational and seemingly unbiased paper.

The second artifact is a Frontline documentary titled “Supplements and Safety”; it was

directed by Neil Dochurty and was published on the Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) in 2016.

It is described by PBS as “An investigation into the hidden dangers of vitamins and supplements,

a multibillion-dollar industry with limited FDA oversight.” The rhetoric of the documentary

focuses on pathos along with ethos to try and persuade audiences. The documentary focuses on

the lack of action by the Federal Department of Agriculture when supplements were proved to be

dangerous. The documentary uses techniques to create emotion that can only be done within the

film media; they use a combination of framing, sound, editing, and mise-en-scene to elicit their

desired response from their station viewers. The most evident way is in the sound. Throughout

the documentary they often have the score be very low and minor sounding, which is a technique

used extensively in the horror movie industry to generate anxiety and fear in the viewer. This is a

clear sign that this documentary was made to persuade. Another example of how they draw an

emotional response is the quote “it takes a sacrificial lamb to die of liver damage before the FDA

will take the product off the shelves.” Fear is one of the easiest ways to cause people to take

action and they use fear throughout the documentary to create an emotional response in the

viewer. This documentary was made for the purpose of creating a change in government
 Shannon 3

regulations. The only way to do that is to make the general population feel that acting to resolve

the issue is important by making them fear the supplement industry. This is usually paired with

an extreme close up, which are used by filmmakers to create anxiety in viewers, of either pills

being bottled in a factory with the soundbed of pills ticking on the table or of an FDA agent that

they are questioning on possibly fraudulent behaviors regarding the supplement industry. While

watching and hearing this the viewer is led to be more likely to believe that taking supplements

is dangerous and many viewers become fearful of what they have been regularly ingesting.

Ethos is also commonly used throughout the documentary in order to persuade. They

included several short interviews of doctors and physicians that spoke about cases regarding

misinformation in the supplement industry. According to Dr. Moran, who was interviewed by

PBS, said many supplement companies put excess amounts of vitamins in order to make the

products sound more appealing. She is currently conducting an experiment on the adverse effects

of too much vitamin D, which is often supplemented, and she says that although it is still early

there is already a trend beginning to form that those with excess vitamin D are experiencing

adverse effects on liver health. Dr. Moran and other experts spoke out against the FDA for their

lack of action. By including these experts the audience becomes more likely to believe the

information throughout the documentary, because the inclusion of these experts causes the

documentary to seem more credible and thus more accurate. Even though the screen time of the

doctors is short it establishes credibility early and this causes the audience to be more likely to

believe the information that follows. The use of pathos and ethos in the documentary helps to

persuade the audience of concerned citizens.

While the two artifacts are very different in form they have many similarities as well.

They both have a general purpose to inform, even though the documentary tends to take a much
 Shannon 4

more persuasive approach, their main purpose is still to inform the audience on the dangers of

the dietary supplement industry. The peer reviewed article takes more of a look at the athletics

side of the supplements industry, however it does speak about the dangers of both the athletics

side and general health side of the supplement industry, so in a way both articles aim to inform

on the dangers of taking supplements. While the artifacts do agree in this sense they differ

greatly in how it is presented. The peer reviewed article doesn’t attack the industry in many ways

but instead lists some of the most common dangers that come along with taking supplements.

They list them as facts and not something that needs to be changed. This differs greatly from the

documentary that lists the dangers in such a way to scare consumers into thinking that the

supplement industry is out to exploit them as consumers, which the peer reviewed article doesn’t

speak about at all. This difference in presentation is clear throughout the contents of both

artifacts and is really what sets them apart the most. One may ask why the two artifacts present

the information so much differently, and it can be inferred that it is due to their difference in

intended audience. The peer reviewed article is written for academic purposes, either to be read

by other scholars or to be studied by students. This intended audience generally leads to a mostly

unbiased very information heavy paper. The documentary on the other hand has an intended

audience of the general public. It aims to cause a change in government policy and thus it aims to

persuade as many people as possible in order to create a public response. The differences

between the two artifacts shows to what extent rhetoric tends to differ solely because of the

intended audience and purpose.

However, the two artifacts also have many similarities. As mentioned above they both

use pathos throughout to increase their credibility. The peer reviewed article is clearly more

credible just by the nature of the media form and because it is written and approved by experts
 Shannon 5

on the subject. But the documentary also could be considered to be very credible in it’s own

right. It is clear that they have done extensive research on the subject just like the experts of the

peer reviewed paper. This, along with the inclusion of experts of their own, shows how the

documentary includes large amounts of ethos and is also very credible despite it not being for

academic purposes. The experts of both pieces agree on the dangers present in supplements even

though the information is presented much differently, so in this way the artifacts can be seen as

similar.

Overall, after observing both artifacts it becomes clear that the peer reviewed article uses

a more professional voice and uses logos more often than the documentary which has a much

more pathos and uses a persuasive tone. The public clearly would benefit from the regulation of

the supplement industry, but one must remember that without experimentation with new

products by companies their products’ performance will not improve at the same rate it has in the

past.

Docherty, Niel, director. “Supplements and Safety.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Station, 2016,

https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-supplements-and-safety/?source=amazoncdf&actio

=play. Accessed 26 Oct. 2021.

Maughan, Ron J, Doug S King, And Trevor Lea. “Dietary Supplements.” Journal Of Sports

Sciences 22.1 (2004): 95–113.