1. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY
43 (Winter & Spring 2007): 124-132
VISUAL ARGUMENTATION IN SCANDINAVIAN
POLITICAL ADVERTISING: A COGNITIVE,
CONTEXTUAL, AND RECEPTION ORIENTED
APPROACH
Jens E. Kjeldsen
In a Danish election campaign in 2001, the party Venstre published an advertisement whose visual
argumentation caused offence and debate. But what exactly was the argument?And how do we best locate such
visual arguments? This essay argues for a cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach to vmal
argumentation. It illustrates such an approach by briefly analyzing the context and rhetorical potential ofthe
advertuement and by establishing which arguments the public actually reconstructed from this advertisement.
Key words: visual, argumentation, rhetoric, context, reception
On November 15, 2001, the Danish right wing liberal party, Venstre, published an
advertisement that caused offence and debate in Denmark and was criticised internationally.
All the commotion, of course, stems from the advertisement's visual argumentation. But
what exactly is its argument? In this essay, I shall briefly explain how visual argumentation
is possible and argue for a cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach to visual
argumentation. I will illustrate this approach by briefly analyzing the Venstre advertise-
ment's context and rhetorical potential and by establishing which arguments the public
actually reconstructed from the advertisement. First, however, let us remind ourselves why
we can argue by means of pictures.
Needless to say, arguing with pictures is different from arguing with words. I could not
have made my argument about visual argumentation solely by using pictures. However, this
does not mean that pictures are not able to communicate arguments.
It has been claimed that we cannot make arguments with pictures because argumentation
(1) is characterized by temporal and sequential representations; (2) is based on unambiguous
syntactic rules; (3) is linked historically and methodologically to the verbal mode and its
conventional, semiotic character; and (4) expresses attitudes and opinions through claims
and data and, hence, is confrontational (e.g., Blair, l!)n(i, 2004; Cox & Willard, 1982, p. xlv;
Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Kruiger, 1987; Fleming, 199ei). Daniel O'Keefe (1982), for
instance, asserts that a paradigm case of argument-making "involves the communication of
both 1} a linguistically explicable claim, and 2) one or more overdy expressed reasons which
are linguistically explicit" (p. 14).
It may seem, then, that pictures cannot function as propositions or arguments. In general,
pictures are thought to: (I) present as an immediate, nontemporal, unified whole; (2) lack
unambiguous syntactical order and rules; (3) function iconically; and (4) merely "show"
things rather than stating or proposing them. However, argumentation is an act of commu-
nication, not a text in itself. As long as the act of "argument making" (O'Keefe, 1982, p. 12)
manages to communicate an argument's structure or intention, the mode of expression is
Jens E. Kjeldsen, Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen. An earlier veision of this essay
was presented iit the ()th International Society Tor the Study of Argumentation conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, June, !20()t). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jens E. Kjeldsen, Depart-
ment of Information Science antl Media Studies, Lloiversity of Bergen, Fostbox 7802, 502() Bergen, Norway. E-mail:
jens.kjeldsen@infomedia.uib.no

2. 125
ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY KJELDSEN
irrelevant. The elements of an argument do not need to be presented explicitly as long as the
audience is aware that they are faced with argument-making and in tum understand the
argument that is being communicated. What is semantically and rhetorically important is not
the argument's manifest structure but, rather, its ability to represent latent propositions and
claims.
Wayne Brockreide (1992) has reminded us that arguments are found "not in statements
but in people," and that an "argument is not a 'thing' to be looked for but a concept people
use, a perspective they take" {p, 73). Similarly, Dale Hample's {1980, 1992) "third perspec-
tive" finds arguments within people who are arguing: "This theoretical distinction de-empha-
sizes the role of the message in argument. The only necessary role for the message to play in
a cognitive theory is to perform as a stimulus for the receiver's (cognitively generated)
argument" (1992, p. 93). Bruce Gronbeck (199.5) takes a similar view:
If we think of meanings as called up or evoked in people when engaged in acts of decoding, then not only
words, but also pictures, sounds, and other sign systems certainly can offer us propositions of denial or
affirmation, and can, as Locke understood trueness and falsehood, articulate empirically verifiable positions,
(p. 539) • „
Argumentation, therefore, can occur in a host of different forms of expression, including
speech, drama, or pictures. On the other hand, we can admit, pictures commtinicate in a
different semiotic mode than do words. According to semiotics, verbal communication
employs an arbitrary code and pictures an iconic one. As a code based on motivated signs,
a picture is perceived to have either no articulation or only second articulation (cf. Barthes,
1977; Eco, 1979). Consequently, "pertinent" and "facultative" signs in pictures cannot be
clearly distinguished. Iconic coding in pictures is weak (Eco, 1979, p. 213), which means that
pictures lack the syntax that tells viewers precisely what different elements might mean or
how they should be connected semantically. Sometimes a cigar is not merely a cigar but
there is no certain way of knowing.
This does not prevent pictures from making arguments, however. As with all kinds of
rhetoric, context determines meaning. As Birdsell and Groarke [199f)) maintain, we would
never "banish the consideration of contextual evidence when we consider verbal arguments"
(p. 5). So why should we do so when considering visual arguments? According to Birdsell
and Groarke, three kinds of contexts are significant when evaluating visual arguments:
immediate visual context, immediate verbal context, and visual culture. My own analysis
emphasizes the "rhetorical situation" (Bitzer, 1968, 1980), which draws upon all three.
Because argumentation is not only a textual but also-and probably above all-a contextual
and cognitive phenomenon, it is important to examine not merely images themselves, in
order to find the arguments they communicate, but also context and, especially, the rhetor-
ical situation. To do this, I employ a more cognitively oriented perspective that combines
contextual analysis, close reading of the visual text, and textual analysis of the text's public
reception.
Most research on visual argumentation is theoretically speculative: Argumentation is
found through some form of textual analysis in which the researcher deduces, from an
image's elements and the context in which they occur, the arguments they may hold (e.g.,
Groarke, 1996; Hughes, 1994; Kjeldsen, 2000; Shelley 1996). I have attempted to capture an
empirical and contextual reception of the visual argumentation in Venstre's political adver-
tisement by collecting 80 newspaper articles (including a few letters to the editor) in which

3. 126
SCANDINAVIAN POLITICAL ADVERTISING WINTER & SPRING 2007
Figure 1: Venstre political advertisement. Used by permission of Venstres
Landsorganisation. ,
the ad was mentioned. The articles were published in 12 different Danish newspapers from
November 5 (when the ad was published) to December 30, 2001.
Thirty seven of these articles discuss the advertisement itself and the ensuing debate in
detail. That is, they offer reconstructions ofthe claim and the argument presented visually in
the ad. Analysis of these argumentative reconstructions will accomplish two tasks. First, I will
identify the types of objections toward the visual rhetoric that were raised by the public.
Second, I will try to establish more precisely what kind of arguments the ad evoked. Let us
first examine the advertisement itself; then we will tum to the rhetorical situation and the
public's critique.
The advertisement was printed in two popular weeklies, Se og her {Look and Listen) and Kig
ind [Look In), during the 2001 Parliamentary election campaign in Denmark (see Figure I).
A slim, blue rectangle at the bottom displays the party's logo to the right and its leader,
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to the left. At the time, Raiimussen was leader of the opposition
party; he is now the Prime Minister. Rasmussen's signature and printed name can be seen
next to his picture.
Most of the advertisement consists of a press photo, taken a year earlier, showing seven
people leaving a building, heading down its steps. Jackets and shirts cover their heads; their
faces are not visible. To the right is a woman dressed in a black robe and white headscarf.
She seems to be holding one of the men by her right hand. Her left arm is stretched out
toward someone outside the picture (a camera team, which we cannot see) as she gestures
obscenely.

4. 127
ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY KJELDSEN
These young men are second-generation immigrants from Palestine. In the spring of 2000,
they were found guilty of gang-raping a 14-year-old girl. The woman is the sister of one of
the men. They are leaving the courthouse in the city of Arhus, following a verdict that the
public considered much too lenient. The text written in white across the picture proclaims
"Time for a change."
What is, then, the rhetorical potential of this advertisement? First, containing a well-
known, widely recognized picture, it attracts attention. It is hard to miss this two-page
opening spread in a weekly, and the photo invites wonder and closer scrutiny: What is
happening here? What is the connection between these events, the political party, and its
leader, Anders Fogh Rasmussen?
The advertisement's photographic and documentary depiction offers rhetorical realism
and an immediate emotional, almost physical, presence and vividness [enargia] (Kjeldsen,
2001, 2002). The picture invites us close to the event; it gives us a sense of being present. At
the same time, it generates emotional involvement, especially through the woman's obscene
gesture, which can be read as directed toward all the spectators in the situation. In a way, it
is the "ethnic Danes" who are being harassed: first through rape, then through contempt.
In this way, the picture represents certain problems with certain immigrants in a certain
case. Further, the case itself represents the general opinion that Denmark is experiencing
problems with immigration. The picture condenses and intensifies the negative emotions that
many Danes harboured in this particular case, which, in turn, already condensed and
intensified the negative emotions that some Danes entertained vis-a-vis the Danish asylum
and immigiation policy. In a double synecdoche, these opinions are embedded, condensed,
and intensified in the depiction of the yoimg men and the woman gesturing obscenely. By
exhibiting such negative traits, by combining and intensifying both negative attitudes and
negative emotions, the ad creates what I have termed double rhetorical condensation (Kjeldsen
2002).
The advertisement then connects these negative opinions and emotions to Venstre's
political opponents, who, the caption implies, will staiid in the way ofthe needed change that
Venstre promises to implement. Venstre, on the other hand, is portrayed as the political
party ready to remove the cause of the negative thoughts and emotions.
The advertisement was condemned immediately, both at home and abroad. Danish
politicians described it as immoral and indecent, and they criticised It for being a dishonest
generalization. O n e member of the Cabinet, Marianne Jelved, called it "unethical" for
suggesting "that [Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen] is responsible for that sort of thing
and that the Cabinet has brought the country in this situation" (qtd. in Kassebeer, Thobo-
Carlsen, & Termansen, 2001).
Among the foreign critics was Sweden's Chris Heister, of the conservative party, Mod-
eratema, who told the Danish broadsheet newspaper, Politiken, that "it is a picture with a very
strong message, and as we all know, a picture speaks more than a thousand words" (qtd. in
Klarskov, 2001). To many observers, the advertisement helped create a perception of an
election campaign turning toward the tight wing parties and revealing a general xenophobic
attitude. Several Scandinavian writers pondered whether the Danes, once perceived to be
jolly, hospitable, and kind-hearted, mighl not be so jolly, hospitable, or kind-hearted after all.
The Danish press gieaUy disapproved ofthe advertisement's visual rhetoric. An editorial
in the tabloid, B.T., strongly criticised its "unarticulated, through innuendos and without
arguments" speculation about people's "small insecurities and animosities" toward foreign-
ers, calling it "sickening and dirty" (Adler, 2001). Venstre's leader, Anders Fogh Rasmussen,

5. 128
SCANDINAVLN POLITICAL ADVERTISING WINTER & SPRING 2007
dismissed critics, saying: "Well, that's how it is; you can only have one message in an
advertisement like this" (qtd. in "Et budskap," 2001; cf. "V-annonce," 2001). The largest
Danish tabloid, Ekstra Bladet, did not agree. Its editor found it outrageous that Venstre would
place two messages in the same advertisement: one open and respectable, another hidden
that "everybody reads into the advertisement: ptire smear towards ail foreigners in Denmark,
nicely wrapped up" {"Et budskap," 2001). Even the editorial in Politiken considered the
advertisement to be indecent, paiticularly because "from the departure point of the deranged
logic of the spin doctors in Venstre, [it] is only published in weeklies. That is: targeted
political manipulation-not for critical readers of newspapers, but directed at the voter
around the coffee table" ("Hetz," 2001).
This moral critique is remarkably similar to Cicero's observation in De Oratore (III, lix,
223) that delivery has the greatest effect on the ignorant, the mob, and the barbarians (see
also Kjeldsen, 2003). The critique suggests that the uneducated and unskilled, who are
neither well informed nor critical, will be unable to resist the advertisement's visual rhetoric.
The degree of outrage reveals critics' expectation that the advertisement will have a powerful
effect. The advertisement "stirs emotions," as Ekstra Bladet put it ("Et budskap," 2001).
The preceding gives some sense of the public's critique of the advertisement. Closer
analysis reveals five basic objections. Critics complained that the advertisement
1. generalizes from a non-representative example: "it takes its point of departure in a specific
tiial and makes a link suggesting that all second-generation immigrants are rapists" (Mimi
Jakobsen, qtd. in Langager, 2001);
2. uses unethical emotional appeals: "invites the creation of alarming pictures in the voters'
heads" (Skaaning, 2001);
3. presupposes a non existent disagreement: "the ad indirectly sends a signal which claims
that only Venstre will do something about these group rapes. The rest of us also believe
that this must end" (Anders Samuelson, qtd. in Maressa & Ditlev, 2001);
4. uses doublespeak: "two messages in the same ad: one open and respectable, another
hidden" ("Et budskap," 2001); and
5. exaggerates: "This is a distortion of both dimensions and proportions that goes beyond
limits. This type of scene can be found in any European country-it is not particularly
Danish" (Marianne Jelved, qtd. in Kassebeer, Thobo-Carlsen, & Termansen, 2001).
These criticisms express three poptilar, public assumptions or hypotheses about visual
rhetoric:
1. The simplification hypothesis. Pictures simplify messages, and one can neither argue for nor
against them. As a consequence, they primarily address the ignorant and unskilled.
2. The power hypothesis: Pictures have a particularly strong and irresistible appeal, which is
achieved through emotional appeals.
3. The manipulation hypothesis: The communicative simplification and power of pictiu"es is
exerted in a hidden and manipulative way. Emotional appeals subconsciously outdo
rational appeals in such a manner that the audience does not even realize that it is being
persuaded.
I have critiqued these three assumptions in more detail elsewhere (Kjeldsen, 2002). Here I
want to point out that the existence of extended public critique ofthe Venstre advertisement
seems to refute these hypotheses.
There is no doubl that the advertisement exerted influence and had an impact. The debate
itself is proof enough of that. It probably also is true that a verbal statement about the young

6. > 129
I
ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY igELDSEN
rapists would not have generated such a heated response. At the same time, the public debate
proved that the advertisement's rhetoric is neither manipulatively hidden nor extremely
powerful. Its message, mode of expression, and claims were made explicit and extensively
debated. Indeed, the newspapers that criticized it also suggested that the advertisement
would backfire, called it a "striking own goal" ("£t budskap," 2001) and a "first class political
own goal" (Mimi Jakobsen, qtd. in Langager, 2001). A Member of Parliament from Venstre
stated: "The ad is tasteless. When we have a 1-0 lead in this campaign, it is perishingly stupid
to give the other parties a chance to attack us" (qtd. in Langager, 2001).
Considering the situation, there can be no doubt that the picture is employed and
understood as a visual enthymeme (Bitzer, 1959). The advertisement makes sense only if we
interpret it as such. The advertisement invites the spectator's active involvement in recon-
structing its implicit argument. The extensive critique demonstrates that this is exactly what
happened. The preceding analysis identified the advertisement's argumentation (and reac-
tions thereto). It is appropriate now to ask what claims and arguments audiences actually
reconstructed. Admittedly, this is difficult to establish. My analysis of its reception, however,
suggests that opponents and the press understood the advertisement as making three claims:
1. Second-generation immigrants are (potential) criminals and/or (group) rapists: "by mak-
ing [the young men] anonymous, it gives the viewer the impression, that second gener-
ation immigrants are criminals and rapists" (Nils Helveg Petersen, qtd. in "Usaedvanlig
ul^ekker," 2001; cf. 0stergaard-Nielsen, 2001);
2. Refugees and immigrants are (potential) criminals and/or (group) rapists: "it assumes that
all foreigners are criminals" (Jensen & Bjerre, 2001); and
3. Prime Minister Nyrup Rasmussen and the present government are doing a bad job with
the asylum and immigrant policy, and only Venstre is going to do something about it:
"the ad indirectly indicates that only Venstre wants to do something about those group
rapes" (Anders Samuelson, qtd. in Maressa & Ditlev, 2001).
There seems to be general agreement that these are the advertisement's arguments, even
though they are not made explicitly. This is not surprising when we recall that argumentation
is a cognitive phenomenon. Political advertisements are part of a well-known rhetorical
situation-the election campaign-whose argumentative function-winning votes for the par-
ty-everyone understands. With little hesitation, people understand this advertisement as
part of ongoing campaign discourse regarding asylum and immigration policy. As Bakhtin
(1987) and Voloshinov (Morris, 1994) have helped us tmderstand, every "utterance is always
an answer to another utterance that precedes it, and is therefore always conditioned by, and
in tum qualifies, the prior utterance to a greater or lesser degree" (Holquist, l!>90, p. 60). As
this analysis of its reception has indicated, only a limited set of arguments may be recon-
structed from the advertisement.
In short, there is no doubt that we can argue with pictures (with the aid of a caption in this
case), or that people will grasp the argument and argue back. On the other hand, the
advertisement's three implicit claims illusti-ate some significant differences between verbal
and visual argumentation. In a sense, the first two claims contain the same implicit argument:
Claim: Refugees and immigrants are a problem for Denmark.
Datum: Take, for instance, the immigrants who gang-raped a young girl, and the con-
tempt they showed us.
Warrant: When members of a group commit rape and exhibit contempt, this group is a
problem.

7. 130
SCANDINAVIAN POLITICAL ADVERTISING WINTER & SPRING 20()7
There is a difference, however, between refugees and immigrants, on one hand, and
second-generation immigrants, on the other. The picture can show us young men but it
cannot tell us precisely which they represent. By the same token, there are differences among
criminals, rapists, and group rapists. These distinctions are hard to make when communi-
cating visually: what a picture resembles quite often is not what it represents. Nevertheless, as
noted above, the possibilities are not limitless. Considering the rhetorical situation, four
alternatives (in order of increasing generality) seem possible: the picture of the young men
can represent the men themselves, young second-generation immigrants, refugees and
immigrants, or foreigners.
Claim: You
should not oe
for the parties in
the Cabinet, but
for Venslre and
Anders Fogh
Claim/Datum: PM Rasmussen.
Nyrup Rasmussen
and the present
Cabinet are doing a Warrant:
poor job with the One should
aslum and not vote for
ClainV Datum: immigrant policy politicians
Refugees and doing a poor
immigrants are job.
a problem for
Datum: Take, Denmark.
Warrant: When
for instance, the polilical issues
immigrants vho pose a problem
gang-raped a Warrant: When for a Cabinet,
yotmggirL and members of a the>' are doing a
the contempt group commit bad job.
lhe showed tis. rape and exhibit
contempt, this
group is a
problem.
Figure 2: Interrelationships of the advertisement's arguments.
Such ambiguity need not be a problem either in this case or in visual argumentation
generally. First, we also face ambiguity in verbal argumentation. If someone claims that the
country needs a leader who will be "tough on crime," what this means, exactly, remains
rather unclear. Second, although different interpretants are possible, the arguments that
people actually reconstruct may not be substantially different, and these differences do not
prevent the creation of a rather similar main argument. Third, the different arguments that
people reconstruct are part of a common discourse, a web in which one argument supports
another. That some observers interpret the advertisement as an argument about the Prime

8. 131
ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY KJELDSEN
Minister's poor leadership and others understand it as an argument about immigration
problems does not mean that the picture is so ambiguous that it can mean just about
anything. Rather, both are correct; the advertisement contains both arguments. Its interre-
lated arguments, which the public may reconstruct severally or jointly, can be illustrated by
Toulmin's (1958) model (see Figure 2).
The most effective visual rhetoric creates both emotional and rational arguments that
strike a responsive chord (Schwartz, 1973) with audiences. It does not create new arguments
as much as it awakens arguments already residing among audience members (Kjeldsen,
2001, 2002). The Venstre advertisement does exacdy this: It taps into existing arguments,
emotions, and opinions, which is why it can argue in the first place. However, as I have
suggested already, this does not mean that the visual argument is either irresistible or
irrefutable, .lthough vividness might affect our emotions, we do not necessarily accept the
"vivid information" as a representative example of the proposed claim (lyengar & Kinder,
1987, p. 38). When a picture argues, we may argue back, just as we might do when
encountering verbal argumentation. In the case discussed here, the vivid emotional appeal
that creates the rhetorical power ofthe Venstre advertisement also renders its power relative.
Because it evokes strong emotions, it cannot but reveal itself as argumentation.
The advertisement was intended to secure votes but it probably ended up damaging the
credibility of both the party Venstre and the country. In a national poll conducted by
Megafon for TV2 on November 16, 2001 (the day following the advertisement's appear-
ance), only 13 percent considered the advertisement to be either "very beneficial" or
"beneficial," while 40 percent considered it "harmful" or "very harmful." This corresponds
quite well with our intuition that hostility and aggression seldom pay off. The readers of
weeklies are not so ignorant that they do not understand it when a picture argues, and they
are clever enough to argue back if they disagree with the message or the way it is presented.
Even though hostile appeals to people's emotions may succeed in speaking to those who are
convinced already, they risk losing those who might have been convinced but who are
repelled by aggressive, indecent visual arguments.
REFERENCES
Adlcr.J. D. (2001, November 16). Med Venstre in muddergroften [With Venstre in the mud ditch). B. T., p. 2.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1987). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.}.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. London: Fontana Press.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1-10.
Bit?.er. L. F. (19,59). Aristotle's enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45, 399-408.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968]. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
Bitzer, L. F. (1980). Functional communication: A situational perspective. In E. E. White (Ed.), Rhetoric in transition:
Studies in the nature and uses of rhetoric (pp. 21 -38). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blair, J. A. (I99fi). The possibility and actuality of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy. 33, 2[i-'39.
Blair, |. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Kds.), Defining visual rhetorics
(pp. 4l-(il). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brockriede, W. (1992). Where is argument? In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Reading in
argumentation (pp. 73-78). New York; Foris.
Cox,J. R., & Willard, C. A. (1982). IntroducUon; The field of argumentation. InJ. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.).
Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. xiii-xlvii). Carbondale: Southem Illinois University Press.
Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Groctendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook ofargumentation theory: A critical survey ofclas.sical
backgrounds and modem studies. Providence, RI: Foris.
£t budskap-men hvilket et (One message-bu! what a message]. (2001, November 16). Ekstra Bladet, p. 2.
Fleming, D. (1996). Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 11-22.
Groarke, L. (199{i}. Logic, art, and argument Informal Logic, 18, 105-126.

9. 132
SCANDINAVIAN POUTICAL ADVERTISING WINTER & SPRING 2007
Gronbeck, B. E. (1995). Unstated propositions: Relationships among verbal, visual, and acomtic languages. In S.
Jackson (Ed), Argumentation and values: Proceedings ofthe ninth SCA/AFA conference on argummtation (pp. 539-542).
Annaiidale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Hample, D. (1980). A cognitive view of argument, yoi/ma/ ofthe American Forensic Association, 17, 151-158.
Hample, D. (1992). A third perspective on argunieni. In W. L. Benoil, D. Hampie, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in
argumentation (pp. 91-115). New York: Foris.
Hetz ISmear campaignj. (2001, November 17). Politiken, p. 2. ;
Holquist, M. (I9JK)). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York: Routledge.
Hughes, E. M. B. G. (1994). The logical choice: How political commercials use logic to win votes. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America,
lyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Jensen, C , & Bjerre, M. (2001, November 18). Gr^nser for gaestfrihed [Limited hospitality|. Berlingske Tidende, p. H.
Kassebeer, J., Thobo-Carlsen, J., & Termansen, J. (2001, November 1.5). V rykker grjensen for valgannoncer
|V moves the boundaiy for campaign ads|. Berlingske Tidende, p. 2.
Kjeldsen, |. E. (2000). What the metaphor could not tell us about the Prime Minister's bicycle helmet: Rhetorical
criticism of visual rhetoric. Nordicom Review, 21, 30.5-327.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2001). The rhetorical power of pictures. InJ. Gripsrud & F. Engelstad (Eds.), Potver, aesthetics, media
(pp. 132-157). Oslo: Unipub forlag.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2002). Visuel retorik {Visual rhetori^. Bergen, Norway: Department of Media Studies, University of
Bergen.
Kjeldsen,J. E. (2003). Talking to the eye-Visuality in ancient rhetoric. Word & Image, 19, 133-137.
Klarskov, K. (2001, November Hi). Staerk reaktion over for Venstre aimonce [Strong reaction toward Venstre ad].
Politiken, p, 4.
Langager, M. (2001, November 16). Venstre-selvmil med annonce [Venstre scores an own-goal with advertisement].
Jyllands-Posten, p. 3.
Maressa,J. E., & Ditlev, N. (2001, November 5). Kritik af V-annonce [Critique of Venstre ad]. Jyllands-Posten, p. 4.
Megafon (2001, November If)). Hverken Venstre-annonce og Nyrups bog-angreb gav vcelgermedvind [Neither
Venstrr.-advertisement nor the book-attack of Nyrup were successful]. Retrieved January 15, 2002. from
htlp://folketingsvalg.tv2.dk/index.php?page-hgnews&odl248
Morris. P. (Ed.). (1994). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov. I-ondon: Edward Arnold.
O'Keefe, D.J. (!9H2). The concepts of argument and arguing. InJ. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in
argumentation theory and research [pp. '6-2'^. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
0stergaard-Nielsen, M. (2001. November 19). Fsenomenet Fogh [The phenomenon Fogh]. Information, p. 8.
Schwartz, T. (1973). The responsive chord. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubled ay.
Shelley, C. (1996). Rhetorical and demonstrative modes of visual argument: Looking at images of human evolution.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 53-08.
Skaaning, K. (2001, November 16). Sprintemes valgkamp [The campaign ofthe aprinters[. Erhvervs Bladet, n.p.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Eng.; Cambridge University Press.
Usaedvanlig ulaekker [Extraordinarily repulsive|. (2001, November 19). Information, p. 4,
V-annonce splitter de borgerlige [V-ad divides (he non-socialist parties[. f2(M)l, November Hi). B. T, p. 14.