Rhetorical Analysis Of Stereotypes

Many articles, especially those within the opinion section of a newspaper or a magazine, will often contain elements of rhetorical strategies. These rhetorical strategies help enhance the argument that is presented in the article and thus,in most cases, help the reader come to the same conclusions that the author came to while writing this article. Yet, When there is use, there is also misuse. It is through this case that even some misuse of the rhetorical strategies can lead a well balanced opinion article to become a very bias “puff piece.” One of the main examples of this, especially pertaining to the use of persuasion ( ethos, logos and pathos), is in an opinion piece written by Jason Lee Steorts for The Atlantic. This article was titled “When Should Cops Be Able to Use Deadly Force?” and for a controversial issue, the author used copious amounts of rhetorical strategies to conform to his own bias, ineffectively used supporting and opposing sources and committed fear mongering in some cases. All of which clearly indicate to the reader the poor attempts to compensate for the lack of legitimate evidentiary support in his arguments in this article.

In other words, the website reports newsworthy and marginally newsworthy stories, but if the reader is a discerning individual who likes to make up his/her own mind, it would be wise to consult other sources to validate the stories first. Using misleading, emotionally charged, headlines that fall short of alignment to the content of an article is also common (Remember the guidelines for writers: “We write the headlines for you). Readers of the Conservative Tribune need to understand they are not going to read anything on the Conservative Tribune website that may be damaging to the conservative cause. Articles are “ultra-conservative”

The authors do not present this piece in a normal article format. They use bullet point under different sub-titles to get their main points across. Even though they use this format, the hurt and shock of the writers still comes out. Although they try to stay positive about Trumps next four years, you can hear the emotion seeping out in the words they choose. One example of this is when they write, “Trump’s election was met with a mix of shock, uncertainty and some congratulations” (Rappeport). Although the co-authors try to stay positive they also write that, “Senate Democrats would be powerless to filibuster” (Rappeport). The pain of the authors expresses how a majority of people felt the next

74). This shows an example of pathos, because if anyone who has been involved in a scenario similar to this one, will instantly obtain a wave of grief or sadness. This could also apply to anyone who thinks about any recent massacres. Goldberg, most likely chose this type of “modes of persuasion” due to it’s personal connection with the viewer, which in the end winded up strengthening his article as a whole.

Throughout her writing, Jody Heymann establishes certain patterns including appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos. She establishes ethos by referring to “our government". This indicates that even though she is being critical, she is doing it on behalf of the audience. Then immediately in the next paragraph, she provides information that establishes her as an expert. She says she has “collected data" and has worked in projects associated with two prestigious universities. Without question, her voice is an informed one. Perhaps Heymann’s strongest appeal to logos is when she frames her viewpoint not as a women’s rights issue but as an economic one. She develops her argument for several paragraphs with facts and figures, especially from the data

Since the author describes Donald Trump in a negative way, I think this article is

With this year being the year that a new president takes over, there has been a lot of news surfacing that may or may not be true. When looking at an article we must look at different criteria of things like the facts used, names mentioned, publication dates, and altogether the article and what it is saying.

Media outlets have the power to voice opinions for the masses of followers they may have. Depending on the topic, media typically has 2 different standpoints but there is always room for another. Three standpoints typically become more common when burning topics come to light. Using the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals as an example better known as DACA, I found articles that were mainly targeted towards either Republican, Liberal, or Neutral parties. The articles were debriefing the controversy around the elimination of DACA. The republican media outlets such as Fox News portrays in favor of the wrongdoing of being illegal. Fox News outlets do not sympathize or use any humanity when wording their article. The title reads "What is DACA

Joe Nocera starts of the article with two telegraphic sentences, and thus creates an impactful statement —for people who agree with him— about the inept of Donald Trump, insofar as one considers Trump’s actions an amalgamation of ignorance and asininity; “Oh boy” leads to a purge of the readers —people who agree will continue reading, leading hecklers to disregard the article, labeling it “liberal propaganda.” Repetition surfaces in his third paragraph with the utilization of “then, as, now,” trivializing Trump’s conduct; Trump’s trivialization blossoms an ignominious image ingraining itself in one’s heart. Empathy, becoming ethos, emerges as an omnipotent force, weakness fuels it, willingness crafts it, in the reader from their similar view

The points where Goldberg should have a strong pathos presence was when he was discussing World War Two, which he did for a large portion of the article. Also, it would have brought more success if he were to talk about what terrible things Antifa had done in America to highlight why this organization is not one to support and to have that mental image of the violent acts committed by Antifa engraved in his audience’s head. Having pathos when talking about the war is a prime opportunity to appeal to his audience’s emotion. War is a horrible event that effected so many people and had a significant impact of the world. When starting his Antifa/Communist comparison, he should have incorporated more emotion into the article to not only make his readers lose support for this organization, but to make them feel something. Bringing that emotion in would have made the reader more passionate about rejecting support for Antifa because of the heinous acts the communist party committed – making is article more successful in persuading the audience to give up their support to Antifa.

The subject is that Donald Trump doesn't deserve to be the president of the united states. They claim he is not worthy enough of being "Racist" for accusing all mexicans of being rapists and criminals. Which could be false accusation because americans can be rapists and criminals also. They also claim Donald Trump is an elitist and he thinks he is better than everyone else. The authors position in this editorial is a part of The Editorial Boardset. The author of this editorial does support the evidence with facts. I think this author does try to tell his emotions to the readers. The author strongly explains everything Donald Trump does wrong and I think the only thing this author looks for are the negative things in Donald, so he doesn't

Personal opinions and bringing emotions into our writing are the number one reason why we find fallacies on articles a paper. Even though it is very hard to leave out our personal opinions in our work it is important we based our selves with factual information in order to provide a good quality essay. Thinking in the audience we are intending to persuade and in the type of theme were are writing about it is also important

The first article was about Nieto’s authoritarian rule over Mexico. I really felt that was the one that really spoke to me the most. While I read it, I had no objections to what the author was saying about his rule and how it negatively affected Mexico. When I was reading the article, it talked about all of the negatives of his rule, and how they were impacting the everyday citizen of Mexico. It did not talk about the positives of his rule, unlike the article I choose about the inequality in Mexico’s economy. The article did mention how Nieto was instead focusing on the aspects of the country to make it more appealing to private and foreign investors. He focused on improving areas of the country such as energy, education, tax, telecommunications and electoral policies.

In comparison of the style of bias between left and right leaning sources is considerably different. As seen in the Breitbart article, the title was very extreme and it pulled the reader's attention in a negative way. The difference in a left leaning article is that they show bias in a much more subtle way. This can be seen in the New York Times article that I mentioned a while ago. To remind you the title of this article was, “Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of Muslim Countries.” At first glance this title suggests the article is just a basic news story with none or at least minimal bias however there is an underlying level of bias in every story that is written. This can easily be seen by just reading the title of the

For decades, there has been a war between free and hate speech such as the African Americans attempting to take their freedom of speech while also battling against prejudice and discrimination from Caucasians. It has taken over Universities in countries all across the world, and seems to only progressively get worst. Instead of respecting other’s views, it seems as though many people cannot accept a view unless it is their own, which turns into the violence shown in the article Hate Speech vs Free Speech. Where is the Line on College Campuses? It addresses both sides of the problem in a predominately emotional way (Xia, 2017). By using pathos mainly, it connects the reader to the problem at hand and causes them to want to make change when given the examples of all the horrible things hate speech has done while clashing with free speech. Free speech should not be affected by those that decide to use that freedom to do wrong unless it causes violence, suicidal tendencies, or destruction.