In the Fox News article regarding Ferguson, we believe the purpose of the article focused more on the media coverage of the case, rather than about the case itself. Fox focused on why this case is getting more coverage than any other case, and because of that, why many schools today are taking action regarding the issue. The main argument of the article was about the issue of race today. This article took a red herring approach where Fox decided not to talk about the issue directly, but instead took a different approach and discussed the reactions and influences that this case has had on the country. The exigence for this piece was the actual shooing of Michael Brown, as well as if the police officer should have done what he did, although that could present an argument. A brief cultural context could include talking about racism today and how it still exists. People sugarcoat racism, but they are still victims of it in their everyday lives. Fox’s constraints were that they couldn’t outright discuss their opinion, so they indirectly brought it up. They discussed Malcolm X and hinted that his actions were violent, and they related it to this issue. This article appeals to pathos, or an emotional appeal to people where it sort of scared them into thinking what will happen in the future. Also, there was a lack of anything to do with Michael Brown. Fox only provided media of people talking about the issue.
In Democracy Now!, the main argument is talking about the misuse of the military equipment that was given to state and local police. The purpose of this argument is to inform the country of how Obama provided state and local police this military equipment and how they have misused this equipment, rather than Obama. The exigence of this article is the how big this issue was and how many things have gone wrong, including how much of the military equipment was used during the protesting of Ferguson. (Discussed the rest in class).
Amanda Dingman, Steven Chow, Tanzila Mahmood
Ethos, pathos, and logos are all very important aspects of rhetorical writing, but without each other, they would be useless. The three characteristics work together as a team, and without one, none of them would make sense, so therefore the rhetorical triangle should not be a triangle, but a circle, since they all work in unity. Also, as stated in the passage someone who “analyzes who writes, what she writes, and how she writes it, and to whom she writes it at once…” is a very powerful writer. She understands what rhetoric is and uses all of the characteristics of it to understand what she is reading.
Thank you for using Blogs@Baruch!