Crime, Code, and Conspiracy

The O.J. Simpson case is one that hit media like a storm. Based on the articles I’ve read and the video I watched, there’s two perspectives. One is the perspective that the video emphasized, which is that racism was a part of the case that can’t be overlooked. The video talked about how racism is something that most people don’t feel the extent of sometimes or realize how prevalent it is in society. When you’re not on the receiving end of racism, it’s more difficult to notice, which is what Marc Watts said, who was one of the few African American reporters covering the case.

The other perspective though is that racism isn’t a part of this case, specifically because it was O.J. Simpson who was on trial. One of the articles said that O.J. Simpson was in an environment surrounded by white people. He went places where African Americans never usually went (like golf clubs). He also got involved with women who were predominantly white after leaving his previous relationship, often treating him like objects. He just wasn’t in an environment or scenario where racism would affect him because he was so accepted by the white population for his accomplishments.

Both perspectives are backed with logical statements on what was going on during the time of the case, but it’s complicated especially because he was acquitted for the murder charges. That in itself is a conversation that is sometimes up for debate especially because he wasn’t in a traditional environment. I understand where the author of the article came from saying he wasn’t in an environment where racism can affect him, but at the same time him being a black man accused of murder and it being such a huge case exploded by the media is something that can’t be brushed away so easily.

One thing that stood out to me when watching this was how the police brushed off the fact that someone came forward with a whole list of people who could have possibly been involved, who had a bat that could have been the murder weapon, and information about them. They could have used that information to look further into the case, but they cast it aside and looked further into Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay. It’s mind-blowing how they disregarded crucial details that someone brought in to the police and decided to go ahead with the Mr. Big operation.

The Mr.Big operation completely looked like coercion to me. Regardless of if Burns and/or Rafay did it or not, it could have been completely reasonable to say that they felt pressured to tell these guys who they thought were mobsters (thus the intimidation and fear factor) that okay yes, I did commit this crime. It’s reasonable to say that they confessed to a crime they didn’t commit because they didn’t see any other option except for what Gary and Al was presenting them. The situation that the boys were in was a situation where if a confession was made and later seen to be fake, it would be plausible.

There was no other physical or forensic evidence besides Burns and Rafay’s confessions. Their confessions didn’t match with the evidence. And yet they were still accused of the crime, went to trial. It just goes to show how flawed the justice system and criminal investigations can get. I understand how their arrogance and hubris can seem after a homicide like that. I understand how the confession may seem.  Burns and Rafay have been convicted of this crime and we’re only told the result of the trial, but I personally still think based on what was said in the two episodes, that this investigation shouldn’t be over.

I didn’t expect to go into this article thinking of first impressions as a similarity to rhetorical analysis, but it is actually a unique perspective on how to go about rhetorical analysis. First impressions come naturally to us and rhetorical analysis is something that we see in our everyday lives as well, we just don’t realize it’s being applied into the events we come across. Carroll uses examples of media such as advertisements, Twitter, TV shows, and so on, which is a very casual way of looking at it but it still applies. Rhetorical analysis for me was something more limited to English writing and formal articles like the ones I used to read in high school. Knowing it’s all around us gives a different view on how to approach it.

Carroll goes on in the article to explain how to go about making a rhetorical analysis. She says to start off with context, and build up from there while asking more in depth questions like who is the intended audience and how the context is presented based off of that. Her use of everyday examples such as an ad in a magazine and how you can look at it in the eyes of the intended audience as well as the secondary audience to analyze the context of a possible piece of rhetoric, and using examples like these make it easier to understand so that it is applicable for more formal and scholarly forms of writing.

Towards the end, Carroll brings us to the core of rhetorical analysis: the argument that the author is trying to make, and the general purpose of the piece. We are able to analyze the different techniques an author uses to present their information, such as ethos and pathos, and also learn how to recognize if the rhetoric fits into the context that is being analyzed. Her conclusion on why do this kind of analysis brings us back full circle into our everyday lives and how we can understand both formal works as well as things that happen around us.

Thank you for using Blogs@Baruch!

This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start publishing.

You are using a new WordPress theme that places widgets such as “Recent Posts,” “Recent Comments” and “Archives” in the footer, leaving you maximum space for publishing in this central area. If you prefer to have widgets on the right side of this page, these can be added by going to “Widgets” under the “Appearance” tab in your Dashboard. You can also choose from more than 100 other themes from the “Themes” menu in the Dashboard.