For my Public Issue argument I will be answering the question of is the West Bank part of Israel? This question is one that will challenge me to stay on course for the purpose of the assignment because I will be using mainly facts to make it clear that there really is no question and the general public doesn’t view the “argument” in the same light.
I chose this topic because this is one that I feel a deep connection to. Being an orthodox Jew I developed a strong connection to the land of Israel. And being in Israel for all of last year (for religious study) I acknowledged first hand the different viewpoints people had on the actions that were taken by the IDF, Israel’s army. My entire life I have been exposed to propaganda from both sides. And more often then not the mainstream news sources display a more anti-Israel approach. I am looking forward to this assignment because it will give a chance to research the facts from all different sources and viewpoints as opposed to just accepting the first article I read. The purpose of this assignment, I believe, is to come to a conclusion and express your view on the subject using different arguments often used in rhetoric writing to persuade the reader to take upon your viewpoint.
As of now I am at the very early stages of this paper. Similar to the last paper, Until now this project has been a complete blur and I have been unable to clearly see what exactly is expected of this project. I have steered away from picking sources because I feel I can’t choose sources without knowing 100 percent what it is that I am writing. Now, While still not there completely I believe I’m starting to see a little bit about what the assignment is asking.
When I imagine revising writing, I picture it as taking my work and seeing why it isn’t perfect. How at times it could be highlighting the wrong points. Is the message presented clearly? and Is it enjoyable to read?
In my Senior year of High School I had almost finished my 8-page research paper on an uninteresting topic and during my revision I deleted the whole thing and started again. From this experience I became more attentive to how my writing sounded to others and not just how it sounded in my head. From my experience the very first step in the paper writing process is to write the first draft and then afterward revise it, change around sentences or paragraphs to have the paper better portray your arguments in a clear manner. and then lastly edit and proofread, check for typos, redundancy and grammatical errors.
In Revising Attitudes by Dethier. Deither writes ” Revision is trivial, the nitpicky correcting of superficial niceties.” In the past I have thought of revisions in this matter . I viewed revisions as simply proofreading and editing and failed to recognize what it truly was. Dethier also mentions “Revision is drudgery; only the first draft is creative” This statement I also found to be true. If you go into the revision process with a negative attitude you will find that you are simply going over work you know way too much which can be extremely boring, However if you go into the revisions with an attitude of “How can I improve this paper?” You’ll find revisions to be one of the most helpful processes you could undergo in your history of being a writer.
At this stage in my writing process I have chosen two articles in which I will be discussing how rhetoric writing is used to persuade the reader to think a certain way. I have spent a few hours on this assignment thus far and have almost completed my outline. While at first, I thought the topic was something that was important, as I spend more time with this paper I began to develop the true purpose of the assignment which i believe is to learn how authors use rhetoric writing to develop your own point of view. The focus of the paper is on the writing and how it is being shown to the reader rather than the topic.
Gaza – Israel rocket fire in summer 2014
Article 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hamas-fatah-.html
For my rhetoric paper I am analyzing the two sides of the rockets that were being fired between gaza and Israel this past summer. The first article I am using is fro the New York Times which is (contrary to popular belief) an Anti-Israel paper I will analyze different aspects of the article such as the language that is used and the pictures that are displayed. The Second article I will be using is from Fox News, usually a Pro Israel Anti-Gaza news source. With this article I will also be looking at the language and pictures that are displayed. I chose this topic because I feel that every news outlet in the world takes a side in this conflict and there is not one source that strictly displays the facts without bias. While I know it is virtually impossible to write a paper without showing a side I will do my best. This is a topic I feel a deep connection to. Last year I spent the year in Israel doing religious study. Being an orthodox Jew I developed a strong connection to the land of Israel. And being in Israel I acknowledged first hand the different viewpoints people had on the actions that were taken by the IDF, Israel’s army. My entire life I have been exposed to propaganda from both sides. Although looking for bias in articles is something I have done before especially with regard to the Arab-Israel conflict. I am looking forward to get a chance to spend a lot of time on analyzing different articles and bringing out the unobvious bias clues given off by these news sources.
In Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” he brings up a few main arguments. One of which is the importance of constraints. He says that are part of the situation because they modify the exigence. This is a perfect example of how all three factors overlap and effect each other. Another main point he brought was that rhetorical bring a response. But not any response, a response which Bitzer calls “fitting”. A “fitting” response is a response that fits the situation. The Example that Bitzer gives is The Gettysburg Address. The Gettysburg address was a fantastic piece written by Lincoln, However if you were to take that speech out of context it would seem like mere poetry. In Emma Watson’s speech about feminism to the UN, she expresses exigence, audience and constraints throughout her speech. Exigence, that women are not being treated equally. Audience is everyone who is unaware of the situation. The constraints are those who believe that there is already gender equality.
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.
I agree with Miller in that he says that all three, ethos, pathos, and logos all must coexist in a persuasive argument. Each one effects the other. And together the make up the argument that you have. Choosing one aspect, Pathos (audience) will greatly effect the ethos (speaker) as well as the logos. (subject). Each one plays a crucial roll in a powerful persuasive argument.