"Breastfeeding Reduces Cancer Risk"
By Lorna Vanderhaeghe
https://www.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/remoteauth.pl?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awh&AN=14280520&site=ehost-live&scope=site
1. Identify the Argument
Breastfeeding is better than formula and breastfeeding reduces the rick of breast cancer in women as well.
2. Target Audience
Women who are either breastfeeding or pregnant and considering whether or not to breastfeed. They could be married or single but are probably between the ages of 18 and 35. They are probably somewhat educated considering that they are looking for research in peer-reviewed journals to find out about the benefits of breastfeeding.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Because the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, you know that it's not completely made up. The author has written books about nutrition and has a degree in biochemistry. She is a medical journalist as well. She has a formal but comfortable tone with her anudience, citing studies, but also not talking too scientifically. All her sources are scientific studies done by credible sources.
Pathos - She appeals to her readers's emotions by telling them what good things will happen to their babies if they breastfeed, and what bad things can happen if they don't - it's an appeal to maternal instincts. And talking about how encouragement, love and support are needed to help new moms to be successful in breastfeeding as along as possible lets her readers's feel that the author cares about them and cares a lot about what she is writing about.
Logos - The author uses experimental data from mutliple scientific sources - The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children and The Lancet Medical Journal. She also makes the findings of the reasearch done by these organizations more accessible to readers by simplifying the language so that they can understand what they say, which makes it easier for their findings to appeal to the logic of the masses. She also draws on her medical knowledge to talk about blood pressure and she includes statistics about how many monthers breastfeed, etc. to help prover her points.
Sufficient Evidence - I think she uses sufficient evidence to prove that breastmilk is better than formula, but she mentions in the first and last paragraphs of the article that breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer in mothers, but never says anything about it anywere else in the article. There is no evidence to support it, she just throws it out there and leaves it hanging.
4. Was it effective and Why?
I think her argument for breastfeeding over formula was effective because of the scientific evidence used and the nature of her appeal. How a woman feels about her baby is a very emotional thing and appealing to her concerns about making sure that her child is healthy contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. But in terms of her argument about breast cancer risk being reduced during nursing, her argument isn't effective at all because it isn't even really an argument. She makes a statement and then she doesn't back it up with anything.
28.10.08
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Should Have Been About Ketchup
When I was in Kindergarten I lived in Virginia, and my best friend's name was Amy Nicole Betor. Amy had an older brother named Todd, who loved ketchup. He loved ketchup so much he went through about a bottle a week. One time when I was at Amy's house her mom was teasing Todd about how much he liked ketchup, and in order to defend himself, he boldly stated that he would eat anything with ketchup on it. I still remember the twinkle in Mrs. Betor's eye when she said, "Anything?"
Todd's reply was short but, firm, "Yes, anything."
So Todd's mom decided to put him to the test and she went out in the yard, dug up some worms from her garden and generously covered them in ketchup. Then she handed Todd a fork and said, "Prove it."
Well I am still amazed to this day that Todd ate those worms and he didn't even think twice about it - that is disgusting!
But there are too many people in this world like Todd; people who aren't necessarily so extreme that they will eat worms if they are doused in Heinz tomato sauce, but there is a considerably large faction of people who ruin otherwise scrumptious foods by drowning them in that oh so familiar red sauce.
For example, In Brazil for some reason they skip on the tomato sauce on pizza - it is basically cheese baked onto bread - but instead of using marinara sauce to remedy this mistake, they opt to put ketchup on top of their pizza, above the cheese! I'm sorry, but that's just not right.
Next, my husband likes bacon. So from time to time I make him a BLT with mayonnaise. But without fail, after I serve him his sandwich, he heads to the fridge and proceeds to destroy a perfectly scrumptious meal by pouring ketchup on it.
And then there's my sister who loves to eat exorbitant amounts of ketchup on hamburgers and other meals, but doesn't like tomatoes by themselves or in salad, etc. This could stem from an inexplicable fear of tomatoes resulting from watching "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", but one can never be 100% sure.
This is unacceptable, ketchup is fine in some circumstances, but when it leads you to ruin otherwise delicious meals or eat worms, I think it's just gone too far. It's amazing how only a mixture of tomato concentrate, distilled vinegar, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, salt, spice, onion powder, and natural flavoring* can have such a powerful influence on people's life, or at least on their eating habits.
*List of ingredients from the back of a Heinz ketchup bottle.
23.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis: Movie Trailer
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/twilight/
Disclaimer: I just wanted to say that I think the Twilight books are awful, but sometimes we are drawn to the things we dislike - hence me reviewing this trailer.
1. Identify the Argument
Come see the Twilight movie on Nov. 21.
2. Target Audience
Women and girls of all ages, who are interested in romance novels masking as fantasy books for young adults. Especially those who still hang on to adolescent fantasies about the "Ideal Man"/ their very own Prince Charming.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - The studio that is releasing the movie is not the most credible of sources when it comes to whether "Nothing will be the Same" after Nov. 21, but they don't make a lot of claims about the film's magnificence, they just show you enough from the plot to get you interested enough to want to see the movie or find out what happens to these teenagers apparently "in love" in high school.
Pathos - They show a lot of the lines that appeal to women's swooning emotions, like "You are my life now" and other cheesy lines, they also show the teenagers kissing so there is a passionate appeal there. They also bring in the "male as protector" theme that some women find very attractive when they show scenes of the boy fighting for the girl. And then the trailer also makes an appeal to your curiosity and wonder by nature of the fact that this guy is definately not normal, probably a vampire and in love with a mortal, how will that work?
Logos - None whatsoever.
Sufficient Evidence - I think for the target audience there was enough cheesy, melodramatic stuff to get them hooked. And enough shots of the "devastatingly handsome" vampire that he is enough just to get them to go see the movie.
Typical Evidence - Movie trailers seldom claim anything other than this is our movie, here is a brief snippet of the plot to get you interested, here is when it comes out, you should come. It was pretty much the same kind of trailer I've seen a thousand times.
Accurate Evidence - The main guy is handsome so their appeal to get you to come so a hot guy, is pretty accurate, and considering that they just showed a bunch of clips from the movie, it doesn't get any more accurate than the real McCoy.
Relevant Evidence - I actually think they did a good job of outlining the plot without giving too much away so that those who haven't read the books still understand what the movie is going to be about.
4. Was it effective and Why?
I think for the target audience it will be very effective. Considering the widespread popularity of the books, it won't be hard to get fans to come see the movie, especially because they chose a handsome guy to be the main vampire. Also the movie is rated PG-13 so women will still be able to take their younger daughters to see the film so that they will have a legitimate excuse to go, other than just wanting to see the real life Prince Charming from the book in action. I think that the trailer showed enough of the characters and the setting of the movie so that people who have read the book will be able to agree or disagree with their choice of actors or location which is something that can draw them to or away from the film. They also showed enough plot and dialogue that people could determine how closely the filmmakers followed the book which could also be a draw to or away from the film. All in all, I think the movie will do well and although the trailer isn't anything really special, I think those who are excited abotu the movie, will be drawn in by it for sure.
Shock and Horror!
I have always held The New York Times in high esteem considering that it is kind of "the" American newspaper, and I am a journalism student so we are kind of instructed to idolize it, but recently, I have been less than impressed.
I know that all newspapers are somewhat slanted, and the Times has a definite liberal bias, but recently it has been getting a little ridiculous. Amid headlines about the economy, China, and the two presidential candidate's differing approaches to foreign policy, stands this headline: "$150,000 Wardrobe for Palin May Alter Tailor-Made Image". Really? Is there honestly nothing else to talk about? I'm pretty sure that people expect their candidates to look good and if the Republican party, who shopped and paid for the clothes, is willing to buy them, then why shouldn't she wear them? Plus I am sure that Obama's suits cost just as much, if not more, than any of her outfits. I think there are much more important issues to be discussing, than how much someone's outfit costs, but apparently the Times is so set on smearing Republicans that they are willing to let things like Palin's wardrobe pass as front-page news, and ignore things like Obama's addiction to cigarettes and past drug use slide by. Now I'm not saying I am a McCain/Palin supporter, but I'd rather know if Palin, McCain, Obama, or Biden are ready to lead the country, not if they are ready to strut down a runway.
17.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis – Encounter at Gold’s Gym
1. Identify the Argument – Join our gym.
2. Target Audience – Me, a 22-year-old, married, female, BYU student, that exercises at least 5 times a week.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos – The guy who tried to sell me a membership was close to my age and also a student at BYU and he is also really into fitness and has worked at Gold’s for a few years actually so he knows a lot about the gym and he is in a similar life stage as I am – I could relate to him, which made him more credible than some overweight guy who started working there yesterday.
Pathos – He understood that I like to work out alone and I also like to do classes so he talked to me about how could the classes are so I’ll feel like I’m getting a great workout and he also appealed to the fact that I hate having to wait for machines by explaining that they guarantee open machines.
Logos – He appealed to my logic when he explained that it only costs $16 a month at Gold’s right now, and as a member of 24 Hour-Fitness I pay $35 a month so obviously I would save a lot of money by joining. He also showed me the newer equipment and machines that they have at Gold’s, which were nicer than the one’s at 24.
Sufficient Evidence – I don’t feel like he gave me sufficient evidence because he didn’t talk to me about the fact that you have to join for two years at a time and you have to pay a large fee to cancel your membership before that 2 years us up. He also didn’t explain to me how they can guarantee a machine no matter what, I mean, what would they do for me if the machine I wanted was not open the exact second that I wanted it.
Typical Evidence – He gave typical evidence – Look how awesome our facility is, look at our nice machines, we are open 24 hours, etc.
Relevant Evidence – The evidence he gave me was relevant because he asked me what I like to do at the gym so he showed me things that I specifically care about, etc.
4. Was the argument effective? – No, because I did not get a membership and I wasn’t tempted to. Not because e didn’t do a good job, but mostly because I really like the gym I am at now, it’s closer to my house, the classes are good, I have a friend that also belongs to that same gym as me so we go together often, etc. Also 24 is month to month, so you quit without having to pay a bunch of money.
2. Target Audience – Me, a 22-year-old, married, female, BYU student, that exercises at least 5 times a week.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos – The guy who tried to sell me a membership was close to my age and also a student at BYU and he is also really into fitness and has worked at Gold’s for a few years actually so he knows a lot about the gym and he is in a similar life stage as I am – I could relate to him, which made him more credible than some overweight guy who started working there yesterday.
Pathos – He understood that I like to work out alone and I also like to do classes so he talked to me about how could the classes are so I’ll feel like I’m getting a great workout and he also appealed to the fact that I hate having to wait for machines by explaining that they guarantee open machines.
Logos – He appealed to my logic when he explained that it only costs $16 a month at Gold’s right now, and as a member of 24 Hour-Fitness I pay $35 a month so obviously I would save a lot of money by joining. He also showed me the newer equipment and machines that they have at Gold’s, which were nicer than the one’s at 24.
Sufficient Evidence – I don’t feel like he gave me sufficient evidence because he didn’t talk to me about the fact that you have to join for two years at a time and you have to pay a large fee to cancel your membership before that 2 years us up. He also didn’t explain to me how they can guarantee a machine no matter what, I mean, what would they do for me if the machine I wanted was not open the exact second that I wanted it.
Typical Evidence – He gave typical evidence – Look how awesome our facility is, look at our nice machines, we are open 24 hours, etc.
Relevant Evidence – The evidence he gave me was relevant because he asked me what I like to do at the gym so he showed me things that I specifically care about, etc.
4. Was the argument effective? – No, because I did not get a membership and I wasn’t tempted to. Not because e didn’t do a good job, but mostly because I really like the gym I am at now, it’s closer to my house, the classes are good, I have a friend that also belongs to that same gym as me so we go together often, etc. Also 24 is month to month, so you quit without having to pay a bunch of money.
16.10.08
I'd Rather Eat a Dried Sea Cucumber
I'm convinced the old "early to bed, early to rise" adage is a load of crap. I HATE waking up early. There is something about getting out of bed before 8:45 that is physically painful to me. It ruins my whole day - I never really wake up, I can't stop yawning, I have really bad coordination, I start saying really dumb stuff, and so on and so forth - all in all it's not good for me to be out in public when I'm tired. In fact when I do make myself get up, whoever I see while I'm driving genuinely pisses me off. Because the fact that other people get up before 8 a.m. makes it so I have to as well.
But I didn't always used to be this way. When I was in high school I had two-a-day swim practices and I woke up at 4:40 a.m. every morning to get to practice by 5 a.m. - it was brutal but as soon as my alarm went off I hopped up out of bed and got my suit on. Now I was not fully alert and I had to mentally remind myself that I could take a nap later that day in order to calm my weary body, but I did it. In addition to swim practice, I also had three years of early morning seminary (I moved to Utah my senior year so I had release time seminary for a year), and I was really good about getting up, getting ready for school and getting to seminary on time. But now I just can't do it, unless I have to catch a flight or I have something really important to go to, I would rather eat a dried sea cucumber than get up early.
For example, today I was supposed to go to the Legislature in Salt Lake for one of my journalism classes. We were supposed to meet at the Marriot center at 7:30 a.m and we had to look nice so I set my alarm for 6 a.m. I had a lot of homework to do the night beofre so I didn't get to bed until after one, but I was sure I would be able to force myself to get to that van in the morning.
Well 6 a.m. came, my alarm went off, I made myself get up, I walked to my closet, put on my robe and slippers and then I thought to myself, "I can't do this. I am going to die if I make myself stay awake, and I'll ask really stupid questions when I interview people in the Legislature because I'll be too tired to talk or think coherently." So I took off my slippers, left my robe on, just for good measure, went back to bed and slept until 9 a.m. like I do every morning.
I really just couldn't get up, it's embarrassing, but it's true. But you know what? I am not ashamed that I am not a morning person, I don't want to be. Where's the fun in getting up before the sun comes up and feeling that rush of sluggishness sweep your body the minute you open your eyes? It is so repugnant to me that it makes me shudder just thinking about it - I never want to have a job or a lifestyle that requires me to be up at ungodly hours of the morning. I am NOT a morning person.
10.10.08
Ian "Browntown" Kershisnik
This summer was the last of many which I spent living with my family. Considering that we moved to Ohio last summer, ergo I had no friends out there, I had to become better friends with my brothers so that when I got home from work, I had something to do other than peruse facebook profiles of people doing internships or traveling to foreign countries during their summer vacations.
Enter Ian Paul Kershisnik.
Ian is my younger brother by a little over 3 years and when he was born I hated him and was not allowed to be left alone with him. I wasn't a particularly violent or mean-spirited child, but as an avid Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle fan, I had learned that the best way to deal with a threat was to nunchuck it in the face. And I percieved Ian as a threat.
Somehow Ian survived his early years, overcoming the "subtle" haircut I inflicted on him and myself on a lazy afternoon when I was five and the many times we clashed over just about everything.
Yes we made it to near adulthood and managed to become friends somehow and here are some things just from the past year or so that I think are interesting to note about him:
Ian got the nickname "Browntown" in Ohio because he liked to wear Birkenstocks, brown khackis and a brown polo shirt to school.
He became obsessed with plyometrics last summer and could tell you how high anything was and if Michael Jordan could jump over it.
As a result he decided, at the age of seventeen, to get into basketball and he just started playing in pickup games at our Healthclub progressing to the point where he can now dunk quite easily.
He can make up hilarious songs at the drop of a hat and he has a particular knack for puns.
When we were in New York for a family vacation, he drank a 2 liter bottle of Fresca everyday because he decided a few years ago that he wasn't going to eat sugar and fake sugar tastes really good to him. Unfortunately Ian was not familiar with the fact that fake sugar in large doses has a laxative effect - some people have to learn things the hard way.
As a freshman at BYU this year, complete with a "disguise" care of Abercrombie and Fitch, to go to a BMW dealership to test-drive cars. And upon realizing his plan probably wouldn't work, he ordered a bunch of free pamphlets from BMW's web site and painstakingly covered everyinch of his dorm room walls and ceilings with pictures of cars.
This list is probably only one-one hundredth of the hilarious and odd things that Ian does, but I just was thinking about how I am glad I didn't suceed in pushing him out of our family when I was three, it would be pretty boring without him.
Rhetorical Analysis: Source Paper A
Liahona » 1992 » November
First Presidency Message
Salvation—A Family Affair
By President Ezra Taft Benson
In an eternal sense, salvation is a family affair. God holds parents responsible for their stewardship in rearing their family. It is a most sacred responsibility.
Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.
These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home—the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning.
Because some parents have departed from the principles the Lord gave for happiness and success, many families throughout the world are undergoing great stress and trauma. Many parents have been enticed to abandon their responsibilities in the home to seek after an elusive “self-fulfillment.” Some have abdicated parental responsibilities for pursuit of material things, unwilling to postpone personal gratification in the interest of their children’s welfare.
It is time to awaken to the fact that there are deliberate efforts to restructure the family along the lines of humanistic values. Images of the family and of love as depicted in television and film often portray a philosophy contrary to the commandments of God.
Innocent-sounding phrases are now used to give approval to sinful practices. Thus, the term “alternative life-style” is used to justify adultery and homosexuality, “freedom of choice” to justify abortion, “meaningful relationship” and “self-fulfillment” to justify sex outside of marriage.
If we continue with present trends, we can expect to have more emotionally disturbed young people, more divorce, more depression, and more suicide.
The family is the most effective place to instill lasting values in its members. Where family life is strong and based on principles and practices of the gospel of Jesus Christ, these problems do not as readily appear.
Three Fundamentals
My message is to return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes. May I offer three fundamentals to happy, enduring family relationships.
First: A husband and wife must attain righteous unity and oneness in their goals, desires, and actions.
Marriage itself must be regarded as a sacred covenant before God. A married couple have an obligation not only to each other, but to God. He has promised blessings to those who honor that covenant.
Fidelity to one’s marriage vows is absolutely essential for love, trust, and peace. Adultery is unequivocally condemned by the Lord.
Husbands and wives who love each other will find that love and loyalty are reciprocated. This love will provide a nurturing atmosphere for the emotional growth of children. Family life should be a time of happiness and joy that children can look back on with fond memories and associations.
Restraint and self-control must be ruling principles in the marriage relationship. Couples must learn to bridle their tongues as well as their passions.
Prayer in the home and prayer with each other will strengthen your union. Gradually thoughts, aspirations, and ideas will merge into a oneness until you are seeking the same purposes and goals.
Rely on the Lord, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures for guidance and help, particularly when there may be disagreements and problems.
Spiritual growth comes by solving problems together—not by running from them. Today’s inordinate emphasis on individualism brings egotism and separation. Two individuals becoming “one flesh” is still the Lord’s standard. (See Gen. 2:24.)
The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth.
Second: Nurture your children with love and the admonitions of the Lord.
Rearing happy, peaceful children is no easy challenge in today’s world, but it can be done, and it is being done.
Responsible parenthood is the key.
Above all else, children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured of that often. Obviously, this is a role parents should fill, and most often the mother can do it best.
Children need to know who they are in the eternal sense of their identity. They need to know that they have an eternal Heavenly Father on whom they can rely, to whom they can pray, and from whom they can receive guidance. They need to know from whence they came so that their lives will have meaning and purpose.
Children must be taught to pray, to rely on the Lord for guidance, and to express appreciation for the blessings that are theirs. I recall kneeling at the bedsides of our young children, helping them with their prayers.
Children must be taught right from wrong. They can and must learn the commandments of God. They must be taught that it is wrong to steal, lie, cheat, or covet what others have.
Children must be taught to work at home. They should learn there that honest labor develops dignity and self-respect. They should learn the pleasure of work, of doing a job well.
The leisure time of children must be constructively directed to wholesome, positive pursuits. Too much television viewing can be destructive.
Families must spend more time together in work and recreation. Family home evenings should be scheduled once a week as a time for discussions of gospel principles, recreation, work projects, skits, songs around the piano, games, special refreshments, and family prayers. Like iron links in a chain, this practice will bind a family together in love, pride, tradition, strength, and loyalty.
Family study of the scriptures should be the practice in our homes each Sabbath day.
Daily devotionals are also a commendable practice, where scripture reading, singing of hymns, and family prayer are a part of our daily routine.
Third: Parents must prepare their children for the ordinances of the gospel.
The most important teachings in the home are spiritual. Parents are commanded to prepare their sons and daughters for the ordinances of the gospel: baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordinations, and temple marriage. They are to teach them to respect and honor the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Most importantly, parents are to instill within their children a desire for eternal life and to earnestly seek that goal above all else.
Eternal life may be obtained only by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
When parents themselves have complied with the ordinances of salvation, when they have set the example of a temple marriage, not only is their own marriage more likely to succeed, but their children are far more likely to follow their example.
Parents who provide such a home will have, as the Lord has said, “a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, … a house of order, a house of God” (D&C 88:119). Regardless of how modest or humble that home may be, it will have love, happiness, peace, and joy. Children will grow up in righteousness and truth and will desire to serve the Lord.
Thank God for the joys of family life. I have often said there can be no genuine happiness separate and apart from a good home. The sweetest influences and associations of life are there.
Rhetorical Analysis
1. Identify the Argument
Return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes.
2. Target Audience
LDS parents who are striving to help their families and do all they can to raise happy righteous children and have a strong, unified marriage and those who may be floundering in their home and family lives and need some direction to get them back on the right path.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos
Ezra Taft Benson was the prophet at the time this message came out so based on his calling as the mouthpiece of the Lord, his credibility is based on the extent to which members sustain him and have testimonies that he really could recieve revelation for the entire church. He addressed his audience is a gentle but instructional tone, outlining exactly what they must do to save their families and to be happy.
Pathos
President Benson started off his message by talking about what has torn families apart and then he offers a solution for creating lasting, enduring, happy family relationships. No one wants their family to fall apart or succomb to worldly pressures so he really hit their emotions hard almost saying ,"This is what could happen to you if you don't do what I say." He also appealed to the fact that LDS church members want to do what is right and follow their Heavenly Father's teachings so that they can return to live with Him someday. Benson told them that if they strive to follow the three fundamentals he outlined then basically they will be able to have eternal life and exaltation with their families.
Logos
President Benson doesn't really appeal to logic because, as the Prophet, what he says doesn't necessarily have to be backed up by scientific research, he has God on his side to give credit to his message. But he does talk a little bit about trends in society which can be proven just by living in the world and being aware of whats going on.
Sufficient Evidence
I don't think he necessarily provides much evidence, the evidence is more in the blessings you recieve if you do what he says - it is more applicational evidence, than scientific data.
Typical Evidence
President Benson's evidence is not typical because it is based on revelation and the knowledge and foresight he is privy to by nature of his calling.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think for his audience President Benson's message probably was quite effective because most LDS church members at least listen to what their Prophet has to say. Whether or not they applied hsi teachings to their lives is harder to say, but I think most people probably took to heart what President Benson had to say and tried to implement some of the things he suggested into their marriage and family relationships. And again, the effectiveness of the message is based almost solely on the fact that President Benson was the Prophet and those who read his essay in the Liahona or The Ensign probably believed that what he said was important for them to follow.
First Presidency Message
Salvation—A Family Affair
By President Ezra Taft Benson
In an eternal sense, salvation is a family affair. God holds parents responsible for their stewardship in rearing their family. It is a most sacred responsibility.
Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.
These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home—the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning.
Because some parents have departed from the principles the Lord gave for happiness and success, many families throughout the world are undergoing great stress and trauma. Many parents have been enticed to abandon their responsibilities in the home to seek after an elusive “self-fulfillment.” Some have abdicated parental responsibilities for pursuit of material things, unwilling to postpone personal gratification in the interest of their children’s welfare.
It is time to awaken to the fact that there are deliberate efforts to restructure the family along the lines of humanistic values. Images of the family and of love as depicted in television and film often portray a philosophy contrary to the commandments of God.
Innocent-sounding phrases are now used to give approval to sinful practices. Thus, the term “alternative life-style” is used to justify adultery and homosexuality, “freedom of choice” to justify abortion, “meaningful relationship” and “self-fulfillment” to justify sex outside of marriage.
If we continue with present trends, we can expect to have more emotionally disturbed young people, more divorce, more depression, and more suicide.
The family is the most effective place to instill lasting values in its members. Where family life is strong and based on principles and practices of the gospel of Jesus Christ, these problems do not as readily appear.
Three Fundamentals
My message is to return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes. May I offer three fundamentals to happy, enduring family relationships.
First: A husband and wife must attain righteous unity and oneness in their goals, desires, and actions.
Marriage itself must be regarded as a sacred covenant before God. A married couple have an obligation not only to each other, but to God. He has promised blessings to those who honor that covenant.
Fidelity to one’s marriage vows is absolutely essential for love, trust, and peace. Adultery is unequivocally condemned by the Lord.
Husbands and wives who love each other will find that love and loyalty are reciprocated. This love will provide a nurturing atmosphere for the emotional growth of children. Family life should be a time of happiness and joy that children can look back on with fond memories and associations.
Restraint and self-control must be ruling principles in the marriage relationship. Couples must learn to bridle their tongues as well as their passions.
Prayer in the home and prayer with each other will strengthen your union. Gradually thoughts, aspirations, and ideas will merge into a oneness until you are seeking the same purposes and goals.
Rely on the Lord, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures for guidance and help, particularly when there may be disagreements and problems.
Spiritual growth comes by solving problems together—not by running from them. Today’s inordinate emphasis on individualism brings egotism and separation. Two individuals becoming “one flesh” is still the Lord’s standard. (See Gen. 2:24.)
The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth.
Second: Nurture your children with love and the admonitions of the Lord.
Rearing happy, peaceful children is no easy challenge in today’s world, but it can be done, and it is being done.
Responsible parenthood is the key.
Above all else, children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured of that often. Obviously, this is a role parents should fill, and most often the mother can do it best.
Children need to know who they are in the eternal sense of their identity. They need to know that they have an eternal Heavenly Father on whom they can rely, to whom they can pray, and from whom they can receive guidance. They need to know from whence they came so that their lives will have meaning and purpose.
Children must be taught to pray, to rely on the Lord for guidance, and to express appreciation for the blessings that are theirs. I recall kneeling at the bedsides of our young children, helping them with their prayers.
Children must be taught right from wrong. They can and must learn the commandments of God. They must be taught that it is wrong to steal, lie, cheat, or covet what others have.
Children must be taught to work at home. They should learn there that honest labor develops dignity and self-respect. They should learn the pleasure of work, of doing a job well.
The leisure time of children must be constructively directed to wholesome, positive pursuits. Too much television viewing can be destructive.
Families must spend more time together in work and recreation. Family home evenings should be scheduled once a week as a time for discussions of gospel principles, recreation, work projects, skits, songs around the piano, games, special refreshments, and family prayers. Like iron links in a chain, this practice will bind a family together in love, pride, tradition, strength, and loyalty.
Family study of the scriptures should be the practice in our homes each Sabbath day.
Daily devotionals are also a commendable practice, where scripture reading, singing of hymns, and family prayer are a part of our daily routine.
Third: Parents must prepare their children for the ordinances of the gospel.
The most important teachings in the home are spiritual. Parents are commanded to prepare their sons and daughters for the ordinances of the gospel: baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordinations, and temple marriage. They are to teach them to respect and honor the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Most importantly, parents are to instill within their children a desire for eternal life and to earnestly seek that goal above all else.
Eternal life may be obtained only by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
When parents themselves have complied with the ordinances of salvation, when they have set the example of a temple marriage, not only is their own marriage more likely to succeed, but their children are far more likely to follow their example.
Parents who provide such a home will have, as the Lord has said, “a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, … a house of order, a house of God” (D&C 88:119). Regardless of how modest or humble that home may be, it will have love, happiness, peace, and joy. Children will grow up in righteousness and truth and will desire to serve the Lord.
Thank God for the joys of family life. I have often said there can be no genuine happiness separate and apart from a good home. The sweetest influences and associations of life are there.
Rhetorical Analysis
1. Identify the Argument
Return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes.
2. Target Audience
LDS parents who are striving to help their families and do all they can to raise happy righteous children and have a strong, unified marriage and those who may be floundering in their home and family lives and need some direction to get them back on the right path.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos
Ezra Taft Benson was the prophet at the time this message came out so based on his calling as the mouthpiece of the Lord, his credibility is based on the extent to which members sustain him and have testimonies that he really could recieve revelation for the entire church. He addressed his audience is a gentle but instructional tone, outlining exactly what they must do to save their families and to be happy.
Pathos
President Benson started off his message by talking about what has torn families apart and then he offers a solution for creating lasting, enduring, happy family relationships. No one wants their family to fall apart or succomb to worldly pressures so he really hit their emotions hard almost saying ,"This is what could happen to you if you don't do what I say." He also appealed to the fact that LDS church members want to do what is right and follow their Heavenly Father's teachings so that they can return to live with Him someday. Benson told them that if they strive to follow the three fundamentals he outlined then basically they will be able to have eternal life and exaltation with their families.
Logos
President Benson doesn't really appeal to logic because, as the Prophet, what he says doesn't necessarily have to be backed up by scientific research, he has God on his side to give credit to his message. But he does talk a little bit about trends in society which can be proven just by living in the world and being aware of whats going on.
Sufficient Evidence
I don't think he necessarily provides much evidence, the evidence is more in the blessings you recieve if you do what he says - it is more applicational evidence, than scientific data.
Typical Evidence
President Benson's evidence is not typical because it is based on revelation and the knowledge and foresight he is privy to by nature of his calling.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think for his audience President Benson's message probably was quite effective because most LDS church members at least listen to what their Prophet has to say. Whether or not they applied hsi teachings to their lives is harder to say, but I think most people probably took to heart what President Benson had to say and tried to implement some of the things he suggested into their marriage and family relationships. And again, the effectiveness of the message is based almost solely on the fact that President Benson was the Prophet and those who read his essay in the Liahona or The Ensign probably believed that what he said was important for them to follow.
4.10.08
My First Article of the Semester
Although you have, in the course of the semester, made known your somewhat dismal opinion of the news media, I am still willing to admit that I am a print journalism major. That being said, after a long summer of lifeguarding and wedding plans I came back to school worried that my overexposure to chlorine, sun and love-sickness may have weakened my journalistic abilites. I'm not saying this is the best article I've ever written, but I am pretty pleased with it and considering the premise of the article is that journalism is dying, you might actually be happy to read it :).
NOT PAPER OR PLASTIC, BUT PAPER OR WIRELESS?
BY MARIA KERSHISNIK WALTON
It’s been said that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, but apparently the printed word is no match for the World Wide Web.
In an age where knowledge can be accessed instantly allowing the answer to almost any question about politics, local news, weather, sports, the definition of words, or even what the rest of the lyrics are to that annoying song you’ve had stuck in your head for three days, to pop-up on screen within seconds of your query, traditional newspapers are struggling to compete.
Although journalism is known as a fast-paced, deadline-conscious industry, the number of people willing to wait 24-hours to get information are becoming as rare as size eight jeans at an after-Christmas sale.
Despite efforts to add color, fact boxes, and concise, blurb-like stories, it seems that journalism, as the veritable watchdog, has just about barked itself hoarse trying to get people to pay attention.
Although newspaper circulation has been somewhat weakened since the 1980s, the downward spiral it currently faces has been picking up steam since 2003. This journalistic nosedive culminated in the Audit Bureau of Circulations’ April 2008 report, which announced a 3.6 percent drop in U.S. newspaper circulation over a six-month period from October 2007 to March 2008.
But even with the decay of daily paper sales over the last few decades, Sunday circulation remained removed, to some extent, from the accelerating demise of its daily counterpart: not anymore. In the six-month reporting period ending on March 31, 2008, that same report found that Sunday circulation fell 4.2 percent, nearly a full point higher than daily circulation.
While some of the “physical” newspaper’s demise has been self-inflicted – some publishers cut costs by halting delivery to remote locations and bad press about the press (plagiarism, strong liberal bias) weakened credibility – much of this tailspin in circulation can be attributed to the readers’ mass exodus from traditional news sources to online versions. Not only has this decreased circulation, but in addition, ad revenues have plummeted.
“Ad revenues of newspapers are way down, especially in classifieds,” said Ed Carter, an assistant professor of communications at BYU. “The print side is taking a big hit because the ad side is not keeping pace.”
Dennis Romboy, an assistant city editor at The Deseret News and part-time instructor at BYU explained, “We laid off 34 people this year - mostly reporters, editors, and artists - because classified ad revenue was down, something like a 3 million dollar shortfall, because people prefer to use KSL.com or craigslist.org to advertise.”
As a result of the lack of ad revenue, The New York Sun was forced to close its doors on Tuesday and the Tribune Company in Chicago “is trying to sell assets like the Cubs baseball team, Wrigley Field and the Tribune building,” Ed Carter said.
The Sun Times in Chicago recently sold their real estate to Donald Trump and now they are leasing space in order to keep their paper going.
“Major newspapers in major cities are renting space.” Carter said. “It’s hard to trust in this industry’s staying power when even their location is temporary.”
Soon the image of everyday Americans shuffling out to get the morning paper in their bathrobes and slippers will be replaced by a few quick scans of the computer screen whenever the mood should strike them.
The mile-a-minute world of yesterday has been left in the dust by the continent-a-nanosecond technological abilities of today. While it can be said that these advances make the journalists’ task of keeping the public informed a million times more doable, it is becoming apparent that they have also shaken the entire foundation of an American industry that dates back to before the Declaration of Independence.
Inherent in our society is an indescribable trust between the public and the paper; trust that what they put out is true. In the past, papers sustained that trust and, consequently, their own credibility, by editing and fact checking their stories and by printing corrections for errors the following day. This recipe for integrity doesn’t translate well in the online news format.
“We don’t have time anymore to copy edit or edit for substance,” Carter said. “We just want reporters to write the story and get it posted immediately, so there are errors due to haste.”
When the World Wide Web enters into the journalism equation, speed, rather than accuracy becomes the number one priority for reporters. The race to be the first to post a breaking news story allows for the presence of errors in reporting due to unknown information or “facts” proved to be false upon further investigation.
Although it is still possible to make corrections to online news stories, Carter believes that no amount of effort can remedy the harm done by erroneous Internet reporting.
“Even if it’s only been up for a few hours, it’s could still be out there somewhere on the Web,” Carter said. “Someone could have copy and pasted it onto their blog or uploaded it onto a Web site - you can’t undo that damage.”
Another blow to the journalists’ collective psyche is the immergence of bloggers as ‘reliable” sources of news.
“It seems like now everybody is a reporter,” said Dennis Romboy of The Deseret News. “People can put things on blogs or a web site and it’s not necessarily good writing, it’s just information.”
Michael Bragonje, an English major at BYU, went so far as to say that he trusts bloggers more than journalists. Believing that the current news media are so biased in their reporting, they are not unlike bloggers, Bragonje thinks that at least the latter of the two have the decency to admit when they are pushing their own agendas.
“I find that traditional news sources present current events with a slant – I can’t get news out of that,” Bragonje said. “I’d like them to say, ‘This is our opinion’ rather than present it as news.”
Anne Blake, a BYU graduate in English language, also spoke in favor of blogs.
“With a blog there’s dialogue,” Blake said, “A lot of people are very biased, but it’s a discussion, people can answer back and correct things.”
Looking to the future, Bragonje was nonchalant about proclaiming that print journalism is dying, “Things are changing, no one wants to buy it anymore” he said.
Blake added, “Of course [papers] will all be online soon, I mean we’re not still using candles.”
Citing the discomfort of reading off a computer screen as the only downside to online papers, Michael Bragonje was confident that soon, with the aid of technological advances, that would no longer be a problem.
And with new applications like the Amazon Kindle, a wireless reading device, technology is well on it’s way to fulfilling his prophesy.
According to Amazon.com, the Kindle utilizes a “revolutionary electronic-paper display” which provides a sharp high-resolution screen that looks and reads like paper.
Top U.S. papers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post can be auto-delivered wirelessly to your Kindle every morning for between 14 and 10 dollars a month.
As new developments in technology that cultivate the ideal of easy access with minimal effort emerge as the norm in society, the significance of Ed Carter’s idea that “the print side of journalism won’t be around in some places any longer,” could be more than that of a passing thought; It could be the ghostly peal of traditional journalism’s death knell echoing off of idle printing presses across the United States.
3.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis: Article/Editorial
BRING ON THE RUBBER CHICKEN
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 25, 2008 in "The New York Times"
How do you think the besieged financial community felt when the White House announced that George W. Bush was going to address the nation on television Wednesday night?
Hopeful? Terrified?
“We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis,” the president said, reading his lines flatly and stolidly, like an announcer delivering a long public-service message about new parking regulations for the holiday season. The whole event had a kind of unreality to it, since Bush has arrived at that unhappy point in American public life when a famous person begins to look like a celebrity impersonator.
There is, in a way, a kind of talent required to tell the nation that it’s teetering on the brink of disaster in a way that makes the viewers’ attention wander. Bush’s explanation about how the rescue bill would unclog the lines of credit made the whole thing sound less important than a Liquid-Plumr commercial.
But help is on the way! John McCain and Barack Obama are going to join Bush at the White House to work over the details of a rescue bill with Congressional leaders. As Obama put it: “The risk of doing nothing is economic catastrophe.”
Or, as Sarah Palin told Katie Couric on CBS News last night: “Not necessarily this, as it’s been proposed, has to pass or we’re gonna find ourselves in another Great Depression. But there has to be action taken, bipartisan effort — Congress not pointing fingers at this point at ... one another, but finding the solution to this, taking action and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.”
So say we all.
(Palin was unable to answer questions about McCain’s record and relief for homeowners with troubled mortgages. But she did reveal forthrightly that she considers her running mate a “maverick.”)
About that rescue bill. Passing it is going to be a test of true bipartisanship, which involves both sides deciding that they will share the blame for doing something messy and unpleasant. But first, Congress has to hold hearings until every single member of the House and Senate has had a chance to yell at Henry Paulson. This can be a surprisingly useful exercise. It is much easier to work up sympathy for the rescue plan once you’ve heard Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky call it “un-American.”
Meanwhile, McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, taking his ads off the air and going back to Washington to do something leaderlike and bipartisan. This was yet another new McCain, very different from last week’s versions, that blamed Obama for the financial meltdown while tossing out rescue plans like a desperate dart player 10 minutes before the bar closes.
“Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now,” he said.
In deference to the current emergency, we will refrain from pointing out that when our national leaders came together following Sept. 11, the results were, all and all, worse than if they had stayed home.
Last week, while McCain was desperately reinventing his position every day, Obama was withholding, declining to take a position until the administration plan had jelled. But in the end, it turned out that their ideas were both vaguely similar and similarly vague. On Wednesday, Obama called McCain to propose issuing a joint statement. Then McCain one-upped him by announcing that he wanted to postpone Friday’s debate until the economy was rescued. His minions raced off to the news shows to say that the American people were “tired of debates and talking.”
Since Obama, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the University of Mississippi, which is hosting the debate, all say it will go on, it isn’t clear what will happen if McCain fails to show up. An empty chair? A last-minute invitation to Ralph Nader and Bob Barr to drop on by? Once in New York, when Rudy Giuliani boycotted a mayoral debate, one of his opponents spent the night twirling around a rubber chicken and the citizenry enjoyed it quite a lot. This isn’t the kind of thing you could imagine Obama doing, but I’d keep my eye on Barr.
Obama, meanwhile, had not even promised to show up for the rescue bill vote until McCain made his grand gesture. When reporters asked him on Tuesday whether he was planning to go to Washington, he was noncommittal: “If we get consensus and everybody is popping Champagne, then I’ll probably go back to campaign with folks who are having a tough time in Ohio and Michigan.”
This seemed like an overly casual way to avert economic catastrophe. Since the people of Ohio and Michigan have been visited by a presidential candidate virtually every hour for the last six months, it would seem that they could get by on their own for a day or two.
This election is turning into a Goldilocks story. One candidate’s too hot, and one’s too cool.
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
1. Identify the Argument
The argument of Ms. Collins's editorial is that our presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama, are both extreme in opposite ways.
WATCO analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis on determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office.
A/B: Determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office can be achieved by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
B/C: Determing if they would behave similiarly in office will help you decide who to vote for.
IA: Deciding who you vote for is influenced by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
2. Target Audience
The target audience is the group of people who are sitting on the fence about who to vote for, but are still intending to vote in November, but are also willing to do the work to be informed about the candidates. These people read the newspaper, including the editorial section, and probably utilize other forms of news media to find out all they can about their options for president. These people are most likely middle-aged, highly educated (college degree at least) and have the money and leisure time to read the paper, watch the news, and surf the internet to glean what information they can about the candidates. They probably don't affiliate with any party or have felt that the party they used to belong to has left them some how and so they are not voting along party lines.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Gail Collins is a writer for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country and the world, "The New York Times". Although she is writing an editorial which is an oppinion piece, readers trust that, as a reporter, Collins holds to an ethocal code that charges her to only print the truth.
Pathos - Her overly sarcastic tone communicates the contempt she feels for the situation that America finds itself in - a lameduck President whom she describes as a shadow of his former self, who will be replaced by a fiery Republican who makes rash decisions, or a noncommital Democrat who waits until situations are over to voice any oppinion about them. I think she wants her audience to feel the gravity of the decision they will be making in November, but also the frustration that for four years they have been ruled by a "lame duck" and now they have two, equally annoying, options for his replacement.
Logos - Collins helps her audience to make these deductions by walking them through the candidates' statements and decisions leading up to the bailout plan with her colorful remarks and sarcastic comments leading the way to her conclusion and the basis of her argment: one candidate is too hot, the other is too cold, so which are you gonna vote for?
Sufficient Evidence - I'm not sure she provides sufficient evidence considering she did not actually interview the candidates and by nature of the fact that the people in question are politicians, who can know for sure what they really think anyway?
Accurate Evidence - Her evidence was accurate, she used their actual quotes and cited decisions they made which were made know to the public.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think the editorial was probably quite effective considering that it demonstrated the two extremes of both of the candidates. There was much more to say about McCain because he did so much more and made more statements, while Obama may seem to be underrepresented in the editorial, but the contrast between how much each candidate was mentioned only helped to prove how action-oriented McCain is, and how vague and obtuse Obama seems to be. Because she attacked both sides, although we can glean that she is not a fan of the Iraq war which may have alienated readers who are, the audience doesn't feel like only one candidates is being presecuted. And because both of the candidates end up looking kind of silly, it is up to the voters to decide what they are going to do in November which is what I think she meant to do with her article. Collins is not telling people who to vote for, she is just making people aware of information to help them get interested in the election and to inspire them to action.
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 25, 2008 in "The New York Times"
How do you think the besieged financial community felt when the White House announced that George W. Bush was going to address the nation on television Wednesday night?
Hopeful? Terrified?
“We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis,” the president said, reading his lines flatly and stolidly, like an announcer delivering a long public-service message about new parking regulations for the holiday season. The whole event had a kind of unreality to it, since Bush has arrived at that unhappy point in American public life when a famous person begins to look like a celebrity impersonator.
There is, in a way, a kind of talent required to tell the nation that it’s teetering on the brink of disaster in a way that makes the viewers’ attention wander. Bush’s explanation about how the rescue bill would unclog the lines of credit made the whole thing sound less important than a Liquid-Plumr commercial.
But help is on the way! John McCain and Barack Obama are going to join Bush at the White House to work over the details of a rescue bill with Congressional leaders. As Obama put it: “The risk of doing nothing is economic catastrophe.”
Or, as Sarah Palin told Katie Couric on CBS News last night: “Not necessarily this, as it’s been proposed, has to pass or we’re gonna find ourselves in another Great Depression. But there has to be action taken, bipartisan effort — Congress not pointing fingers at this point at ... one another, but finding the solution to this, taking action and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.”
So say we all.
(Palin was unable to answer questions about McCain’s record and relief for homeowners with troubled mortgages. But she did reveal forthrightly that she considers her running mate a “maverick.”)
About that rescue bill. Passing it is going to be a test of true bipartisanship, which involves both sides deciding that they will share the blame for doing something messy and unpleasant. But first, Congress has to hold hearings until every single member of the House and Senate has had a chance to yell at Henry Paulson. This can be a surprisingly useful exercise. It is much easier to work up sympathy for the rescue plan once you’ve heard Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky call it “un-American.”
Meanwhile, McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, taking his ads off the air and going back to Washington to do something leaderlike and bipartisan. This was yet another new McCain, very different from last week’s versions, that blamed Obama for the financial meltdown while tossing out rescue plans like a desperate dart player 10 minutes before the bar closes.
“Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now,” he said.
In deference to the current emergency, we will refrain from pointing out that when our national leaders came together following Sept. 11, the results were, all and all, worse than if they had stayed home.
Last week, while McCain was desperately reinventing his position every day, Obama was withholding, declining to take a position until the administration plan had jelled. But in the end, it turned out that their ideas were both vaguely similar and similarly vague. On Wednesday, Obama called McCain to propose issuing a joint statement. Then McCain one-upped him by announcing that he wanted to postpone Friday’s debate until the economy was rescued. His minions raced off to the news shows to say that the American people were “tired of debates and talking.”
Since Obama, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the University of Mississippi, which is hosting the debate, all say it will go on, it isn’t clear what will happen if McCain fails to show up. An empty chair? A last-minute invitation to Ralph Nader and Bob Barr to drop on by? Once in New York, when Rudy Giuliani boycotted a mayoral debate, one of his opponents spent the night twirling around a rubber chicken and the citizenry enjoyed it quite a lot. This isn’t the kind of thing you could imagine Obama doing, but I’d keep my eye on Barr.
Obama, meanwhile, had not even promised to show up for the rescue bill vote until McCain made his grand gesture. When reporters asked him on Tuesday whether he was planning to go to Washington, he was noncommittal: “If we get consensus and everybody is popping Champagne, then I’ll probably go back to campaign with folks who are having a tough time in Ohio and Michigan.”
This seemed like an overly casual way to avert economic catastrophe. Since the people of Ohio and Michigan have been visited by a presidential candidate virtually every hour for the last six months, it would seem that they could get by on their own for a day or two.
This election is turning into a Goldilocks story. One candidate’s too hot, and one’s too cool.
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
1. Identify the Argument
The argument of Ms. Collins's editorial is that our presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama, are both extreme in opposite ways.
WATCO analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis on determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office.
A/B: Determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office can be achieved by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
B/C: Determing if they would behave similiarly in office will help you decide who to vote for.
IA: Deciding who you vote for is influenced by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
2. Target Audience
The target audience is the group of people who are sitting on the fence about who to vote for, but are still intending to vote in November, but are also willing to do the work to be informed about the candidates. These people read the newspaper, including the editorial section, and probably utilize other forms of news media to find out all they can about their options for president. These people are most likely middle-aged, highly educated (college degree at least) and have the money and leisure time to read the paper, watch the news, and surf the internet to glean what information they can about the candidates. They probably don't affiliate with any party or have felt that the party they used to belong to has left them some how and so they are not voting along party lines.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Gail Collins is a writer for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country and the world, "The New York Times". Although she is writing an editorial which is an oppinion piece, readers trust that, as a reporter, Collins holds to an ethocal code that charges her to only print the truth.
Pathos - Her overly sarcastic tone communicates the contempt she feels for the situation that America finds itself in - a lameduck President whom she describes as a shadow of his former self, who will be replaced by a fiery Republican who makes rash decisions, or a noncommital Democrat who waits until situations are over to voice any oppinion about them. I think she wants her audience to feel the gravity of the decision they will be making in November, but also the frustration that for four years they have been ruled by a "lame duck" and now they have two, equally annoying, options for his replacement.
Logos - Collins helps her audience to make these deductions by walking them through the candidates' statements and decisions leading up to the bailout plan with her colorful remarks and sarcastic comments leading the way to her conclusion and the basis of her argment: one candidate is too hot, the other is too cold, so which are you gonna vote for?
Sufficient Evidence - I'm not sure she provides sufficient evidence considering she did not actually interview the candidates and by nature of the fact that the people in question are politicians, who can know for sure what they really think anyway?
Accurate Evidence - Her evidence was accurate, she used their actual quotes and cited decisions they made which were made know to the public.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think the editorial was probably quite effective considering that it demonstrated the two extremes of both of the candidates. There was much more to say about McCain because he did so much more and made more statements, while Obama may seem to be underrepresented in the editorial, but the contrast between how much each candidate was mentioned only helped to prove how action-oriented McCain is, and how vague and obtuse Obama seems to be. Because she attacked both sides, although we can glean that she is not a fan of the Iraq war which may have alienated readers who are, the audience doesn't feel like only one candidates is being presecuted. And because both of the candidates end up looking kind of silly, it is up to the voters to decide what they are going to do in November which is what I think she meant to do with her article. Collins is not telling people who to vote for, she is just making people aware of information to help them get interested in the election and to inspire them to action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)