Ss19981
After reading the article(s) assigned for the Reading Response,…
After reading the article(s) assigned for the Reading Response, write a response to ONE article.
Your Reading Response should contain three paragraphs:
Brief summary of the essay in 1 – 3 sentences.
Explain the main argument made by the writer or the “big idea” of the piece.
Rhetorical Response to the essay
How did the author use logos, pathos or ethos to successfully support the argument? Use specific examples from the text.
Was there any evidence of unbalanced or false rhetoric (fallacies)? If so, explain.
What other rhetorical moves (analogies, definitions, causations, evaluations, rebuttals, proposals) did you notice the writer making?
Personal Response to the essay.
What attracted your attention in the argument or writing? What will you remember about this piece?
What questions do you have after reading this? How could the author have better informed you about this topic?
How do your own experiences shape the way you see or understand this piece?
Low-Hanging Fruit
Walchak 1
Image transcription text
Lisa 2017 1-13 DISTby Wach Posters Croup I SAY WE RUN WITH
IT! MEDIA UNVETTED NEWS
How many Americans get their news from comedy? For the purposes of conducting a rhetorical analysis, I chose a political cartoon released January 13th in 2017 titled “Low-Hanging Fruit” (Benson, “Low-Hanging Fruit”). In the cartoon, two men stand near a tree labeled “unvetted news” which bear bombs instead of fruit; one of the two men is holding a bomb with a puzzled look. He carries a bag labeled “media” and is wearing business casual clothes. The other
man, holding a clipboard and noticeably older, shouts the cartoon’s only dialogue: “I say we RUN with it!” This image means to portray that the media, following orders, pick the “low- hanging fruit” of news that is unverified and then run to the public with stories before they are verifiably legitimized. With the sheer amount of news outlets catering to many different audiences, the media feels they have an incentive to rush news to print as soon as the story is brought to light; this cartoon does well in getting that message across.
The cartoon was created by Lisa Benson of the Washington Post; Benson is a member of their Writer’s Group which was formed in 1973. The Washington Post Writers Group provides editorial cartoons, comics to newspapers, magazines, and submits syndicated news columns to subscribers globally. My personal experience with the Washington Post has been largely positive, as their opinions align with my progressive values. They are also highly skeptical of the current political landscape and have released many stories revealing corruption during the Trump campaign. A quick look at the Washington Post’s columnists, not from the writers group, gives the comfort that the staff is well-rounded and features leftists and rightists alike. Their staff is also ethnically diverse and inclusive to women.
For the aforementioned reasons, the comic contains an appeal to ethos. The comic comes from a news source that is credible and fair, so the comic exudes balance and professionalism. This ethos appeal comes not from the comic itself, but from which news outlet the comic comes from. The Washington Post delivers us this comic in a way that does not bash any particular news source nor any particular person and so they do not attack ad hominem, but they do poke fun at the proposed chain-of-command that seems to occur at some news outlets. They joke that unvetted news stories are like bombs waiting to go off, and some media outlets rush to “run with it” and go straight to print.
Walchak 2
I have worked many low-level jobs that kept a corporate structure and a top-down level of command. In my experience, the ones who make decisions have little-to-no experience working on the ground level. This type of structure sandwiches mid-level managers between the fear of their manager, and a fear of rejection by the employee. Such disempowerment creates a frenzy of baseless micromanagement depicted here in this cartoon. The older gentleman, eyebrows wide and a frazzled composure, points the low-level media employee away from him, with the command “I say we RUN with it!” The portrayal of a manager directing an employee in this manner holds potential appeal to pathos. Personally, the comic makes me feel how it wants me to feel, as I can see myself in the man’s shoes who holds the bomb. I have been misled by managers who were only doing as they were told, and so I am further fueled to agree with the comic’s claims.
News should be verified as “true” or “untrue” before it is released to the public. Logically, I believe most, if not all people should agree with that statement. The main principle I glean from this political cartoon is “just because the low-hanging fruit of unvetted news is easy to grab and run with, it does not mean it should be grabbed and ran with.” This message holds an appeal to logos, as it carries a sense of practical logic. Even if the news is difficult to hear, it is not the media’s job to make it sound good to the viewer; such attempts to do so is the definition of bias. The media’s job is to report the news objectively, with clarity, as soon as verifiably possible, and let the viewer deal with the emotional adjustment; but this is not what is being done. Librarians are being called upon to lead the charge on helping locals sift through inaccurate news. Joyce Valenza, who teaches at Rutgers University, writes “I see a serious need for librarians to build a few seaworthy arks from the news media flood to aid students in discerning credibility, reliability, and bias in context of their information needs and the context
Walchak 3
Walchak 4
of the text itself.” In her blog, she also goes on to say “news literacy is complicated” and introduces the Oxford Dictionary 2016 word of the year: “Post-truth.” While there are certainly many factors contributing to post-truth news articles, rushing to report a news story before all the information is gathered is certainly a contributor.
This political cartoon appeals to the viewer emotionally, logically, and ethically. It is not too wrought with political symbols and obscure terminology; the symbolism is inferred, yet simplistic. The message is powerful even through the cartoonish coloration and typical comic typeface and structure. As I get older, it is ironic to me that humorists seem to easily convey the truth under the guise of silliness; I know now that I would learn more in watching a Comedy Central broadcast of The Daily Show than I would watching any single news program on the Fox Network. To me, these truths are self-evident, but my worry is that society will one day lose its sense of humor.
Image transcription text
Excuse me America, this is tissue. Q Q |G
-Ad Analysis of “Excuse me America, This is Tissue. This is Not.”
Abortion has been one of the most controversial topics in politics and among all age groups in America for decades. Arguments in favor of abortion claim to be “pro- choice,” and those against abortion are referred to as the “pro-life” group. Those who are
Beever 1
pro-life argue that there are alternatives to abortion, and that taking a life should never be an option. On the other hand, the pro-choice group takes into consideration all circumstantial factors surrounding pregnancy; some examples include extenuating circumstances such as rape, poverty, and adolescent incompetency.
This ad is clearly in favor of pro-life, and it is actually quite effective at conveying its message. Not only does it use pathos by showing an image of a fetus resembling a newborn, it also uses logos by including factual information to illustrate how quickly a fetus develops. Many pro-choice arguments state that before the first 10 weeks, the embryo hasn’t even matured into a fully developed fetus yet and is nothing more than a cluster of cells, a mere ball of tissue (Brown). This ad directly refutes those claims by saying an unborn child is much more than an item as disposable as “tissue,” and it actually has a heartbeat and brain waves within 40 days of conception.
An introduction such as, “Excuse me America,” creates a very direct form of pathos because it is a message that is intended for all American people, and it invokes those members of society to bring on change to the existing law. The power lies in the hands of American voters to ultimately change the law that legalized abortion in the 1970s. The delivery of this message is meant to make readers question the law as it stands and realize how immoral abortion really is. The comparison of a baby being tossed into the trash like tissue paper is meant to appeal to the viewer on a deep emotional level.
There is no question that this ad is very emotionally compelling; however, there is one fallacy about the photo that immediately stood out to me, and that is the maturity of the fetus featured in this picture. The stats used to back up the argument are regarding an
Beever 2
18 to 40-day old fetus, and this fetus looks far more developed. It is easy to provoke emotion when seeing a photo of a fetus resembling a newborn, and this ad inaccurately plays on that emotion and may give readers a false sense of what the fetus actually resembles at this stage.
Aside from the moral controversy that arises when talking about prematurely ending a life, many people view abortion as justifiable. The first argument is the “My body, my choice” viewpoint. No matter what the circumstance, an individual has the right to do with their body as they wish, whether that means ending or giving rise to another life. Many women fear that giving birth to a child may put their own lives in danger. In fact, 47,000 women die every year from complications of unsafe abortions, and millions more are injured (Culp-Resser). The fact that abortion is highly restricted in the developing world creates a much more dangerous situation for women as it forces them to obtain clandestine and risky procedures. The other compelling argument that has to deal with extenuating circumstances regarding conception, environment, and competency of parents. Forced conception regarding rape victims is the one of the leading arguments on why abortion should be legal. Oftentimes, rape victims become pregnant by their assailant, and going through a pregnancy would be even more traumatizing as it would act as a constant reminder of the tragedy that caused it. Mental health is a grave concern for these women, as a reported 31% of rape victims will experience some form of PTSD in their lifetime (Kilpatrick). Other environmental factors include drug use, incest, extreme poverty, and even mental retardation that could significantly decrease quality of life for the child as well.
Beever 3
Both arguments are compelling on several levels and may appeal to individuals of different backgrounds separately. No matter where one might stand on an argument such as this, I have to admit that this ad was extremely disturbing. The ad’s use of pathos was exceptional. Displaying an image that so closely resembles what we recognize as a newborn baby is truly unsettling, and it easily evokes sadness among viewers. Directing the message directly to its audience, America, was an effective way of gaining initial attention, and may have made people question the laws as they stand. The ethos did take a small hit, however, when the ad uses factual information about a fetus that didn’t seem to match the photo it displayed. Overall, the ad made a very clear and compelling argument in favor of making abortion illegal.
Image transcription text
AGENDA ONE CHILD IS HOLDING SOMETHING THAT’S BEEN
BANNED IN AMERICA . No music TO PROTECT THEM. GUESS
WHICH ONE. ALL MOMS DEMAND We won’t sell Ki…
Show more
-Gun Violence in America
Checo 1
There have been far too many gun-related crimes in the United States in the past several years. In fact, the three deadliest shootings in the history of the U.S. have occurred in the past decade: Orlando, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. Between those three, 108 innocent lives were lost (Willingham). The increase in firearm-related violence has prompted groups like Moms Demand Action to stand up and pressure members of Congress and policy makers to do more to protect people from gun violence. This powerful image grabbed my attention as I browsed the web. It depicts two children looking at the reader, seemingly straight in the eyes. On the left, a boy of Asian descent stands holding a Kinder chocolate egg, and on the right, a Caucasian girl stands holding an assault rifle. The background of the picture is the
inside of a classroom, faded out to focus the attention on the viewer. The ad reads boldly: “one child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.” Then on the bottom of the ad, the words “we won’t sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety. Why not assault weapons?” appear.
The Kinder chocolate egg is an Italian candy that has a prize in the center. However, due to the choking hazard they present, they fall under the law created by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938, which bans all candies embedded with non-nutritive objects. There have been reports of at least seven children that have died from choking on these eggs worldwide since 1989 (Schmidt), but many would argue that that’s a minimal amount considering the millions of units that are consumed year. The chocolate candies are legal in many other countries around the world, including America’s only two neighbors: Mexico and Canada, and often get smuggled into the U.S. (Khoo).
This print ad is part of a power advertising campaign launched in 2013 by Moms Demand Action. The ads try to raise awareness to an issue yet to be properly addressed at the political level: implementing legislation to either: limit the number of people who may purchase firearms, or completely ban their sale in order to decrease the epidemic of gun violence plaguing this great nation. The organization itself was launched on December 15th, 2012; the day after the deadly mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 27 peoplemostly innocent children (Willingham). They started off as a Facebook group, and quickly picked up momentum. They have gotten the nation’s attention because of their stance on gun violence.
Seeing this ad urges the viewer, subliminally, to visit their website and read up on what their cause is. A glance at their website shows their use of ethos. The founder of the group, Shannon Watts, says that she “has never lost a loved one due to gun violence, but she lives through the pain of other moms as she watches events unfold in the world”. She then says “however, I can no longer sit by idly”, describing what prompted her to start the organization.
Checo 2
The ads in the campaign are all very powerful, and convey pathos, ethos and logos. They feature two different children standing in different areas of a school; one holding an assault rifle, while the other holds something that is banned in educational institutions across America. The children that aren’t holding firearms are holding very miniscule, almost ridiculous, items, like a Kinder chocolate egg or a dodge ball. Their use of logos is clever: when the viewers see the ads, they might think to themselves that the child should be holding a book, not an assault rifle.
This ad in particular conveys pathos by portraying innocent children, which most adults can sympathize with. The girl looks very sad as she holds the rifle, as if to say “why are these allowed in my school?” while the boy holds out a Kinder egg with both hands, with a rather dazzled look on his face. His facial expression almost speaks “why am I not allowed to have this, but she can bring a gun into our school?” Children are innocent, and most adults should agree that they don’t deserve to be put in harm’s wayespecially not in school.
The effectiveness of the “Choose One” campaign is evident in their many, many victories since their inception, to include the passing of several bills in many states, and several organizations, like Kroger’s, Panera Bread, Target, Chipotle, and many others banning firearms from their stores. Unfortunately for the organization and children everywhere, the election of President Trump into office may be a show stopper for their efforts. They report that the National Rifle Association donated over 30 million dollars to Trump’s campaign, and they are likely expecting to get what they paid for: a vision for more guns in America (Moms). However, it is important to note that the NRA is not a bad organization. They promote safe gun handling, and are arguable the biggest defenders of the 2nd Amendment. They do not encourage violence, nor do they sell guns. They are simply an organization that claims to protect marksmanship, which in turn protects our freedom (National Rifle Association).
