After reading the article “How many Americans get their news from…

CorporalKudu2850 After reading the article “How many Americans get their news from…After reading the article “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 Walchak 2 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 “lowhanging 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 3 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 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.”  respond to the article and the attached image. 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?Arts & HumanitiesEnglish