http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/verdict-freddie-gray-caesar-goodson-baltimore.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In the New York Times article "Baltimore Officer in Fredie Gray Case is Cleared of All Charges" written by Jess Bidgood and Sheryl Stolberg, the authors try to persuade their readers of the claim that these police officers if guilty, deserve to be acquitted. They do this in a very unnoticeable manner, trying to grow pity in the readers for the policeman without the readers realizing it. The authors do this by trying to offer a more human side to the policeman, Officer Goodman. Since through the text itself, readers imagine this "racist" policeman to be a heartless killer, by demonstrating that this man is a human as well, they start to wonder whether it was a mistake, peer pressure, or other factors. The authors do this by describing that after the trial, "Officer Goodman hugged members of his family and Officers Nero and Miller, both of whom were seated in the front row. By showing this human side, the Officers are given a less biased view than what the media portrays. The readers can than think,"Perhaps the officer regrets his mistake now," or "Maybe he is truly innocent; maybe it was a mistake." Thus the author does a decent job of at least lightening the hatred the public has toward these policemen.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Friday, June 17, 2016
Assignment Week 2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/17/one-state-raised-taxes-the-other-cut-them-guess-which-one-is-in-recession/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_wb-taxes-8am-stream%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
In Tankersley and Ehrenfreund's article, "The interesting thing that happened when Kansas cut taxes and California hiked them", the authors try to advocate for increase taxes of the rich by introducing an anecdote regarding California's success upon raising the taxes of the wealthy. He magnifies the success of the California wealth taxes by comparing it to that of complete opposite, and by proving that this opposite was a failure. This opposite is referring to Kansas who, as a government, raised taxes on the poor, and lowered taxes on the rich. From a conservative standpoint, he adds, this is supported. They talk about how California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, while Kansas was a lousy 0.2 percent in 2015. In addition, the authors provide a link to another website demonstrating how California did "just fine" after the tax raises, but provide no such link for Kansas' success or failure. They do this to prevent reader from gaining a different perspective of Kansas than the one they present, one of a failure. They do however, present the article revealing Kansas' tax changes a year ago, which provides more statistics regarding the unfairness the Kansas lower class men are facing. Although the claim that taxes for the wealthy should be raised isn't directly stated, it can be inferred through viewing the article from a rhetorical standpoint. From a rhetorical standpoint, the authors could have simply stated the two cases in two different articles. They had no reason to contrast the two if they had no bias. The only reason the author contrasts the two is to emphasize the fact that plan A was successful, but its opposite wasn't. This emphasis can get readers to be strongly persuaded into thinking that the Conservative approach to taxes would be unsuccessful, hurting the Republican party in the long run. While we cannot tell from article whether the authors are trying to hurt the Republican party or simply trying to highlight an unjust government law, the authors are successful in convincing readers that taxes toward the wealthy are more heavily preferred than taxing the lower class.
In Tankersley and Ehrenfreund's article, "The interesting thing that happened when Kansas cut taxes and California hiked them", the authors try to advocate for increase taxes of the rich by introducing an anecdote regarding California's success upon raising the taxes of the wealthy. He magnifies the success of the California wealth taxes by comparing it to that of complete opposite, and by proving that this opposite was a failure. This opposite is referring to Kansas who, as a government, raised taxes on the poor, and lowered taxes on the rich. From a conservative standpoint, he adds, this is supported. They talk about how California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, while Kansas was a lousy 0.2 percent in 2015. In addition, the authors provide a link to another website demonstrating how California did "just fine" after the tax raises, but provide no such link for Kansas' success or failure. They do this to prevent reader from gaining a different perspective of Kansas than the one they present, one of a failure. They do however, present the article revealing Kansas' tax changes a year ago, which provides more statistics regarding the unfairness the Kansas lower class men are facing. Although the claim that taxes for the wealthy should be raised isn't directly stated, it can be inferred through viewing the article from a rhetorical standpoint. From a rhetorical standpoint, the authors could have simply stated the two cases in two different articles. They had no reason to contrast the two if they had no bias. The only reason the author contrasts the two is to emphasize the fact that plan A was successful, but its opposite wasn't. This emphasis can get readers to be strongly persuaded into thinking that the Conservative approach to taxes would be unsuccessful, hurting the Republican party in the long run. While we cannot tell from article whether the authors are trying to hurt the Republican party or simply trying to highlight an unjust government law, the authors are successful in convincing readers that taxes toward the wealthy are more heavily preferred than taxing the lower class.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Assignment Week One
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/no-bernie-sanders-shouldn_b_10369930.html
No, Bernie Sanders Shouldn’t Concede. He Can Still Win, Despite What Media Says.
In H.A. Goodman's article, Goodman uses strict contrast to pull out the true hidden qualities of Bernie. Instead of simply stating the reasons for his legitimization, Goodman instead points out a multitude of Clinton, Bernie's rival's, flaws, ranging from her inconsistency in the media regarding key issues, such as gay marriage, to the fact that she can theoretically serve jail time. He mentions that the emails contained top secret info, and was on an incredibly easily hack able server, which could have jeopardized national security. By building a negative image of Hillary, readers are forced into a trap that causes that to see Bernie in a much better light, compared to Hillary. Of course, as expected as a professional writer, Goodman realizes that some readers may not fall bait for this "trap". Thus, he mentions that the FBI may have to give the Democratic Nomination to Bernie, essentially eliminating Hillary, based on the laws that were broken by her. Nevertheless, this contrast strategy magnified Bernie's likability. Similar to the Scales of Justice, by lowering Hillary's image, Bernie's is rocketed upward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)