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.
Joon:
ReplyDeleteYou generally do a good job on this post. I might make one note: try to include a bit of audience analysis for step three to discuss who would likely be persuaded or not persuaded.