More
0 Comments
Leah Donnella, an NPR contributor with a focus on blogging and aiding with the production of Code Switch, gives voice to the people in “We Asked, You Answered: When Should We Call Something ‘Racist’?” She includes the responses of her listeners in her story. Their contributions show the variations between what people consider racist and how they think it should be used in today’s society.
In her introduction Donnella explains the struggle that journalists commonly endure: “As journalists, we're constantly trying to balance the different uses of the term in a way that will make sense to all of our listeners and readers. But in the era of proposed border walls and Muslim bans and "shithole countries" and "hell in the inner cities," it's getting harder and harder, as one of our listeners put it, not to "call a racist spade a racist spade.” She also mentions that after only less than 24 hours, her team received “dozens of emails.” This in itself is an appeal to both ethos, pathos, and logos. It also sets an unmistakable tone. By including the input of her readers Donnella employs ethos and pathos. Her credibility as a journalist is strengthened because journalists are supposed to work for the people to give them accurate, realistic, relatable information. Having the bulk of her article come from the different quotes from her readers also gives them a feeling of importance and gives them the sense that their voices are crucial to the conversation. Though seemingly insignificant, the inclusion of specific examples of statements that have been said recently by president Trump serves as an appeal to logos. Donnella begins her article with a single word. This creates a focused tone and engages her readers. Her tone or writing style may also be considered investigative. Standing alone, it leaves a significant impression on her audience. Donnella’s decision to describe the contrasts between two of the sides of what people think racism is, is a stylistic choice that reminds her audience of her open-mindedness. “Some people hear that word and picture a hood-wearing, cross-burning bigot. Others think more abstractly — they hear racist and think of policies, institutions, laws and language,” Donnella said. Her word choice is, on one hand, dramatic and, on the other hand, professional and concise. Samantha Raphelson gets straight to the point in her article, 8 Americans Among the Dead in Yucatan Bus Crash. Her article is strictly informative and is most likely meant for American citizens. Raphelson’s article is titled in a way that grabs the attention of American readers, or those with American connections. The concision of the article is what makes is easy for her audience to understand.
In her article, Should Hospitals Be Punished for Post-Surgical Patients’ Opioid Addiction, Martha Bebinger discusses a phenomenon that has recently become quite an issue in the medical world. Patients who are prescribed post-surgical drugs that are meant to help with pain and other symptoms have begun to become addicted to these medications. This poses an issue for hospitals since they are the ones prescribing these medications. According to the article, hospitals generally do not give their patients information on how to ease off of the drugs once they are no longer needed. Also, because it is so difficult to determine the amount of pain that a patient is truly in, it is difficult to decide how much medication to prescribe patients. The reporter's purpose is to gather information on the topic and come to a viable solution for the issue. She does this through the collection of one patient's testimony, the expertise of several doctors who are well informed on the topic, and by exploring the real issues behind these addictions.
Bebinger presents the case of 68 year old Katie Herzog, who became addicted to Dilaudid after her back surgery. The author is unemotional and does not necessarily show any signs of vested interest in the topic. She has chosen to word her title in the form of a question instead of a statement, which might suggest her own opinion (ex: ‘Hospitals should be held accountable for post-surgical patients’ opioid addictions’). Her word choice allows the readers to come to their own conclusions about the topic. Bebinger also chose to speak to a patient who faced opioid addiction (who is more likely to be in support of hospitals being held accountable or punished) instead of a hospital official of member of the hospital board (who is might be less likely to be in favor of hospital punishment). These choices made by the author support the idea that she is not blatantly biased, however the things that she chooses to focus on in her writing do suggest some bias. The author makes appeals to all three of the rhetoric devices in order to make a her argument thorough, believable, and strong. She appeals to both pathos and ethos through the Ms. Herzog's story. Readers immediately sympathize with this woman who simply followed the directions of her doctor and unfortunately acquired an addiction. Also, by having the word of someone who has actually experienced addiction to hospital-prescribed opiods and post-addiction withdrawal symptoms, Bebinger is able to be viewed as a credible source. Another reason that Bebinger appears to be a reputable and trustworthy source is a professional healthcare reporter and that this article is associated with Kaiser Health News. The author appeals to logos through the use of several studies as evidence for both her claims and those of Katie Herzog and does this in order to further make herself credible and to offer fact and research to support the interviewee's story. Leah Donnella begins her article, "Goodbye, For Now, To A Vital Source For Native American News" with a brief description of what Indian Country Today is and it's founder, Ray Halbritter's, purpose in creating the newspaper. Donnella's audience is American NPR readers who read Indian Country Today and those who, due to distortion and careless depiction, may not have an accurate idea of who Natives are. This introduction in itself is an appeal to pathos because it gets the readers engaged. "They say if you want something done right, do it yourself. But for Ray Halbritter, it was more a case of, "if you want something done at all."," Donnella writes. She then explains the issue that led Halbritter to found the paper: he saw that there was little to no accurate representation of Native Americans in the media.
The interview between Donnella and Halbritter makes for a conversational tone, and although the interview is not between Donnella's audience and Halbritter (the CEO of Oneida Nation Enterprises, producer of Indian Country Today), it's coherent syntax and simple word choice makes it easy to understand and comprehend. Her purpose is to get a clear explanation on why Indian Country Today, a 30-year-old publication, is being canceled and to inform the public of the importance of inclusion of truthful stories about and descriptions of Native Americans in American media. The nature of the questions Donnella asks Ray Halbritter suggest that she personally follows the journal and is interested in what Ray Halbritter has to say about it; "Are there any stories you've been dying to do with Indian Country Today that you didn't get a chance to?" she asks him. This inquiry adds to the conversational tone and diction. Also, the set of questions that Donnella asks are oriented toward the main purpose of Halbritter's mission; to capture the lives of Natives accurately. In his editorial for NPR's Code Switch, Keith Woods takes on a casual tone. Woods describes how his father would feel he had witnessed Colin Kaepernick's refusal to stand during the singing of the national anthem. Woods' voice is highly articulate.
The personalities of both the author and his father are highly evident in the piece. "I still get anxious every time I see someone hold the American flag too low... these things still mean something to me, but mostly because they meant everything to him," Woods reflects. This is meant to show the contrast between the two men, and how this causes Woods' opinion to differ from that of his father. "I can't condemn him. I won't," he says regarding Kaepernick's choice not to stand. The in-depth description of his father's unyielding expression of patriotism appeals to pathos and delivers his message nicely: an individual’s respect to the American flag and what it stands for cannot be measured simply by his/her decision to stand or otherwise during the Pledge of Allegiance and national anthem. Both the author's tone and diction are quite informal throughout the piece. Woods refers to his father as "Daddy" as if he were having a casual conversation with someone who had known his father. He says his father, had he been alive to witness his own funeral, would have "geeked out" at the sight of the military honor guard's contact with his casket, and that he would have marveled at the precision of the soldiers who honored him with a folded flag. Woods' diction does not take any seriousness from his tone, but it does add a sense of comfort and ease. Keith Woods' purpose in My Father Stood For The Anthem, For The Same Reason That Colin Kaepernick Sits, is to argue that the American flag, the Star Spangled Banner, and Pledge of Allegiance mean different things to each individual. He does not necessarily agree with his father, who implies that it is somehow the duty or responsibility of every person to stand in the presence of the flag. Woods argues that the meaning of and the expression of the meaning of the flag can take on different forms between people. "Who am I to decide what it should mean to Colin Kaepernick? Who could possibly know what it meant to the people Daddy chided in the old Tulane Stadium?" he asks his audience, the American people. These questions are intended to be "food for thought" and invoke in his audience a more open minded approach to standing or not standing during the national anthem. Woods ends his piece with the final two lines of the Star Spangled Banner: O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?, tying his ties his message together with one final argument: all people are free to participate in the national anthem differently; each individual's expression is based on their personal relationship with the flag. For his father the privilege to stand was something to take pride in. For Keith Woods, standing during the pledge is a way to honor his father and preserve his legacy. |
Michayla Cherichelis a North Cobb Warrior with interests in politics, political science, and journalism. Archives
February 2018
Categories |