"What happens if border agents are allowed to demand access to your phone and online accounts—and turn you away if you don’t comply?" (Waddell) Kaveh Waddell asks in his article, 'Give Us Your Passwords.' In this article, the concept of digital privacy invasion for the sake of border safety is explored and strongly objected to. The author uses mostly formal diction, given a few exceptions in the way "That's," (Waddell) is used. Despite this, it is easy to see that Waddell puts plenty of emotional attachment into the article, using loaded words such as "demanded," (Waddell) and "rifling," (Waddell) to describe the extreme lengths border agents may go to in order to obtain personal information. This leads to the resulting overall tone, which is upset and accusatory as it describes detainment: "a young American woman wrote about being detained at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport and, after a long ordeal, being denied entry, based in part on emails and chat transcripts from an account she was forced to log into. 'Not only do we Google you, we read your emails, too!' a border agent told her" (Waddell). Unfortunately, aside from this, Waddell does not seem to use much of any other rhetorical device aside from a brief counterargument: "Kelly said the administration is considering requiring residents of the seven countries to provide lists of the websites they’ve visited and their passwords, to enable officials 'to get on those websites to see what they're looking at'" (Waddell). It seems that Waddell aims to provide information and support for the intrinsic belief that privacy should be respected. It is somewhat of a shame--the comments section of this article seems to raise better points against this practice than the article itself. The article does, however, make a call to action and reasons why, saying that "If the U.S. goes through with its proposal, experts say, the practice might quickly spread" (Waddell). This is stated at the very end of the article, as it is explained that asking for passwords at borders "could help countries spy on their own citizens" (Waddell). It is unknown why the lack of necessity for the searches and reasoning against them is not mentioned much, but this at least serves to make an argument. The end goal here thus seems to be simply to inform, though it is clear through all aforementioned evidence that Waddell is strongly against the invasion of privacy and could potentially argue against it. Nonetheless, its purpose has value in that it provides information to a large audience of readers who can learn of the details of the situation and form their own opinions. Waddell does at least appeal to ethos by citing multiple firsthand accounts, including the one mentioned before and one in which the director of the Cybersecurity Law Initiative, Orin Kerr, speaks out: "Ordinarily there are no Fourth Amendment rights at the border, but a search of an online account isn’t occurring at the border: It's occurring wherever the server is located" (Waddell). Overall, the argument has plenty of weaknesses, as it does not clearly argue much but shows a clear stance on the matter, and could use more varied use of rhetorical devices to provide a more persuasive point. However, in a way, this is understandable, given that this article's intention may simply be more informative than argumentative.
0 Comments
In the article from the Atlantic titled Making Primary Care Trans-Friendly, Keren Landman discusses how transgender people are advocating for easier access to well-informed healthcare providers. She uses mostly formal, professional diction, not using informal language often at all, and speaks with an informative tone that switches between somber and hopeful. This is exemplified when Jaemon McLeod says he "overheard a group of pre-med students joke about the prospect of 'accidentally' administering a fatal overdose of anesthetic during surgery on a transgender patient," (Landman) but not too long after at the end of the section, Landman offers some positivity: "nationwide demand for health-care providers who provide culturally and medically competent care to transgender patients is increasing" (Landman). The sheer length of the article, as well as the aforementioned positivity that appears multiple times, proves Landman's deep emotional attachment towards the subject of transgender-friendly healthcare.
Landman also employs the use of an anecdote at the beginning of the article to provide a brief introduction of Isabel Lowell and illustrate the general theme and topic of the stigma around transgender medical care. In addition, imagery is used as a device, such as when it rains in Lowell's clinic and describes a scene where "she maneuvers around a section of soaked ceiling tile that has fallen on the floor of her clinic’s nursing station." (Landman) and supervises a medical student. It is clear to see that the author is writing in earnest support of proper medical treatment for transgender individuals, and her purpose is to push and spread the idea and message. It presents plentiful worth and value, especially given most of the article takes place in the setting of rural Georgia, where the idea of change is almost unheard of. She makes note of "The invisibility of rural populations—and the reduced health-care access that goes with it" (Landman). This article is a delightful promotion of equal rights. This argument does not only appeal to ethos with its plentiful use of firsthand accounts from McLeod and Lowell, but also provides appeal to logos, as statistics on healthcare are often cited: "In Georgia, 14 percent of the state’s population is uninsured, compared with 9 percent nationally, in part due to the state’s rejection of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act" (Landman). It is also pointed out that rural areas have it particularly rough, as in Georgia there are "about 13 clinics per 100,000 people, compared with 30 per 100,000 nationally" (Landman). Her point is even further strengthened when she brings transgender people back into the picture: "Georgia law does not protect transgender people from job discrimination, and many are unemployed—11 percent (by self-report)" (Landman). Landman's entire argument is incredibly solid, with few gaps in its reasoning--though, if anything, a point of view on the matter from a transgender woman would be helpful, as only a transgender man was interviewed. Laura McKenna describes a ruling for disabled children's education and proposes its possible effects in her article, How a New Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Special Education. Throughout the article, she makes use of primarily formal diction, and speaks with an enthusiastic tone. For example, she writes that "Parents of special-needs children are ecstatic about this decision," (McKenna) and that criticisms "are not dampening the celebrations of parents and special-needs advocates this week" (McKenna). It is evident that the author is in favor of this ruling and is excited about it, as she quotes positive reactions: "Mimi Corcoran, the president of the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), agrees. 'Today is a good day for children with disabilities. NCLD applauds this decision and will work with parents and educators to make it a reality'"(McKenna). McKenna also introduces the counterargument to the ruling, quoting Sasha Pudelski when she argues "the escalating costs of educating children with disabilities puts a lot of pressure on schools, especially given past and proposed cuts to education funding" (McKenna). This is done to provide insight as to why there are critics for such a celebratory occasion, and to introduce potential obstacles in the way of the ruling's goals.
The author's purpose here is to inform, but also functions as an outlook for what the future potentially holds. She does admit, "How this decision will play out on the school level, given the rising costs of special education and diminishing support from the federal government, is anyone’s guess" (McKenna). It is also apparent that McKenna's purpose is arguing in support of the ruling's decision that education for disabled children should be different for each individual child so they meet ambitious goals: "schools can no longer provide a “one-size-fits-all” IEP" (McKenna). This argument lasts for a few paragraphs of the article, but has a persuasive impact on the reader, helping them to see the reasoning behind the ruling from an advocate's perspective. All of these potential goals, whether to inform, predict, or argue, encompass an overall goal of advocating for the educational rights of disabled children. This is a worthy position, and serves an important purpose as it is presented to such a large audience. McKenna mainly argues through appeal to ethos throughout the article, as many of her explanations and arguments are given through quotes from those involved in the case. Her choice of organization is an explanation of the ongoing event, a telling of its backstory, and the ensuing reactions to the ruling, following somewhat of a broken chronological order. The argument McKenna makes is overall fairly strong, but more statistics directly involving what sort of effect the ruling will have on disabled children, as opposed to simply saying it will assist "13 percent of the school population," (McKenna) would improve the argument for the positive effects of the ruling greatly. In addition, quoting a board member from Autism Speaks is not the wisest decision for McKenna to make in this article, as Autism Speaks is an incredibly problematic organization for a variety of reasons, including their prioritization of parents over autistic children, their idea of seeking out a "cure" for autism, and its unfair allocation of funds. In the article titled Are We Having Too Much Fun? by columnist Megan Garber, the use of irony and humor to further social and political movements is criticized with the assistance of the word of Neil Postman. Essentially, Garber argues that the use of comedy in protest such as signs reading "Make the Barrier Reef Great Again," (Garber) and dressing "as plush vulvas," (Garber) has transformed movements into one big joke. To begin with, Garber uses formal diction, using a wide vocabulary of words like "inalienable," (Garber) and "aphorism" (Garber). Her resulting tone is incredibly critical and somewhat sarcastic--she states her point clearly by saying that Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves To Death, "might whisper that, in politics, the line between engagement and apathy is thinner than we want to believe" (Garber). Garber goes on to say that "there is something delightful and also not very delightful at all about a trio of Tyrannosauri who, in the name of saving the world, try their hardest to go viral on Facebook," (Garber) revealing a disdain for the priority of popularity over cause. The lengthiness of the article and plentiful praise for Postman's perspective shows that Garber is incredibly passionate about this subject: "His great observation, and his great warning, was a newly relevant kind of bummer: There are dangers that can come with having too much fun" (Garber). It may be noted that use of the word "bummer," (Garber) which is colloquial in nature, may have an appeal as a temporary tonal shift to conversational tone. Additionally, the entire article functions as one whole analogy for the subject of Postman's criticism of the media in general compared to the overuse of jokes in today's movements. Garber makes this connection at the end of the first section of the article: "Postman was a critic of more than TV alone. He mistrusted entertainment, not as a situation but as a political tool; he worried that Americans’ great capacity for distraction had compromised their ability to think, and to want, for themselves" (Garber). The purpose of this article can then be said to be both an in-depth criticism of modern day society as well as a call to action for that society to end its insensitivity to the true goals of movements. Both of these can be interpreted from the ending example, where Brian Williams refers to U.S. missiles launching towards Syria as "beautiful" (Garber). Such a description shows that detachment from a situation and lack of understanding of the bigger picture can be associated with a reading of news through rose colored glasses. The way this opinion has the potential to cause change in the attitudes of self-proclaimed activists, but it might be wise to take on a less condescending approach towards the idea of humor in politics, as it can be useful when not exploited as shown in various examples. Nonetheless, the purpose is of great value, and offers important insight that will make readers truly think about how they handle their expression.
Garber's primary argument is conducted through appeals to logos. She cites Postman's use of the example of the telegraph having influenced American media and transmission of information: "Because of the telegraph, headlines—sensational, fragmented, impersonal—became the defining element of American media production. Because of the telegraph, news became instant and easy" (Garber). In this quote, it may also be noted that repetition is made use of as a rhetorical device. Garber also points out that the telegraph "gave rise to yellow journalism, which found newspapers competing for audience attention not so much via the information they shared, but via the entertainments they offered" (Garber). By calling upon historical examples of this phenomenon of news delivered through a filter of entertainment, Garber is able to further support her stance on the matter. Her argument is solid all around, as she makes use of numerous devices and examples and states her intentions outright without much hesitation. Expanding on a popular, outrageous recent event in which a passenger was forcefully dragged off of a United Airlines flight, Yasmeen Serhan reports in this brief article on the airline's attempt to improve its over-boarding policies and how situations involving stubborn passengers are handled in the future. Serhan primarily uses an informative, neutral tone, but some of her diction proves rather critical: "The airline’s PR scandal may be far from over, however" (Serhan). Use of the word "scandal," (Serhan) in particular indicates an acknowledgement of the negativity of United Airlines' actions. This article is also abundant in appeals to logos, as Serhan cites numerous facts and statistics to back her claims. One section addresses the stock-related results of the incident, saying that shares for United Airlines' parent company "dropped by nearly 4 percent in the immediate aftermath of the scandal, wiping nearly $1 billion of its value" (Serhan). The use of these statistics furthers the notion that this article's intention is to inform and expand on a previously established incident. As a result, the purpose of this article has value in that it continues to report on a story with a large following, allowing readers of The Atlantic to be informed on the status of the incident. The structure of the article follows a simple pattern--review of the incident's past, a report on the present, and an outlook on what the future potentially holds for the airline. Much of the article does not exactly argue for or against a particular stance, but instead makes use of plentiful factual evidence to reach a conclusive prediction. Overall, the lack of length to the article and use of only one statistic makes the argument somewhat weak, but this is understandable since it is merely an update to an existing story.
Conor Friedersdorf approaches the subject of Donald Trump's alleged association with Russia with a serious voice and skeptical tone in his article for The Atlantic. While he does stress that he wants to stay politically neutral and is willing to accept the possibility of Trump's innocence in certain specific circumstances, Friedersdorf describes in great detail how Trump and his administration have lost his trust. He feels very strongly about the subject, describing Trump's claims that he has nothing to do with Russia as "bullshit" (Friedersdorf). Other loaded words used by Friedersdorf are found where he describes "the possibility of a constitutional crisis," (Friedersdorf) and "nefarious plot" (Friedersdorf). The words "crisis," (Friedersdorf) and "nefarious," (Friedersdorf) characterize the untrustworthy and stealthy asks of the president. Clearly, despite asserting a lack of bias in the beginning of the article, Friedersdorf has strong, negative feelings towards Donald Trump. He is able to bring appeal to logic into play to further support his point, as he provides multiple quotes and interviews that give insight to different points of view. For instance, Trump is quoted as saying, "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia," which at least provides somewhat of a counterargument to Friedersdorf's accusation, but is later used against him when there is evidence that he and his party have had meeting with Russian leaders. Friedersdorf even references his lack of tax returns to further paint a rather ugly picture of Trump. Friedersdorf does comment that he finds "establishment Republicans and hawkish Democrats like Hillary Clinton terrifying," (Friedersdorf) on the subject of Russian conflict, saying he does not mind some of the Republican Party's decisions on the scandalous matter. Still, he describes the situation as "very odd" (Friedersdorf). The overall purpose of this article is to inform, expose, and most importantly, make readers think and seek out more information on the matter. The author talks about controversial topics, and even though it is obvious to detect which side he leans towards, he effectively covers facts and input from both sides of the argument to piece together an alarming puzzle.
The author of this article, Eliot A. Cohen, writes with an assertive tone, expressing a common dissatisfaction with Trump's entering acts as President, but also encouraging readers to think positively, declaring that he can and will be stopped by the people who oppose him. Throughout the article, strong, loaded words are used to describe Trump and his actions--"It will probably end in calamity" (Cohen) and "There was nothing unanticipated in this first disturbing week" (Cohen). Use of the words "calamity" (Cohen) and "disturbing" (Cohen) and the phrase "abuses of power" (Cohen) highlight the a more accusatory and concerned tone, displaying a passionate dislike for Trump and his administration. The author speaks formally, but uses a vocabulary that is easy to grasp and understand, as demonstrated when he says "In the end, however, he will fail. He will fail because however shrewd his tactics are, his strategy is terrible" (Cohen) to clearly and effectively state his point and argument. Such is a productive combination of tone and diction for a news website; readers are able to comprehend the thoughts and goals of the author without much additional deep thought. Rhetorical devices such as appeals to Logos and Pathos are also present. For instance, The first three-fourths of the article list the atrocious acts of Trump and his administration under the author expressing that he is "not surprised by Donald Trump's antics this week" (Cohen). Although some prior knowledge may be required to fully understand the extent of this statement, it can be inferred that Trump has committed some morally questionable deeds before, as a list of entirely factual things he has done since his inauguration are extensively listed. Thus, the appeal to Logos is shown through the author's lack of surprise with Trump's actions, given he has done much of what he promised beforehand--a logical conclusion to draw upon being given an influx of facts that solidify Cohen's argument. Meanwhile, appeals to Pathos are detected near the end of the article when the author makes use of a tonal shift, becoming optimistic after paragraphs of dread and despair. The sentence "He will fail most of all because at the end of the day most Americans, including most of those who voted for him, are decent people" (Cohen) encompasses the author's ending note on a glimmer of hope. The use of "decent people" (Cohen) especially evokes either an emotion of confidence or guilt within the reader, depending on their personal stance. Placement of this note at the very end as opposed to the middle or beginning structurally aims to first build a reaction that is increasingly disturbed, but end with relief and optimism. Overall, the author's purpose is not only to inform but to also share an opinion of disdain along with reassurance to a distressed audience. While it is highly opinionated in nature and takes on an obvious position, it is valuable in that it provides a general outlook on the future of Trump's time as presidency and effectively summarizes his first few weeks.
|