Article Analysis
This Page will consist of analysis of various forms of media from Salon.
Marcotte informs readers on the anti-choice organization, Americans United for Life (AUL), who author the handbook for the abundance of anti-abortion bills being introduced in state legislatures across the nation. Marcotte's level of attachment to the subject is not made obvious in the article but her background and bio make it easy to realize that women's rights is a topic of interest for Marcotte.
She directly addresses a specific part of the handbook, called the "Infants' Protection Project", which Marcotte says is "misnomer since abortions do not involve infants but fetuses, or in most cases, embryos." Marcotte obtains credible comments from Amanda Allen, the senior state legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, about the anti-choice force of the AUL. Allen calls the AUL's method of rebuking the pro-choice movement "a pretty brazen embrace" because of their shift in strategy to prevent abortion. Allen states that this a "great irony after pretending for the last four or five years that they're the ones that care about women's health." Obviously Marcotte put these comments in the article to point out the fact that the AUL is taking women out of the picture when it comes to abortion legislation. She tries to emphasize how the AUL seems to care about women's health but continue to show otherwise in their actions. After failing to pass legislation that would make abortion illegal, the AUL is now pushing for bills that would discourage abortions. Allen says that this method makes it hard to believe that the AUL are pro-women's health "when all theyre trying to do is choke off access to a safe and common procedure." Marcotte attests to this comment saying that "the proposed laws themselves demonstrate that AUL's stance toward women who consider having an abortion is not caring, but hostile." Marcotte uses the word hostile to alienate the AUL from the feminist movement and make clear that they do not have women's best interest in mind. Marcotte's main purpose in writing this article was to voice her opinion against the AUL and their handbook that proposes legislation against women having abortions.
0 Comments
Angelo Young writes another article that highlights his passion for innovation. Young opens the article appealing to ethos by highlighting films and TV shows that feature flying cars. These familiar films and TV shows draw the readers' attention and set up the author to introduce the latest innovation in transportation. Young's main argument in the article is that despite recent advancements in technology, the flying car is "likely to be a toy for the suburban wealthy until safety rules for mass deployment are worked out."
Young emphasizes the low likelihood of any upcoming release of flying cars to the general public by appealing to logos and stating that the first patent for a flying car was issued in 1918. The author states this to stress the point that technology for the flying car has been around for a long time and that it still lacks the proper research to be implemented in today's society. Young creates an optimistic tone for the development of flying car technology. He goes on to state that "we might see these passenger drones being tested over cities within three years." The use of the first person personal pronoun "we" implies that Young is also looking toward the introduction of flying cars to the public. The tone quickly shifts as Young highlights his main argument, that safety comes first. Young shifts from the optimistic tone he creates, to a skeptical tone. The shift in tone is clear when the author addresses the readers concerns for safety in flying cars, and states the "[they] aren't alone" in their concerns. Young uses the readers' skepticism and facts about the general publics concern to support his argument. Young cites that "results of an online survey released this month by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute showed significant public concern about the technology...62 percent of respondents said they were “very concerned” about safety issues," to appeal to the readers' skepticism and strengthen his own argument. He effectively does this to formulate a strong argument. In this article Masciotra makes a strong argument that questioned the philosophy of universities that continue to foster athletic programs, knowing that these programs are a financial burden to these schools. The author opens with an anecdote that addresses the identifies the problem at hand, "A majority of American Universities accrue no financial benefit from athletics," and, "schools can barely keep up with the increasing costs," which creates an "economic burden of bone crushing weight." The author description of the financial burden placed upon schools by athletic programs leads me to believe that he has a personal connection or vendetta against athletic programs. Masciotra describes the financial burden created by athletic programs as "bone crushing" which may indicate some sort of emotional attachment toward the topic. Masciotra appeals to ethos by citing the writings of a professor from Indiana University, who wrote that big time college sports are crippling undergraduate education. He appeals to logos by citing that students in 2014 paid $114 million in required fees that supported athletic programs. He uses this statement to draw readers' attention to the fact that so much money that is suppose to help with students' education actually assists in "the enhancement of backyard games that are not even financially viable." The author tries to pit readers against college athletic programs by making it seem like they are preying on financially challenged college students, an appeal to pathos. The author's clear purpose is to illustrate how athletic programs seem to be taking away from the true purpose of college, education for the students. Reading this piece gave me a new perspective on the allocation of funds in American universities. The author did a good job in making readers aware of how universities seem to prioritizing athletics over students' education. Masciotra also thoroughly addresses the counterargument that many bring up. Many claim that athletics bring in the most money for the school, but by counter arguing that the money they make does not equal the money they take,
Young's article looks at research that is going on in sub-Saharan Africa, where technology is being developed to battle the spread of malaria. Young's main argument in this article is that GMOs are not entirely bad and that companies like Monsanto have given genetic modification a bad name. He states that actions like "allegedly poisoning the world with chemicals on GM crops grown with copyright seeds... has created a PR challenge for scientist who work with nonprofit organizations to try to instill confidence with communities that bioengineering isn't all about global corporate conquest or outsiders imposing their mysterious projects on them." Kevin Esvelt, a MIT biochemist attests to this claim by telling Salon that mentioning the word 'genetically modified' gets people thinking "Monsanto; this is bad." Young creates uses positive diction to negate the negative connotation behind "genetic modification" by stating that GMOs have lifesaving benefits. Young also uses creates a positive attitude for the audience as they are informed on the new method of introduction of GMOs to countries in need. By highlighting that researchers are not making the technology about "making a buck for the corporation, but instead making the technology for "what the people want", Young is able to bring hero-esque voice to researchers trying to help battle malaria in less developed countries.
One purpose of this article was to inform Young's audience of the research going on to battle Malaria in less developed countries. Another purpose was the eliminate the myth that claims that all GMOs are bad by showcasing the good that GMOs can do when distributed properly and under the right direction. Young appeals to logos by stating the facts about Malaria, like how it "kills nearly 450,000 people a year in some of the world's poorest places." Young uses this appeal to stress the toll that Malaria is taking on the poor population, and also to set up the information that was later presented in the article. Young appeals to ethos by explaining the details and effectiveness of the "gene drive" method which will be used to battle the Malaria virus. He establishes his expert knowledge on the topic by explaining the science behind the technology and further stregthens his credibility by getting comments in support from MIT Biochemist, Kevin Esvelt. Young appeals to pathos with the use of strong verbs such as crippling and eradicate. Young uses "eradicate" to emphasize the dangerous effects malaria could cause if it were not stopped, and he uses "crippling' to evoke fear from the audience. Marcotte's main purpose in this article is to illustrate the magnitude of climate change naysayers in the Republican Party, and claim that they are increasing because of the Trump Administration's widespread policy of denial. Marcotte supports this argument by citing cases where Republican representatives have denied fact. Marcotte main focus of Republican denial is climate change. She appeals to logos by citing that, despite the facts, 84% of conservative Republicans refuse to accept that climate change is real and caused by human activity, and 65% of moderate Republicans say the same.
Marcotte creates a hostile tone towards Republicans who deny blatant fact. She claims that the conspiracy theories of climate change denial perpetrated by the Republican Party are an example of their authoritarianism because of their proneness to denying obvious fact. Marcotte even goes as far as to call Republicans "demagogues" because of their inability to form rational arguments based on facts and scientific evidence. Marcotte's Republican bashing seems to stem from her liberal beliefs, but her writing could also suggest that she is just dissatisfied with the fact that Republicans think they can just get away with lying. The author uses figurative language to denounce Republicans' credibility. She calls the Trump Administration period a "fun house of mirrors," implying that it will be hard to distinguish what is real and what is illusion during his time in office. She also exaggerates Republicans' creativity when it comes to making up facts. She claims that some Republicans might "blame climate change on women having too much sex! Or Barack Obama's affection for Islam." Obviously, these comments have not been made, but the author simply uses them to exaggerate the false claims Republican's are likely to make in "Trump's America." Young writes to inform readers on recent developments in Clean Water technology that the University of New York at Buffalo is working on. He opens by giving some background to his audience about the scarce drinking water situation we have on Earth. Young appeals to logos by giving facts about the water scarcity. He states that "scarcity profoundly affects 1 out of 9 people," and he appeals to ethos by citing the source, the Water Project. Young introduces this fact, and many others, in his argument to illustrate the severity of the water scarcity situation going on today, and also to help justify why the University of New York at Buffalo is working on technology to help combat it.
Young attempts to make an optimistic tone through explaining the development technology that could solve huge problem humanity is facing, but he lacks the proper elements that would make readers optimistic. He fails to use a strong positive diction to explain how the solar distillation problem could help solve the issues of water scarcity. Instead of glorifying the process, he simply states it, creating an informative, scholarly tone. Young states the process and benefits of making solar distillation more efficient which contributes to his informative tone. Young appeals to ethos by getting a one-on-one interview with the head research engineer behind the solar distillation technology. Through the interview, Young is able to gain more insight for his audience into the technology that Gans and his team are developing. Young gets Gans to put the efficiency of the solar distallation technology into layman's terms, by asking "How much water can you theoretically produce with your solar still?" This question gives Gans the opportunity to explain the productivity of their technology in terms that Young's audience can understand. Young's argument in this article is weak as it lacks the rhetorical devices needed to make an effective argument. This may be the case because the article seems more like an informative article than one that formulates a strong argument on any opinion or topic. Grammys are a nationally recognized awards given to those chosen by voting members of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) based on quality and style, or so they say. Lubet argues that while the NARAS claims they award Grammys based on the excellence and quality of the music, it seems that the voters make their decisions based of the sales and popularity of the artists and the music, and also in the voters' own interests.
Lubet wrote this article, first and foremost because of the timing. This article was written on the same day as the 59th Annual Grammy Awards, which took place later in the evening the article was published. The timing of the article was key and expressed the concern voiced by many people. The article is organized with a critical tone speckled with appeals of ethos and logos. Lubet creates a critical tone Lubet calls Grammy voters "self-interested" and claims that they would vote in a way that would financially benefit them, which based off of what I learned in our Wealth without Work Unit, is a very common trait among humans. The author criticizes through his appeal to ethos by comparing the Grammy selection process to that of the Pulitzer Prize which sets a better benchmark for awarding based on quality alone. Lubet points out this difference of the selection process to give an example of what the Grammys can strive for and to also give an example of an award that truly awards based on quality rather than one that only claims to do so. Lubet appeals to logos by using evidence from prior years where the more popular artists have come out with shiny new trophies. He draws upon the example of the sales of 2016's best album winner, Taylor Swift, who sold over 5 million copies of her award winning album by July 5, 2015. He gives this example just to emphasize his point in regards to the more popular artist winning Grammys as opposed to the more deserving ones. Overall, the article did not seem like an attack on the Grammy voting process but more like soft criticism that needs to be considered. Lubet supported the argument with abundant evidence and gave readers a benchmark comparison for what the ideal Grammy selection process should look like. |
Archives
May 2017
Categories |