Analysis 1
September 11th, 2001. The moment stands frozen in our minds forever. The scenes of the planes flying into the trade towers replay over and over. Yet, the media likes to defrost this horrific event everyday, reheating it again and again, like bad meatloaf, for the public to watch. References to Sept. 11th feel endless, whether on television or on the Internet, they saturate our media. Seemingly harmless, these references call for patriotism, symbolizing freedom in a most abstract way. Recently however, controversy has clouded the plans surrounding Ground Zero. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/opinion/23fri3.html
The author of “Freedom or Not?” uses specific jargon in order to elicit certain feelings in the readers. For example, the author begins by using “censor” to describe the action that 9/11 families may want to take. The word “censor” automatically evokes controversy and strong feelings about the first amendment. The author makes the reader feel wronged before even knowing why the families would feel this way, building on ethos. In this way, the author sets up the reader to unconsciously dislike the families of 9/11 as if their argument for the use of Ground Zero seems ludicrous. Also, the author describes the Governor as he “capitulated” to a “misguided outcry from critics.” By using “capitulating,” the author partitions sides, creating a feeling of battle and tension. “Misguided” infers that the Take Back the Memorial movement remains unintelligent and confused. In this way, the author begins to set the stage for his dismissal of their argument.
The author uses the phrase “claim for themselves the right of” in order to portray the Take Back the Memorial movement as an organization intent on stealing the rights of innocent American citizens in order to further their own selfish agenda. By saying that the Freedom center “is not perfect,” the author attempts to seem humble while still coercing the reader to think that the Freedom Center obviously remains the better option. The author lightly touches on the flaws surrounding the Freedom Center, pairing each disadvantage with a statement intended to ‘soften the blow.’ The author uses “we” in his article, building his ethos by drawing on the fact that others agree with him. The author also attacks the politicians in charge of the memorial, calling them cowardly, as if they too play a part in a bigger conspiracy against freedom. Then, in the last sentence, the author uses a powerful pairing of death (“murder”) and life as a dramatic finish and a final appeal to the reader’s emotions. The author’s word choice significantly increases the persuasive nature of this article. Throughout the entire piece, specific words slowly convince the reader of the evils of the Take Back the Memorial movement. The author influences the reader’s thoughts in a subtle, sophisticated way.
The author of “Freedom or Not?” uses specific jargon in order to elicit certain feelings in the readers. For example, the author begins by using “censor” to describe the action that 9/11 families may want to take. The word “censor” automatically evokes controversy and strong feelings about the first amendment. The author makes the reader feel wronged before even knowing why the families would feel this way, building on ethos. In this way, the author sets up the reader to unconsciously dislike the families of 9/11 as if their argument for the use of Ground Zero seems ludicrous. Also, the author describes the Governor as he “capitulated” to a “misguided outcry from critics.” By using “capitulating,” the author partitions sides, creating a feeling of battle and tension. “Misguided” infers that the Take Back the Memorial movement remains unintelligent and confused. In this way, the author begins to set the stage for his dismissal of their argument.
The author uses the phrase “claim for themselves the right of” in order to portray the Take Back the Memorial movement as an organization intent on stealing the rights of innocent American citizens in order to further their own selfish agenda. By saying that the Freedom center “is not perfect,” the author attempts to seem humble while still coercing the reader to think that the Freedom Center obviously remains the better option. The author lightly touches on the flaws surrounding the Freedom Center, pairing each disadvantage with a statement intended to ‘soften the blow.’ The author uses “we” in his article, building his ethos by drawing on the fact that others agree with him. The author also attacks the politicians in charge of the memorial, calling them cowardly, as if they too play a part in a bigger conspiracy against freedom. Then, in the last sentence, the author uses a powerful pairing of death (“murder”) and life as a dramatic finish and a final appeal to the reader’s emotions. The author’s word choice significantly increases the persuasive nature of this article. Throughout the entire piece, specific words slowly convince the reader of the evils of the Take Back the Memorial movement. The author influences the reader’s thoughts in a subtle, sophisticated way.
posted by Ash3186 @ 11:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home