Rhetorical Analysis 3
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9929724/
The author of the article “Cheney Urges Exception to Torture Ban for CIA” uses specific word choice in order to elicit certain feelings from the reader. The author uses a formal tone throughout the article appealing to a mature, intelligent reader while still explaining certain concepts (for example, how the exemption process works) in an effort to not ‘talk over’ the reader’s head. He also splits up the article into different sections, with semi-titles highlighting the main concept covered in that section. This allows the reader to clearly follow the article’s flow and also to ensure that the reader understands exactly what the author meant by including certain information.
The author tries to dramatize the article using key words and phrases. For example, the title catches the reader’s attention immediately as the author uses a three pronged approach to grab attention. First, he identifies what he deems a startling issue, “Exception to Torture Ban.” Then further packs in the punch by surprising the reader with who perpetuates such an issue: “Cheney.” Finally, he includes who the benefits from it, equally as surprising: “CIA.”
Within the body of the article, the author builds drama and controversy by including certain facts. For example, he includes that Cheney “rarely speaks” at meetings which sets up his premise that this particular meeting was special. He adds to this feeling of unconventionality by saying that the officials who provided this information “spoke on conditions of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussion.” The use of the word “confidential” persuades the reader to think that this information was not meant for the public, further adding to the oddness of the event.
The author continues to add suspense to his sordid tale, introducing John McCain as an opponent to the proposition. He establishes McCain’s ethos and appeals to the pathos by including that he “was tortured while held as a prisoner during the Vietnam War.” By juxtaposing McCain and Cheney, the author sets up sides to the issue, presenting McCain as the “good guy” (through establishment of ethos and pathos) and Cheney as the “bad guy.” The author shows Cheney’s requests as wrongly timed, stating that his “decision to speak underscored both his role as White House point man on the contentious issue and the importance the Administration attaches to it.” The author also discredits Cheney by including later allegations of Iraqi abuse, introducing another problem within the article. It seems to me that the author possibly is biased against the “exception to the torture ban” and thus presents information accordingly within his article.
The author of the article “Cheney Urges Exception to Torture Ban for CIA” uses specific word choice in order to elicit certain feelings from the reader. The author uses a formal tone throughout the article appealing to a mature, intelligent reader while still explaining certain concepts (for example, how the exemption process works) in an effort to not ‘talk over’ the reader’s head. He also splits up the article into different sections, with semi-titles highlighting the main concept covered in that section. This allows the reader to clearly follow the article’s flow and also to ensure that the reader understands exactly what the author meant by including certain information.
The author tries to dramatize the article using key words and phrases. For example, the title catches the reader’s attention immediately as the author uses a three pronged approach to grab attention. First, he identifies what he deems a startling issue, “Exception to Torture Ban.” Then further packs in the punch by surprising the reader with who perpetuates such an issue: “Cheney.” Finally, he includes who the benefits from it, equally as surprising: “CIA.”
Within the body of the article, the author builds drama and controversy by including certain facts. For example, he includes that Cheney “rarely speaks” at meetings which sets up his premise that this particular meeting was special. He adds to this feeling of unconventionality by saying that the officials who provided this information “spoke on conditions of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussion.” The use of the word “confidential” persuades the reader to think that this information was not meant for the public, further adding to the oddness of the event.
The author continues to add suspense to his sordid tale, introducing John McCain as an opponent to the proposition. He establishes McCain’s ethos and appeals to the pathos by including that he “was tortured while held as a prisoner during the Vietnam War.” By juxtaposing McCain and Cheney, the author sets up sides to the issue, presenting McCain as the “good guy” (through establishment of ethos and pathos) and Cheney as the “bad guy.” The author shows Cheney’s requests as wrongly timed, stating that his “decision to speak underscored both his role as White House point man on the contentious issue and the importance the Administration attaches to it.” The author also discredits Cheney by including later allegations of Iraqi abuse, introducing another problem within the article. It seems to me that the author possibly is biased against the “exception to the torture ban” and thus presents information accordingly within his article.
posted by Ash3186 @ 12:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home