source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/its-not-rocket-science_b_4164950.html
In her article, Marian Wright Edelman uses references to a credible source and proven statistics to stress her point that scientific research can help decrease the number of gun-related deaths, and that funding should continue to be provided for such research.
Much of Edelman's article features quotes/references from Dr. Mark L. Rosenberg. She lists his qualifications in order to identify him as a credible source. The use of a credible source to support her position gives weight to her point, making it more viable. Several of the quotes from Dr. Rosenberg that she chooses clearly agree with her own position. She gives his gives his statement that, “We can apply the same science to firearm injuries and deaths of children, and it’s not rocket science," to support her point that scientific research can help reduce gun-related deaths. The "same science" refers to the scientific research that reduced deaths caused by automobile deaths.
Edelman also uses proven statistics in her essay to give proof that there has been a decrease in the funding for gun violence prevention research, and that this was a mistake. She says that, "...funding for gun violence prevention research...fell from an average of $2.5 million per year in 1993-1996 to half that in 1997-2000. She also gives statistics listed by Dr. Rosenberg herself to support the fact that scientific research into gun violence has made important discoveries, namely that, "not only did having a gun in your home not protect you, but increased the risk thatsomeone in your own home would be killed by a gun...[by a] 300% increase." These statistics give solid proof of the benefits of research, and volleys for an increase in funding for the research.
This article appeals to the ethos of its readers by the very place of its publication: the Huffington Post website. It also appeals to ethos by the author's referencing of a a credible source, Dr. Rosenberg, and the listing of his qualifications. The article's audience is anyone who has access to a computer and wifi, but the article is directed at those who have decreased the funding for research into gun prevention. It is an appeal to those people to continue and even increase the funding. The tone of the article is appealing as well as analytical.
The article is effective in completing its purpose of showing how scientific research ought to be promoted in gun violence prevention. The use of references to a highly qualified person, Dr. Rosenberg, is especially effective in giving weight and authority to the article and its message.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
TOW #6-Google
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2013/10/20/google-shoots-itself-in-the-foot-again/?ss=future-tech
This article by Ben Kepes berates Google for its "flippant attitude to many parts of what you do hampers your ability to execute on that opportunity." This article discusses particularly the mess-up of Google CIO Ben Fried in an interview he gave about the risks to Google of using third-party cloud products. Seeing that Fried was one of the original creators, and the fact that Google uses the products to sell their apps, renders Fried's interview comments as rather contradictory and foolish.
In this article, Ben Kepes uses abundant sarcasm, direct address, and examples to draw attention to Google's mistake, berate the company, and mock the company.
Kepes' article is ripe with sarcastic comments. He mocks Google, and particularly Mr. Fried, in order to provoke Google to do better, and to show the people the foolishness of the companies' mistake. This sarcasm plays into his appeal to logos, and a mocking, scolding tone to Google. He uses phrases such as "I kid you not," and "facepalm anyone?" In his last paragraph, he directly addresses the Google company itself, saying, "Once and for all Google, please sit up and listen....you are...." This shows that his article is not meant only for the general public, but a direct message to Google itself.
He also gives examples of the mistakes Google has made. Besides the Fried story, Kepes mentioned, "A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the epic fail of one Google spokesperson who singlehandedly cast doubt about Google’s commitment to its cloud platform." He mentioned this to show that Fried was not Google's only mistake, and to help establish his ethos as someone who had written news article before. Kepes is also given ethos by the paragraph written in italics at the end of the article which lists his various accomplishments/qualifications. The article itself generates an appeal to ethos by being published in Forbes, a well-known/well-established magazine.
I believe that the article was effective, and accomplished its purpose of showing the flaws/mistakes Google has made, and berating the company for them.
This article by Ben Kepes berates Google for its "flippant attitude to many parts of what you do hampers your ability to execute on that opportunity." This article discusses particularly the mess-up of Google CIO Ben Fried in an interview he gave about the risks to Google of using third-party cloud products. Seeing that Fried was one of the original creators, and the fact that Google uses the products to sell their apps, renders Fried's interview comments as rather contradictory and foolish.
In this article, Ben Kepes uses abundant sarcasm, direct address, and examples to draw attention to Google's mistake, berate the company, and mock the company.
Kepes' article is ripe with sarcastic comments. He mocks Google, and particularly Mr. Fried, in order to provoke Google to do better, and to show the people the foolishness of the companies' mistake. This sarcasm plays into his appeal to logos, and a mocking, scolding tone to Google. He uses phrases such as "I kid you not," and "facepalm anyone?" In his last paragraph, he directly addresses the Google company itself, saying, "Once and for all Google, please sit up and listen....you are...." This shows that his article is not meant only for the general public, but a direct message to Google itself.
He also gives examples of the mistakes Google has made. Besides the Fried story, Kepes mentioned, "A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the epic fail of one Google spokesperson who singlehandedly cast doubt about Google’s commitment to its cloud platform." He mentioned this to show that Fried was not Google's only mistake, and to help establish his ethos as someone who had written news article before. Kepes is also given ethos by the paragraph written in italics at the end of the article which lists his various accomplishments/qualifications. The article itself generates an appeal to ethos by being published in Forbes, a well-known/well-established magazine.
I believe that the article was effective, and accomplished its purpose of showing the flaws/mistakes Google has made, and berating the company for them.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
TOW #5-Visual-WWF
source: http://adsoftheworld.com/files/wwf_ad_03_.jpg
This advertisement is a plea from the World Wildlife Foundation for people to stop, think, and refrain from killing wild animals that are quickly becoming endangered. The ad uses vivid imagery and powerful diction to cause viewers to halt and take notice of an issue that is quickly becoming more serious as time goes on. The image the advertisement uses, strikingly appeals to the pathos of its audience. The sight of a person holding a gun pointed at a child is an image that will immediately catch the eye. The horror of such a sight is meant to resonate in the viewer's mind.
When paired with the caption, the image evokes an even stronger appeal to pathos. When asked to imagine the child as their own, with a gun pointed at him/her, the adult audience will feel a wave of horror for such a picture as it creates itself in their mind as their own child dressed as a tiger in the woods, about to die. It also offers a new perspective to people, reminding them that animals have children too, and tries to get the viewers to relate to a parent animal (in this case a tiger), who's child has been taken from them by humans.
The logo of the WWF in the corner of the ad gives the advertisement an immediate credibility and appeal to ethos. This shows the audience, any person intellectually advanced enough to understand the connotations of the ad, that the poster is the product of a legitimized agency that fights to protect wildlife. The caption of the advertisement completes the effect, adding an appeal to logos. As is often the case in ads such as these, the logos appeal, paired with the image, feeds into the appeal to the pathos of viewers. I believe the ad is very effective in its purpose to advocate the protection of wildlife, and show the terrible nature of people today regarding wild animals. It appeals primarily to the emotions and conscience of its audience, and provokes thought and an automatic sense of repulsion with what the image shows.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
TOW #4-Visual-"Government has stopped responding"
Source: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2013/10/01/112598
The subject of this political cartoon by Nate Beeler is the United States government. The cartoon creates a parallel of the government to a computer program or browser with the use of it's caption. The occasion/context of the cartoon is the announcement of the shutdown of the government due to the House and the Senate being unable/unwilling to reach an agreement on an appropriations bill. Its intended audience is anyone in the world (i.e.members of the U.S. government, the American people, and the people in any foreign country with internet capabilities), due to its being published on a free-access internet website. The purpose of the creator of this cartoon is to use humor and satire to show how the government is no longer functioning. The speaker is not only its creator, Beeler, but also the Townhall website, because he could not publish it without their approval.
The cartoon carries ethos due to its being released on a prestigious, well-known political website. The author's signature in the corner also affords it authenticity and credibility. The appeal to logos is in the caption, which is written humorously and almost satirically. The caption also appeals to pathos, in linking the government shutdown with an experience most Americans have encountered: the classic "___ has stopped responding" message on their computer screens. The tone of the cartoon is mocking, ridiculing, and humorous in its portrayal/comparison of the United States government
The subject of this political cartoon by Nate Beeler is the United States government. The cartoon creates a parallel of the government to a computer program or browser with the use of it's caption. The occasion/context of the cartoon is the announcement of the shutdown of the government due to the House and the Senate being unable/unwilling to reach an agreement on an appropriations bill. Its intended audience is anyone in the world (i.e.members of the U.S. government, the American people, and the people in any foreign country with internet capabilities), due to its being published on a free-access internet website. The purpose of the creator of this cartoon is to use humor and satire to show how the government is no longer functioning. The speaker is not only its creator, Beeler, but also the Townhall website, because he could not publish it without their approval.
The cartoon carries ethos due to its being released on a prestigious, well-known political website. The author's signature in the corner also affords it authenticity and credibility. The appeal to logos is in the caption, which is written humorously and almost satirically. The caption also appeals to pathos, in linking the government shutdown with an experience most Americans have encountered: the classic "___ has stopped responding" message on their computer screens. The tone of the cartoon is mocking, ridiculing, and humorous in its portrayal/comparison of the United States government
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)