I chose to analyze a piece of writing in the Denver Post written by Fred Brown titled “The other columns stink. Read this one”. The macro message in this article is about rhetorical tactics used by political figures. Brown argues that the constant use of negative tactics by politicians to discredit opponents is responsible for harming their overall image and in the long run devaluing their worth in society. Brown uses simple examples to start his argument to show how harmless certain rhetorical tactics might have all seemed 40 to 50 years ago but then quickly moves into how some tactics have taken a turn for the worse.
Overall, the underlying tone of Browns argument is one of concern. He tries to push awareness to his audience by asking very persuasive questions such as, “What do negative tactics do to society’s perspective in the long run?” and “Do we fully understand what the consequence is or is the media fueled by only playing the watchdog role and finding problems instead of giving attention to the problem-solvers or attempts at solutions?” Brown points out in one sentence, “Rarely does anyone offer a reason to hope for improvement” suggesting that if this type of negative play continues, we’re all as good as doomed.
The simple examples used at the beginning of the article help to point out how harmless some rhetoric might have been, like Pepsi ridiculing Coke drinkers or advertisements for Visa that implied American Express users were hopelessly behind the times. I like how Brown used these examples to present a simple principle of his argument. Then to strengthen this principle, he eludes to the alternative in his next statement, “This tactic of insulting your competition instead of proving superiority by your own performance has become such a toxic environment, which for most has seemingly become accepted and smart”. I think he clearly presented the argument and followed through with his stance before presenting any examples of how this relates to society in a more current environment.
To introduce pathos, Brown uses strong, dramatic and descriptive wording in this article such as “evil” and “doomed”, like in this sentence that reads, “They’re not just wrong, they’re evil, or at best totally incompetent” when describing politicians that engage in discrediting or demoralizing opponents for the purpose of winning elections. I like his dramatic word selection because it lets the audience consider the urgency of the matter. As if to say, that if realization doesn’t come quickly we might be faced with bigger issues later and left to wonder how we got to this extreme point.
Brown does a good job warming me up to the issue even though in this case, I already had a strong opinion in favor of his main argument. He has reassured my ethos on the issue by putting my mind in a commonplace. I also think starting the article with the simple examples of Pepsi vs Coke or Visa vs American Express was very persuasive for those who do not agree or are unaware of the issue directly. He has taken something that doesn’t directly relate and made the principle of his argument relate to the overall argument that this kind of behavior has some damaging effects whether we can see where this leads us or not. I see this as a very cleaver tactic to broadening his audience.
Once in a commonplace, Brown transitions the focus to a devastating recent event to weigh whether certain rhetorical tactics played a part. By bringing his argument to the present he allows the audience to add their newly formed emotions of the situation to the situation. I think by doing this he is leading his entire audience to a commonplace whether or not they agreed with him at this point. Brown uses the recent Arizona shooting to be persuasive when asking, “Is this widespread disrespect for the political and legislative process to blame for what happened outside a Safeway” He suggest that it is “at least partially, because when politicians are repeatedly presented as less than worthy, an inferior subspecies, it’s not hard to make the stretch that their lives are somehow less important”. This suggests to me that the tactics politicians choose to deploy during elections are negatively impacting the image of politicians and positioning them as less than worthy of life.
In conclusion of this article, Brown decides to use the topic of global warming, a rather long-winded debate to illustrate how we might not always consider the consequences of our actions because we do not realize the affect in a short enough timeframe to be measured. As in the case of global warming, not all people have fully committed to one side or the other and even if there was indisputable evidence of our involvement, doing something that encourages change is very hard to accomplish if the possible outcome is nearly impossible to predict. By using this example, Browns argument is strengthen by suggesting that even though he cannot conclude what the outcome might be on society, its still a great idea to start paying attention to what’s being said and consider the consequences that may follow.
Overall I think this is a great piece of writing because it clearly introduces a very compiling argument around a subject that most people will get behind. For me, I would love to see much less of a negative approached to get my vote. I want to know why I should vote for someone because of the good values they hold, not listen to the negative accusations made of their opponent.
No comments:
Post a Comment