Lesson No. 4: Rhetorical Devices: Word Choice, Appeals to Emotion and Repetition

Analysis Goal: Rhetorical Devices

 

Main Idea + Textual Evidence + Reasoning + Style

“Peter S. Goodman builds an argument using…

EVIDENCE: 2003, American Journalism Review, foreign correspondents, news, United States, 307 full-time, 2011 234 full-time, in 8 years 20 American news orgs limited foreign bureaus, foreign news shrunk 50% over 1/4 cent., US troops put at further danger during Afghanistan and Iraq wars because foreign news was not as staffed, thorough or rigorous, +GlobalPost, -Twitter, Facebook, citizen journalists as funnels over journalists as filters, balance democratization + diversity of media without losing journalistic and professional rigor or risk parochialism, update and gather information, so to engage readers while retaining the rigor of professional journalism

  • Positive Points: Goodman has an excellent point in criticizing the atrophy of foreign correspondents. Foreign correspondents are essential to global, economic and political transparency. The details above support this. 
  • Areas of Continued Curiosity: A main, unanswered question is how might one go about updating and gathering the information? What does “retaining the rigor of professional journalism” look like? Goodman seems to suggest that an increased number of foreign correspondents would solve the dilemma; however, he is biased. He is a professional journalist. In addition to increasing foreign correspondents, is there a way to improve current rigor among the foreign correspondents available, or is there a way to improve the funneling process of citizen journalists so that professional journalists can more reliably and rigorously utilize the information provided? If Twitter and Facebook cannot be a trusted funneling tool, rightly proposed by Goodman, might news organizations increase their funneling technologies? What technologies and sites currently exist for citizen journalists to input key facts so that they might be more sufficiently fact-checked and included within the journalistic process? Do journalists not perform interviews? Do not these interviews include parochial and opinionated language that must be filtered? How might this process be replicated digitally and online so that citizen journalists might have a more rigorous and effective involvement in current journalistic endeavors?

REASONING: syllogistic logic 

  • MAJOR PREMISE: All news organizations should serve US reader’s foreign awareness. 
  • MINOR PREMISE: Professional foreign news coverage is the best. 
  • CONCLUSION: Therefore, news organizations should increase the amount of professional foreign news coverage provided to people in the United States to best increase foreign news awareness), 
  • AXIOM: More professional foreign news coverage will create more opportunities for US readers to read. 
  • FALLACIES: Hasty Generalization: Goodman makes assumptions about the quality of citizen journalists without stating specific events, examples or details to that the reader can decide for himherself how to judge citizen journalists. Likewise, Goodman makes assumptions about professional journalists without giving specific examples of a specific journalist’s coverage of an event compared to a citizen journalists coverage of an event. Instead we get generalizations and are asked to agree with Goodman’s generalized claim. Appeal to Pity: Goodman wants the reader to feel sorry for U.S. soldiers stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. False dichotomy: Goodman gives the reader two choices, professional journalism and citizen journalism. Are there not many versions of an in-between scenario where professional journalists and citizen journalists might work together more reliably as filter and funnel? *There are more fallacies you might identify within Goodman’s argument, but these three are solid critiques of his argument. 
  • PARADOXES: Goodman uses the term citizen journalist. At first glance, it seems to be a diminutive statement, that citizens aren’t actual journalists but rather “citizen Journalists.” However, if we consider what the word journalist means, a person who journals, would not a person who is living in Afghanistan, among the day to day turmoils and beauties of the culture, have a more organic knowledge of the embedded war? Is a citizen journalist really a diminutive state to the professional journalist? Goodman intends the term “citizen journalist” to be a lesser than alternative to the professional journalist, and yet, in some ways, there is more true journalism to be expressed from a citizen than an American who is paid to cover Afghanistan. On the flip side, professional journalists bring an objectivity to their coverage that a citizen journalist would have more difficulty finding. It is curious that Goodman never once uses the words objective or objectivity in his essay, when this is the key detail that separates a professional journalist from the citizen journalist and one of the more important aspects of having professional journalists at all. Furthermore, Goodman’s essay is riddled with opinions and assumptions. He uses dates and numbers to create a since of emergency and a need to increase professional foreign coverage, and yet, he hasn’t yet sufficiently established an objective and factual premise for why professional journalists are better than citizen journalists. SEMANTICS: Goodman uses the term democratization to describe the process by which professional journalism has given way to more citizen journalism. He also uses the term monopolies to point out that citizen journalism gives readers another option to professional news coverage, though, he undermines the positive effects of this process by citing Twitter and Facebook as opinionated posting sites rather than professional journalism sites. Goodman uses terminology to create a sense of Americanization in the journalistic venues, which any American reader would assume is a good thing, right? Further Americanization of our journalistic process, and yet, Goodman uses them as negative influences on the more professional filtering system of news organizations. Goodman uses semantics to pit the American reader against himherself, which is stealthy, given that most American readers are “citizen journalists” and have Twitter and Facebook accounts where they journal life and what happens around them. Essentially, Goodman is using semantics to undermine the readers sense of confidence within hisher own abilities to journal. In response to this, the American “citizen journalist” might cower to Goodman’s expertise, credentials, dates and statistics; however, the American reader might as easily rebel against Goodman’s assertion, which would explain why Goodman uses an appeal to pity—Afghanistan, Iraq, US soldiers—to tamper rebellious reactions to his claim.

STYLE

  • SYNTAX: In general, Goodman’s language and phrasing is easy to follow. 
  • SENTENCE VARIETY: Goodman varies his sentence and paragraph structure in order to place emphasis on particular details. For instance, the second paragraph is a single sentence. This is not grammatically correct, however, it works in this case because it highlights the statistic that in eight years, twenty news organizations had completely eliminated their foreign bureaus. Goodman also uses introductory phrases as transitions into statistics and examples. 
  • REPETITION: In the final paragraph, Goodman uses “We” statements to build a rhythmic cadence in thought. The repeated first person serves to familiarize the reader with the narrator.

RHETORICAL DEVICES: word choice, appeals to emotion, repetition

…to persuade his audience that news organizations should increase the amount of professional foreign news coverage provided to people in the United States.”

 

Critical Analysis of the Author’s Rhetorical Devices (Word Choice, Appeals to Emotion and Repetition)

WORD CHOICE: Goodman’s use of diction is varied. He includes more advanced vocabulary and content area terms, such as democratization, correspondents, freelancers, stringers… but he also includes an accessible diction.

APPEALS TO EMOTION: He uses adverbs to ratchet up emotion, i.e., palpably. 
REPETITION: “We” statements as closing statements familiarize the reader to Goodman’s claim.

 

Main Idea + Textual Evidence + Reasoning + Style + Rhetorical Devices

“Peter S. Goodman builds an argument using…

EVIDENCE: 2003, American Journalism Review, foreign correspondents, news, United States, 307 full-time, 2011 234 full-time, in 8 years 20 American news orgs limited foreign bureaus, foreign news shrunk 50% over 1/4 cent., US troops put at further danger during Afghanistan and Iraq wars because foreign news was not as staffed, thorough or rigorous, +GlobalPost, -Twitter, Facebook, citizen journalists as funnels over journalists as filters, balance democratization + diversity of media without losing journalistic and professional rigor or risk parochialism, update and gather information, so to engage readers while retaining the rigor of professional journalism

  • Positive Points: Goodman has an excellent point in criticizing the atrophy of foreign correspondents. Foreign correspondents are essential to global, economic and political transparency. The details above support this. 
  • Areas of Continued Curiosity: A main, unanswered question is how might one go about updating and gathering the information? What does “retaining the rigor of professional journalism” look like? Goodman seems to suggest that an increased number of foreign correspondents would solve the dilemma; however, he is biased. He is a professional journalist. In addition to increasing foreign correspondents, is there a way to improve current rigor among the foreign correspondents available, or is there a way to improve the funneling process of citizen journalists so that professional journalists can more reliably and rigorously utilize the information provided? If Twitter and Facebook cannot be a trusted funneling tool, rightly proposed by Goodman, might news organizations increase their funneling technologies? What technologies and sites currently exist for citizen journalists to input key facts so that they might be more sufficiently fact-checked and included within the journalistic process? Do journalists not perform interviews? Do not these interviews include parochial and opinionated language that must be filtered? How might this process be replicated digitally and online so that citizen journalists might have a more rigorous and effective involvement in current journalistic endeavors?

REASONING: syllogistic logic

  • MAJOR PREMISE: All news organizations should serve US reader’s foreign awareness. 
  • MINOR PREMISE: Professional foreign news coverage is the best. 
  • CONCLUSION: Therefore, news organizations should increase the amount of professional foreign news coverage provided to people in the United States to best increase foreign news awareness), 
  • AXIOM: More professional foreign news coverage will create more opportunities for US readers to read. 
  • FALLACIES: Hasty Generalization: Goodman makes assumptions about the quality of citizen journalists without stating specific events, examples or details to that the reader can decide for himherself how to judge citizen journalists. Likewise, Goodman makes assumptions about professional journalists without giving specific examples of a specific journalist’s coverage of an event compared to a citizen journalists coverage of an event. Instead we get generalizations and are asked to agree with Goodman’s generalized claim. Appeal to Pity: Goodman wants the reader to feel sorry for U.S. soldiers stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. False dichotomy: Goodman gives the reader two choices, professional journalism and citizen journalism. Are there not many versions of an in-between scenario where professional journalists and citizen journalists might work together more reliably as filter and funnel? *There are more fallacies you might identify within Goodman’s argument, but these three are solid critiques of his argument. 
  • PARADOXES: Goodman uses the term citizen journalist. At first glance, it seems to be a diminutive statement, that citizens aren’t actual journalists but rather “citizen Journalists.” However, if we consider what the word journalist means, a person who journals, would not a person who is living in Afghanistan, among the day to day turmoils and beauties of the culture, have a more organic knowledge of the embedded war? Is a citizen journalist really a diminutive state to the professional journalist? Goodman intends the term “citizen journalist” to be a lesser than alternative to the professional journalist, and yet, in some ways, there is more true journalism to be expressed from a citizen than an American who is paid to cover Afghanistan. On the flip side, professional journalists bring an objectivity to their coverage that a citizen journalist would have more difficulty finding. It is curious that Goodman never once uses the words objective or objectivity in his essay, when this is the key detail that separates a professional journalist from the citizen journalist and one of the more important aspects of having professional journalists at all. Furthermore, Goodman’s essay is riddled with opinions and assumptions. He uses dates and numbers to create a since of emergency and a need to increase professional foreign coverage, and yet, he hasn’t yet sufficiently established an objective and factual premise for why professional journalists are better than citizen journalists. SEMANTICS: Goodman uses the term democratization to describe the process by which professional journalism has given way to more citizen journalism. He also uses the term monopolies to point out that citizen journalism gives readers another option to professional news coverage, though, he undermines the positive effects of this process by citing Twitter and Facebook as opinionated posting sites rather than professional journalism sites. Goodman uses terminology to create a sense of Americanization in the journalistic venues, which any American reader would assume is a good thing, right? Further Americanization of our journalistic process, and yet, Goodman uses them as negative influences on the more professional filtering system of news organizations. Goodman uses semantics to pit the American reader against himherself, which is stealthy, given that most American readers are “citizen journalists” and have Twitter and Facebook accounts where they journal life and what happens around them. Essentially, Goodman is using semantics to undermine the readers sense of confidence within hisher own abilities to journal. In response to this, the American “citizen journalist” might cower to Goodman’s expertise, credentials, dates and statistics; however, the American reader might as easily rebel against Goodman’s assertion, which would explain why Goodman uses an appeal to pity—Afghanistan, Iraq, US soldiers—to tamper rebellious reactions to his claim.

STYLE

  • SYNTAX: In general, Goodman’s language and phrasing is easy to follow. 
  • SENTENCE VARIETY: Goodman varies his sentence and paragraph structure in order to place emphasis on particular details. For instance, the second paragraph is a single sentence. This is not grammatically correct, however, it works in this case because it highlights the statistic that in eight years, twenty news organizations had completely eliminated their foreign bureaus. Goodman also uses introductory phrases as transitions into statistics and examples. 
  • REPETITION: In the final paragraph, Goodman uses “We” statements to build a rhythmic cadence in thought. The repeated first person serves to familiarize the reader with the narrator.
RHETORICAL DEVICES
  • WORD CHOICE: Goodman’s use of diction is varied. He includes more advanced vocabulary and content area terms, such as democratization, correspondents, freelancers, stringers… but he also includes an accessible diction. 
  • APPEALS TO EMOTION: He uses adverbs to ratchet up emotion, i.e., palpably. 
  • REPETITION: “We” statements as closing statements familiarize the reader to Goodman’s claim.

…to persuade his audience that news organizations should increase the amount of professional foreign news coverage provided to people in the United States.”

 

Source Material 

Adapted from Peter S. Goodman’s, “Foreign News at a Crisis Point.” ©2013 by eHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Originally published September 25, 2013. Peter Goodman is the executive business and global news editor at eHuffingtonPost.com.

1. Back in 2003, American Journalism Review produced a census of foreign correspondents then employed by newspapers based in the United States, and found 307 full-time people. When AJR repeated the exercise in the summer of 2011, the count had dropped to 234. And even that number was significantly inflated by the inclusion of contract writers who had replaced full-time staffers.

2. In the intervening eight years, 20 American news organizations had entirely eliminated their foreign bureaus.

3. The same AJR survey zeroed in on a representative sampling of American papers from across the country and found that the space devoted to foreign news had shrunk by 53 percent over the previous quarter-century.

4. All of this decline was playing out at a time when the U.S. was embroiled in two overseas wars, with hundreds of thousands of Americans deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was happening as domestic politics grappled with the merits and consequences of a global war on terror, as a Great Recession was blamed in part on global imbalances in savings, and as world leaders debated a global trade treaty and pacts aimed at addressing climate change. It unfolded as American workers heard increasingly that their wages and job security were under assault by competition from counterparts on the other side of oceans.

5. In short, news of the world is becoming palpably more relevant to the day-to-day experiences of American readers, and it is rapidly disappearing.

6. Yet the same forces that have assailed print media, eroding foreign news along the way, may be fashioning a useful response. Several nonprofit outlets have popped up to finance foreign reporting, and a for-profit outfit, GlobalPost, has dispatched a team of 18 senior correspondents into the field, supplemented by dozens of stringers and freelancers….

7. We are intent on forging fresh platforms for user-generated content: testimonials, snapshots and video clips from readers documenting issues in need of attention. Too often these sorts of efforts wind up feeling marginal or even patronizing: “Dear peasant, here’s your chance to speak to the pros about what’s happening in your tiny little corner of the world.” We see user-generated content as a genuine reporting tool, one that operates on the premise that we can only be in so many places at once. Crowd-sourcing is a fundamental advantage of the web, so why not embrace it as a means of piecing together a broader and more textured understanding of events?

8. We all know the power of Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media to connect readers in one place with images and impressions from situations unfolding far away. We know the force of social media during the Arab Spring, as activists convened and reacted to changing circumstances…. Facts and insights reside on social media, waiting to be harvested by the digitally literate contemporary correspondent.

9. And yet those of us who have been engaged in foreign reporting for many years will confess to unease over many of the developments unfolding online, even as we recognize the trends are as unstoppable as globalization or the weather. Too often it seems as if professional foreign correspondents, the people paid to use their expertise while serving as informational filters, are being replaced by citizen journalists who function largely as funnels, pouring insight along with speculation, propaganda and other white noise into the mix.

10. We can celebrate the democratization of media, the breakdown of monopolies, the rise of innovative means of telling stories, and the inclusion of a diversity of voices, and still ask whether the results are making us better informed. Indeed, we have a professional responsibility to continually ask that question while seeking to engineer new models that can channel the web in the interest of better informing readers….

11. We need to embrace the present and gear for the future. These are days in which newsrooms simply must be entrepreneurial and creative in pursuit of new means of reporting and paying for it. That makes this a particularly interesting time to be doing the work, but it also requires forthright attention to a central demand: We need to put back what the Internet has taken away. We need to turn the void into something fresh and compelling. We need to re-examine and update how we gather information and how we engage readers, while retaining the core values of serious-minded journalism.

12. This will not be easy…. But the alternative—accepting ignorance and parochialism—is simply not an option.

—2003 US papers cut foreign corr. In 8 years, 20 papers eliminated. Threatens “ignorance” + “parochialism” 

—Iraq, Afghanistan, soldiers in war zones without enough new coverage can create additional dangers and issues.

—Americanized news taking over hard core global coverage

—GlobalPost is righting the wrong, but is this “crowd-sourcing a good thing?

—Social networking, Arab Spring (need to know what this is about)

—Uh oh. Can Facebook posts replace expert journalism? speculation, propaganda, white noise

—democratization of media is good, but not enough. We still need professional journalists who will cut through propaganda and speculation and give the news and facts.

—cautiously optimistic view of the future of journalism. Excellent repetitive rhetorical/persuasive strategy here. “We need to…” is an effective closure and summation strategy. It expresses strong emotion the same way your mother repeating herself about cleaning your room expresses her strong emotion about cleaning your room. Use this repetition/persuasive/rhetorical strategy in your response as both a point of discussion and as a way to write the last paragraph of the response.

Here it is! This is the meat of the article. The body paragraphs are all about supporting Goodman’s caution of “ignorance” and  “parochialism” in “democratized” journalism.

Now your job is easy. Locate the  most important details Goodman uses to support his claim. You don’t even really have to think too hard. Goodman has done all the work of you. . Think of this essay as playing a game of telephone. Imagine that you, Goodman and the SAT scorers are all sitting in a circle on the floor. Goodman has whispered his statement to you. Now, all you have to do is whisper what he said to the scorers while convincing them that you paid attention in English class. Make sure you are whispering the most important underlined and circled words! 

*As you notate, do not worry about grammar, spelling punctuation. Save that for your actual essay response.