URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oscars-2017-highlights-and-winners/
Author: Ned Ehrbar Date Published: February 27, 2017 CBS News Category: Entertainment While the outward purpose of Ned Ehrbar's article, "Oscars 2017: 'Moonlight' Wins After 'La La Land' Mixup," appeared to be to serve as a long, formal, informative piece, it was soon clear that his true purpose was to take stab after stab on the Oscar host, Jimmy Kimmel. Ehrbar's tone towards Kimmel is highly critical and condescending, and he shares his offense with the audience. His descriptions of Kimmel make the host seem to lack respect, tact, and appropriate timing. The most apparent way Ehrbar influences his audience's perception of Jimmy Kimmel is with his repetition. At the beginning of his article, Ehbar lists multiple ways Kimmel addressed politics and race on stage- none of which looked good for the poor host. One quote Ehrbar provides from Kimmel's introductory speech is: "Remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? That's gone, thanks to [Trump]." This is only one of four highly questionable jokes Kimmel attempts to make, seemingly falling short on all. By listing these examples back to back, it appears as if all Kimmel did was make terribly offensive jokes on stage. This sets the notion in the audience's mind that he was a horrible host and urges the audience to assume there must be more mistakes littered throughout the night. These jests Kimmel pokes at about touchy topics appeals to the audience's emotions as well. Reading one-liners that could be considered racially insensitive and discovering that Kimmel tried to tease widespread insecurities stirs up a fury among readers. It is hard to believe that someone could have the audacity to say these things, especially someone on stage in front of the entire nation. His behavior appears to be downright atrocious and immensely disrespectful, and the audience quickly becomes angered at his actions. Ned Ehrbar's diction does not help Kimmel's appearance, either. His word choice is often inflammatory, describing Kimmel's actions in a way that upsets the audience. He explains how Kimmel's jokes "drew groans from the audience," and how Kimmel considered Meryl Streep "overrated." These words depict that the entirety of guests in attendance were tired of Kimmel's blatant disrespect. Celebrities hold influential power over an audience, and by showing that they were offended, the audience is encouraged to be offended as well. Any word, joke, or phrase Kimmel says the audience is already prepared to tear apart, as Ned Ehrbar's argument is strengthened extensively and effectively through multiple methods.
0 Comments
Article Analysis 6: "Super Bowl 2017: Tom Brady Leads Epic Comeback, Patriots Stun Falcons in OT"5/2/2017 URL: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/super-bowl-2017-tom-brady-leads-epic-comeback-patriots-stun-falcons-in-ot/
Author: Ryan Wilson Date Published: Feb 5, 2017 CBS News Category: Sports The 2017 Super Bowl LI was riddled with new records and rewritten history. Ryan Wilson, CBS sports writer, aimed to tackle these amazing feats and summarize the major events of the evening in an exciting way. Through his descriptions, it is clear that he has targeted this account to a younger audience well-versed in football. He frequently uses well-known football terms to describe a play, often terms that only avid fans would understand. In addition, he incorporates modern tweets and jokes, and angles his language to match that of young adults. He does well to stand on both sides of the fan base, too, avoiding angering one side by blatantly favoring the other. However, despite his appearance of neutrality, he interjects his own opinion subtly, shown when he states "the Patriots [are] the greatest NFL franchise this century." Ryan Wilson does a fantastic job incorporating gripping words and enthusiastic phrases to pull in his audience. In describing the games, he speaks early on of the Falcons "dominating a Patriots team that seemed helpless" (yes, he really did italicize 'dominating'), while later describing the Patriots "thrilling comeback" and epic win. Providing a play-by-play account of the Superbowl LI, he describes how the Patriots faced a "near-impossible task" and yet "crept closer," causing the Falcons to feel a range of emotions from "confident to hopeful to apprehensive to dejected." Wilson effectively elevates the scenario unfolding, making a game with a bunch of guys wrestling for a oddly shaped ball seem as if the teams have drawn swords and sprinted into battle to defend their state's honor. By incorporating these powerful, inflated words, the reader feels as if they themselves are watching the game in person, their hearts racing with anticipation and falling at each fumble. As the reader becomes engrossed in the story, they lose track of their own emotions and slowly begin to side with the Patriots as the story continues. In addition, Wilson incorporates allusion and alliteration to highlight the thrills of the 51st Super Bowl. As he describes the Patriots' win, he states "New England... even out Patriots'd the Patriots." In this allusion, he references the colonial leaders who fought for the United States of America's independence in the beginning of our nation's birth. By relating back to this war-ridden time, Wilson again emphasizes the feeling of intense battle unfolding on the football field and how the Patriots rewrote Super Bowl history. In addition, he uses the phrase later on "slow-motion implosion" to describe the Falcon's crippling fall. This alliteration acts as a little jingle inside of the audience's mind that sings of the Patriots superiority. Without even realizing it, the audience is convinced of Wilson's hidden message by one simple phrase. Wilson's excitement on the subject shines through his writing. By incorporating these words and phrases, he makes it clear that he is enthralled with how the Super Bowl went and who won. He consistently ties in his own emotions of ecstasy and uses that to appeal to the reader's emotions. In addition, as he is a formal sports news writer and his game description shows clear background knowledge on football, the audience is pliable to his opinion. To dedicated sports fans, they may find it a sin that he tries to convince the audience to support his team, while a simple passerby may not care. However, Wilson also describes the game effectively, and in the end all that really matters in this situation is an audience who understands. URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/media/5-signs-youre-no-longer-middle-class/
Author: Aimee Picchi Date Published: April 26, 2017 CBS News Category: Moneywatch In "5 Signs You're No Longer Middle Class," Aimee Picchi convinces her audience of the changes in the American class system with similarly structured formats for each factor and long sentences. Each of the five steps begins with a statement based on the topic, and following that, a second paragraph explains in-depth what each step means. She incorporates a multitude of statistics and sources in these descriptions, and typically leans to longer sentence structures. Designing each step in a similar fashion helps the audience to better understand her claim, and a repeated format for the problem makes her appear well-researched. In addition, the long sentence structures with multiple phrases emphasizes the support for her argument, as the multitude of phrases gives off the impression that there are many items included in her list. She also adds a title and picture at the beginning of every section in order to attract the reader through visual appeal. Her tone is primarily conversational yet formal. She does not use elevated vocabulary often; typically words are on an eighth to ninth grade reading level. This does not detract from her argument, though, as her writing flows naturally and organically. On the other hand, she is remarkably formal in her writing. She avoids second person, only using it when describing how a factor applies to the reader, and instead focuses on presenting the information in a clear and concise way. With this, while she uses every day words that do not carry much meaning, she is still able to present a well-thought-out and sound argument. The strongest elements of Picchi's writing are her appeals to logic and ethics. Her article is riddled with different facts and statistics. For example, she explains percentages of growth or decline of multiple important factors of class disparity, ranging from 1991 to 2010. As she states, "the upper-income tier... now controls 34% of the country's total disposable income, even though they make up just 15% of total U.S. households." Statistics like this one strengthen her argument, as the growth and decay in class disparity percentages provides undeniable support that the middle class is shrinking. In addition, she cites multiple credible sources, such as The Wall Street Journal and Pew Research Center. By providing evidence from other sources people already trust, the audience is more willing to believe and agree with her claims. After reading this, the audience is prepped to ask themselves "how has the class line changed around my life?" Article Analysis 4: "Women's March on Washington DC Draws Hundreds of Thousands to Nation's Capital"5/2/2017 URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/womens-march-on-washington-dc-push-back-against-new-president-donald-trump/
Author: None Given Date Published: January 21, 2017 CBS News Category: US In "Women's March on Washington DC Draws Hundreds of Thousands to Nation's Capital," the author's tone starts off determined, as if they took part in the event themselves. Right from the start, though no author can be found, the author is quite clearly someone in support of these international marches for women's rights. As the article continues on, though, the author's sense of inclusion dissipates as they begin to give a more formal report on the event. The underlying argument remains that the women's march was a noble stab at President Trump's inauguration, yet the purpose of conveying information to the audience clouds this. Perhaps the strongest asset to the writer's argument is their use of harsh, exaggerated diction. In describing the crowd's intention to march, the marchers "decried Mr. Trump" and "mocked" his beliefs. Along with this, their feelings from January 21st are described as feelings of "loathing... and dismay [for the new president]." These incredibly negative words portray President Trump as a horrible human being with low moral standards. The protesters have been intensely offended by his actions, and their description convinces the audience to feel the same. In addition to the harsh choice of words, the writer repeats the same description of protests multiple times. Locations such as Berlin, Paris, Australia, and other American cities are referenced; each time a new place is mentioned, the author summarizes the events that occurred. These events were all alike in fashion, with protesters picketing for the same cause using similar slogans. By repeating this description, the author makes it appear as if this issue is widespread internationally and that hordes of people are showing support for the women's cause. While this may be the case in some areas, it is certainly not true for all corners of the globe. With this, the author effectively twists reality to change the audience's perception. The author incorporates an urgent appeal to emotions throughout their argument. They interview parents, students, and activists who marched, as well as including excerpts from officials and celebrities. While this wide range of interviews builds credibility for the author's summary of the events that occurred, the true relevance of this is that it portrays a connection between all types of people. It illustrates a unifying cause and helps the audience to relate to the every-day citizen's claims. The audience is enchanted by these personal accounts, rising and falling as the narrators did and sympathizing with their struggles. All of these factors combine to make a highly persuasive argument that women's rights ought to be defended. URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-global-warming-transformed-the-earth-in-2016/
Author: Shanika Gunaratna Date Published: December 27, 2016 CBS News Category: SciTech Quite like the other CBS writers, Shanika Gunaratna maintains a formal tone when reporting on climate change of 2016 impacting the globe. She develops a well controlled, consistent argument on the negative impacts of global warming and backs each claim with supporting evidence. By separating each factor into its own section, she brings emphasis to each topic and helps ease the readability of her article. Gunaratna shows compelling appeals to ethos and logos as well. She, like countless other CBS authors, includes citations from an array of credible sources. In this particular article, she discusses material found from the World Meteorological Organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Paul Mayewski, a professor at the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute. With agreement from these professional groups and people, she shows how her argument is supported by the leading scientists across the globe. In addition to this, she incorporates countless facts to justify the information she provides. One example includes her description of 2016 being "the hottest year in the 137-year official record." With gut -wrenching statistics like this, she illustrates the imposing threat climate change has on our immediate livelihoods. While Gunaratna keeps up with CBS's standard purpose of formally informing an audience and utilizing appeals to ethos and logos, she does stray from the pack when it comes to her choice in diction. Multiple words were loaded with meaning, typically with a inflated, negative impact. She coins 2016 as a "milestone year" in carbon dioxide emissions, describes oceans as having a "catastrophic sea level rise," and even claims that "climate change has disrupted virtually every corner of the world." With these descriptions, she illustrates the devastating influence our increased dependence on fossil fuels has had on global warming. She effectively scares her audience, and by eliciting fear of climate change, she sways them to agree with her claim. In addition to diction, the set-up of her article helps aid her argument. She begins each factor with a charged title. These titles grab the attention of the audience and place a pre-set notion on what to expect and accept. Following that, she frequently includes a photo to add to visual appeal. This keeps her audience interested in her content. After, she describes each factor thoroughly through multiple paragraphs. This is where the true argument occurs, and the separation emphasizes the importance of these descriptions. With all of these factors included in her article, Gunaratna effectively convinces her argument of the impending threat climate change poses to the natural world. URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pot-legalized-colorado-teens-hospital-er/
Author: Dennis Thompson Date Published: May 8, 2017 CBS News Category: Health This article primarily focuses on describing a recent scientific study and its findings. The central argument, and experimental topic, is on the legalization of pot and the increase in pot-induced teen emergency room visits. While Dennis lacks emotion in her tone and word choice, she crafts a decent argument in her appeals to logos and ethos. Dennis' tone is informative and formal. She clearly describes what the problem is, what the experiment tested, how the experiment was done, and the results. She spares no time trying to relate to her audience and rather presents the facts as plain as day. In addition to this, she does not incorporate emotionally charged word choice. There is no diction that stands out or helps influence the reader in any way; it is all rather to-the-point information. It is evident that her audience is scientific-minded people in search of data, and by focusing on that she sacrifices other audience members that could potentially find interest in her topic. While Dennis' writing is rather weak in rhetorical devices and emotional connection, she is strong in appealing to logic and ethos. Nearly every claim she presents is backed by a statistic, and nearly every statistic has a credible source cited for it. For example, she quotes Dr. George Sam Wang, who states "the rate of emergency department and urgent care visits by stoned teenagers more than doubled -- from 1.7 per 1,000 patients in 2009 to 4 per 1,000 patients in 2015." By providing over five different pieces of statistical evidence, she makes her argument difficult to refute. Also, by citing a reputable source, the audience is more willing to believe the facts she presents and trust her claim. Despite being chalk-full of factual support, Dennis Thompson does a poor job of supporting her claim at the end of her article . She includes a counter argument from NORML, a respectable advocacy group in favor of legalization of marijuana, and yet does not refute it. The deputy director of NORML, Paul Armentano, describes how there is no true increase in marijuana use post-legalization, and that this study does not prove that the increase in pot use in Colorado was caused by legalization. By avoiding to refute this claim, Thompson loses all agreement the audience may have had with her. She allows someone to blow holes through her argument without even lifting a finger to stop them. URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-threatens-government-shutdown-in-the-fall/
Author: Rebecca Shabad Date Published: May 2, 2017 CBS News Category: Politics Rebecca Shabad, in "Trump Threatens Government Shutdown in the Fall," highlights the present threat President Trump released on Twitter and incorporates the differing points of view from multiple political workers. She speaks from a rather detached tone, moreso reporting on what has unfolded and other's arguments rather than incorporating her own argument. Her vocabulary is easily understandable by most adults and students, and regards a formal tone. Shabad consistently keeps her own emotions out of the forefront of the content, yet some inconsistencies sneak through her uplifting yet disrespectful diction. A few phrases, such as "Democrats have cheered the wins" and "Mr. Trump," illustrates a slight prejudice she has towards the Democratic side. In describing the Democratic point of view and success, her diction usually leans to a positive connotation. On the other hand, by calling the president 'Mr. Trump' instead of 'President Trump' is a polite yet subtle way of disrespecting his position. By avoiding defining him in this way, she suggests that she does not accept or respect him as president. With both of these factors mixing together, her detached and formal tone does not hide her evident bias towards the Democratic side. In addition to this, Shabad includes strong appeals to ethos and logos. She incorporates quotes from multiple people in positions of political power. Influential people she cited include Speaker Paul Ryan, House of Appropriations representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, and Senator Patrick Leahy. These congressmen are held in high respect by the nation, and experienced this fillibuster fiasco unfold first-hand. They are widely trusted, and by including them in her article as supporting evidence, Shabad's credibility increases. Shabad is also able to incorporate multiple statistics to aid her argument as well. For example, she states "the last government shutdown went on for 16 days in October 2013." This is only one of many facts Shabad touches on, and by providing them, she tells the audience that she is well researched in her field. It is hard to argue with facts, especially when these facts come from someone you trust and believe. |