Ross Douthat Rhetorical Analysis

David Brooks is a conservative political Op Ed writer who writes for the New York Times. His first experience as a writer was after his graduation, when he received a job as a writer for the City News Bureau of Chicago where he developed his conservative ideology and began utilizing writing to evangelize his values as a conservative writer. He has had many other jobs after that, all of which have strengthened his ability as a writer and brought him closer to his job at the New York Times. He artfully crafts intense and persuasive arguments through his use of Pathos through his historical evidence and quotes while establishing complex tone through diction. He trapps readers with well crafted hooks and releases them into the world with a different

Brian has a hatchet survival pack and it's getting colder in the forest of Canada. In Brian's winter by Gary Paulsen Brian has to get food stay warm and clothes make a shelter and get water. And in the how he can survive the whole winter.

I have chosen to focus on the columnist Steve Chapman who writes for the Chicago Tribune under the opinion column on the Chicago Tribune website. He most commonly writes editorials showing both sides, but puts an emphasis on his opinion almost to persuade the reader towards his side. I believe he would be a good person to analyze because he keeps current with the pieces he writes, and they are all focused on controversial topics that arise such as the recent Las Vegas shooting, or the legalization of marijuana in the state of Illinois. Additionally, his topics can also broaden out to writing about international affairs in an attempt to keep his readers informed on the world around them. He has been a part of the editorial board for the Chicago

It is not what a person says that is important, but instead how they say it. By changing the tone or audience of a work, the purpose can be completely altered. Two articles can have identical information, yet when a different tone is formed between the two, their purposes drastically change. The article “ What Colleges Will Teach in 2025” by Jon Meacham and “ The Failure of American Higher Education” by Robert Atkinson both contain a topic that is similar on many levels. That being said, each article has an entirely different tone and audience, effectively skewing the similarity between their purposes. While Atkinson created a sound argument, his choice of tone and use of audience were far less effective than Meacham’s.

In a way he seems a bit bias because he is so strongly about one side too, which is “the other side”. In the way that just because one person doesn’t want to see a different point of view, he goes ahead and calls them lazy. Like, some people just can’t see another point because that

Liberal leaning New York Times (NYT) columnist Charles M. Blow, in his op-ed, "No, Trump, We Can’t Just Get Along", recounts Trumps tirade of controversial, racist and bigoted proclamations which dominated the 2016 presidential campaign season. His column ranked 21 out of 100 of NYT’s most-read articles in 2016 (New York Times). Blow's purpose is to give his mostly liberal audience permission to reject President-elect Trump’s dismissive attitude about his record and additionally, to convey that message of rejection to his colleagues in the media who appear complacent about holding Trump accountable. He adopts an angry chastising tone to establish himself as an authority and to appeal to similar feelings of his readers.

Dissection number two was taking apart a piece of writing presented to us, so as that we can get an idea for our first major writing assignment. For my dissection number two decided to take apart Jorge Ramos's piece by commenting on his piece. From what I noticed in this paper Mr.Ramos tried to persuade his readers using ethos as to persuade his readers that trump is not the man to be our president. I learned through dissecting this piece that even prestigious news sources such as the times have hidden agendas. Without this dissection I might still be reading passively taking in others bias without cross checking my references, and I wouldn't have found the discrepancies in Mr.Ramos's writings. He used rhetoric such as majority even though

He uses a sense of urgency to capture his audience "[b]e better informed than the average citizen and tell you directly what a professional analyst and newsman thinks is really going on behind the headlines" (648-649). His ability to organize his essay and draw in different classes of people is effective. Williams’ informs the reader how horrible his former co-workers presented information by using criticism and logical fallacies. He presents to the audience how “they” are not telling the whole truth. He convinces his audience that he is different and tells the truth so they should believe

Will Rogers was a brilliant man, yet most of his wisdom came from simply wearing his heart on his sleeve. Will Rogers kept his views regarding working class simple, and in the world of politics, he practiced equal opportunity critiques (The Political Wit and Wisdom of Will Rogers, n.d.). “Both parties have their good and bad times,” (Will Rogers) he claimed, “only they have them at different times. They are each good when they are out, and each bad when they are in.” (Will Rogers) “I just watch the government and report the facts,” Will claimed, yet in the past, he proved he was never shy of presenting his biases, because of his care for the welfare of the working

Also, he considers Trump's campaign a "campaign of lies" which strongly implies to the audience that Trump is a liar and a liars shouldn't and won't be America's 45th president. When talking about the Bush candidacy, Milbank doesn't technically insult Bush. Instead he gives Bush strongly worded advice such as, "Angry voters want a fighter, and Bush, justifiably dubbed “low-energy” by Trump, doesn’t seem to have it in him. The way to combat Trump’s demagoguery and race-baiting is not to look down your nose at him and say “Tut-tut.” It’s to hit Trump back with as much force as he delivers." You can assume that Milbank is more of a supporter towards Jeb Bush than with Donald Trump. Milbank believes that "A strong candidate would argue that (aka. Trump) with passion - not muse about all the "cool things" he could be doing instead." and that is exactly what Bush hasn't done. I'm sure if Bush put fourth more effort Milbank would give more support but Bush has not done

With following Krauthammer and his opinion editorials for the past few weeks, there seems to be repetitive writing patterns he enjoys to utilize. In every article of his, there is always a humorous tone present like “he’s the best baseball player on the planet, probably in the entire Milky Way” or “God created baseball as a relief from politics”, and usually it is the main overall tone for the piece. In addition, every single opinion editorial discusses politics with the 2016 presidential election approaching. Krauthammer addresses the significant candidates, like Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz, and with doing this he typically tries to support the candidates he prefers and disregards the ones he does not like. For example, he says this about

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is a government website that provides information about various diseases, disabilities, disorders, etc.. The CDC provides multiple webpages about Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that list and provide information about causes, treatments, variations, and signs/symptoms of the disorder. On their informative pages, they use rhetorical devices to better portray their message. The CDC effectively uses the three rhetorical devices, pathos, ethos, and logos, to reach their goal of informing their target audience and providing a clear perspective on Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

clearly and convincingly gets his message across by supporting his ideas using a database of the

Dr. Michael Savage has been on the air for over 22 years with his message “borders, language, and culture.” He is a New York Times bestselling author having written numerous fiction and non-fiction books. Dr. Savage has been like a prophet to America, similar to the Israelite prophets in the Old Testament, providing both guidance and warnings for America, on how our actions today will result tomorrow.

He follows this by talking about ISIS and all the monstrous acts of terrorism and violence they have committed. Again, he gives a halfhearted solution and says, “we must take more aggressive action to stop these radical, barbaric murderers before they commit more mass atrocities.” Trump gives a very surface level solution and again does not give the people of Utah a clear picture of how he will accomplish his “aggressive action”. He does however tell us why ISIS is as strong as they are, “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have enabled this by leading from behind in world affairs. They refuse to even identify radical Islamic terrorism by its name, and when tragedy occurs, they do not take action to stop future attacks.”