TOW #6 - “The Media’s Moment of Truth”

Frank Bruni, who has been a journalist for the New York Times for more than 20 years and even acted as a White House correspondent, comments on the media’s responsibility for Trump’s success in his editorial “The Media’s Moment of Truth” (“Biography”). Written with confidence that Trump will lose the presidential election, this editorial is primarily written to democrats and others who recognize that Trump is not the best candidate for President of the United States. With this acknowledged, Bruni focuses less on exemplifying Trump’s political blunders, but rather on the pivotal role the media had in supporting bad candidates in order to prevent the media from interrupting the essence of democracy. Bruni has multiple uses of parallel structure to emphasize the media’s large role in supporting Trump: “Was he ridiculous? Beyond measure. Relevant? Beyond doubt” (Bruni), and “His reckoning comes on Nov. 8. Ours comes shortly after that” (Bruni). The first quotation gives context as to why the media would possibly provide coverage for Trump: he is not an ordinary candidate; he is willing to make unsubstantiated statements that lend themselves perfectly to news headlines. Additionally, Bruni concludes the essay saying that while Trump will get the immediate results of the election on November 8^th, the American population will be tasked with a serious question about the role of media in politics. Bruni also used invective to deliver his message, stating “Trump’s mendacity, viciousness, vulgarity and lack of preparation encouraged a kind of political journalism that […] can’t become the new normal, not in a country that’s already this polarized” (Bruni). Bruni, describing Trump’s character with a string of charged nouns, used this invective to deliver his message that it is dangerous for the media to provide coverage for candidates who are unqualified to be the next President. In his editorial, Bruni provides a solid argument that systemic reforms must be made within the profession of media coverage to prevent unqualified candidates from becoming President. With support of the advanced rhetoric used to drive Bruni’s claims, the argument that the media should not support a candidate like Donald Trump is very stable, creating a motive to change the way media covers future elections in order to preserve democracy.

 Works Cited

“Biography: Frank Bruni.” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/dining/bruni-bio.html.

Bruni, Frank. “The Media's Moment of Truth.” The New York Times, 23 Oct. 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-medias-moment-of-truth.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.

TOW #5 - Minimum Wage Political Cartoon by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for his cartoons (“Nick Anderson”), produced a political cartoon in 2013 that brings attention to the wide gap between economic classes in the United States of America. In the cartoon, a person is holding a sign that reads, “Raise the minimum wage,” and right next to them is a single bill and three coins (“Minimum Wage”). One the opposite side of the visual text, a business man is on top of an enormous mound of money, exclaiming “Your greed is hurting the economy!” (“Minimum Wage”). Anderson juxtaposes these greatly different economic situations to effectively show the disparity between economic classes in the United States and elicit change. Because the lower and middle classes do not need any explanation for why the minimum wage should be increased federally, this cartoon was produced specifically for those in the upper class who insist that increasing the minimum wage would only harm the economy. The irony presented in this cartoon is very obvious: the rich man, claiming that the lower classes are being greedy by protesting for a wage increase, is standing on a huge mound of money (“Minimum Wage”). Anderson makes this connection very clear in the political cartoon, as he portrays the businessman as immature and avaricious by showing him yelling and pointing. As explained, Anderson uses hyperbole to depict the protester as being very poor. The exaggeration of the lower class having one bill and a couple of coins is important to deliver the irony in the cartoon, showing the upper class that the minimum wage actually should be increased. Anderson’s use of juxtaposition, irony, and hyperbole generate an appeal to pathos, and while it is partially aggressive and would not achieve immediate sympathy, the gap of wealth is made evident to those in the upper class, allowing them to see why the minimum wage should be increased.

[Minimum wage political cartoon by Nick Anderson, found at the source ("Minimum Wage")]

Works Cited

“Minimum Wage.” Understanding Fiscal Responsibility, Columbia University, http://teachufr.org/tag/minimum-wage/.

“Nick Anderson.” AAEC, The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoonist/profile.cfm/andern/#speaker.

TOW #4 - "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever"

Written by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever is a nonfiction text that analyzes the context of Lincoln’s tragic assassination. O’Reilly, who runs his own news program on FOX News (Editors), and Dugard, who has a history of producing historical works (Dugard), co-wrote Killing Lincoln to explain the historical context in which President Lincoln, the executive leader of the Union Army during the Civil War, was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. This text provides a high level of written analysis via the narrative style, which allows the coauthors to emphasize the relevance of specific events to Lincoln’s assassination. During the first portion of the text, the authors use anaphora to elaborate on tensions between General Meade and General-in-Chief Grant of the Union Army: “The problem, in a nutshell, is the unspoken rivalry between infantry and cavalry—between the unglamorous and the swashbuckling” (O’Reilly and Dugard 49). In the repetition, the writers juxtapose two charged antonyms, which not only contributes to the educated audience’s understanding of the tensions within the Union Army, but also heightens the audience's understanding of the immense responsibilities that President Lincoln was faced with. The authors later directly comment on John Wilkes Booth’s disturbing level of control with both a metaphor and a simile, claiming that “Booth is fighting the Civil War on his terms, using his talents, choreographing the action like a great director” (O’Reilly and Dugard 93-94). Booth did not fight for the Confederate Army, but rather independently planned to assassinate the leader of the Union, or as O’Reilly and Dugard stated, “[fought] the Civil War on his terms” (93). O’Reilly and Dugard also use a simile comparing Booth to a “great director” (94) which is carefully selected diction that displays Booth’s frightening level of control while plotting the attack. In the context it was written, the seemingly positive connotation of “great” only represents Booth’s own distorted perception; the authors recognize his twisted, villainous nature. The first portion of the text does offer the important historical context of the Civil War, which was a period of polar disunity. Because the coauthors address this critical factor of the historical context, the tragic event of Lincoln’s assassination is presented with relevant background information for the educated audience, allowing them to become more knowledgeable.

Works Cited

Dugard, Martin. “About.” Martin Dugard, http://www.martindugard.com/about/.

Editors, Biography.com. “Bill O'Reilly Biography.” The Biography.com Website, A&E Networks Television, 2015, http://www.biography.com/people/bill-oreilly-9542547#personal-life.

O'Reilly, Bill, and Martin Dugard. Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever. 1st ed., New York, Henry Holt and Co., 2011.