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.

TOW #3 - "We’re Working Harder Than Ever, So Why Is Productivity Plummeting?”

Rana Foroohar, an economics journalist for Time and Global Economic Analyst for CNN (“About.”), comments on the apparent lack of productivity that exists in the United States in her article “We’re Working Harder Than Ever, So Why Is Productivity Plummeting?” (Foroohar). In an age of countless technological advancements, this editorial serves as an in-depth look at the current state of the United States of America’s economy given the amount of work being completed. Foroohar transitions into potential reasons for a loss of productivity using synecdoche: “With birth­rates falling and immigration down, productivity needs to go up—or we’ll soon be worse off economically than our parents” (Foroohar). As commonly used when describing the economy, Foroohar uses the term “parents” to distinguish between two distinct generations and identify her audience as young American workers. This establishment of the audience is essential to the purpose of the editorial, which is to identify and suggest ways to resolve potential reasons for a decline in America’s productivity. Additionally, Foroohar alludes to a time when the United States flourished economically, which “happened from 1945 to 1973, when there were major public and private investments in education, infrastructure, and worker training” (Foroohar). This contributes to the editorial’s purpose of identifying potential solutions to resolve a dip in productivity, as she claims this same practice today “would bolster demand, … creating a virtuous cycle of productivity growth, wage growth and economic growth” (Foroohar). Foroohar’s argument focuses around that final statement; governmental and private advancements in education offer more opportunity for the economy to strengthen, allowing citizens to usefully focus their efforts. While identifying the purpose of this editorial is straightforward, it was slightly lacking in data and statistics to back up claims, including education’s impact on the economy. Foroohar could have included specific governmental investments in education that helped to raise the economy after 1945, but because this significant portion of the editorial was unsubstantiated, her purpose of determining ways to increase productivity was left uncompleted.

Works Cited

“About.” RanaForoohar.com, http://www.ranaforoohar.com/about/.

Foroohar, Rana. “We're Working Harder Than Ever, So Why Is Productivity Plummeting?” Time, Time, 24 Aug. 2016, http://time.com/4464743/productivity-decline/.

TOW #2 - Calvin and Hobbes Comic Strip

A Calvin and Hobbes comic strip showing a phone conversation. This comic strip was produced by Bill Watterson and was found at http://i1.nyt.com/images/2014/04/13/education/413/413-articleLarge-v2.jpg (Watterson)

This comic strip is from Calvin and Hobbes, a comic strip produced by Bill Watterson, who had much success on a national level during the years he produced the comic strips (Editors). Within this text, a young boy named Calvin picks up his home telephone only to deny taking a message for his dad, claiming that he is not concerned with others’ wellbeing. This comic strip satirizes the polite way children are taught to talk on the phone, as Calvin is very upfront about having no interest in taking any message. As this comic was produced to be placed in a newspaper or in a dedicated Calvin and Hobbes book, Watterson’s primary audience is ordinary people who seek humor from comic strips. To effectively establish this scenario, Watterson uses three rhetorical devices: onomatopoeia, hypophora, and hyperbole. Via the alarming “RRIINGG RRINGG” (Watterson 1) in the first box, the situation is created as the reader becomes aware that the phone is ringing, establishing a sense of urgency to pick the phone up. Calvin then continued, politely, to answer the phone, letting the caller know that his father is unavailable to speak. Watterson then uses hypophora to continue a two-way conversation, even though the reader only views the event from Calvin’s perspective: “Will I take a message? I don’t know – what’s in it for me?” (Watterson 3). While it is understood that Calvin himself is not using hypophora in this situation, the writer Bill Watterson tactically provided the readers with this question for the conversation to move forward. If he were to remove this question from the text, the context of Calvin’s statements would be illogical and unintelligible, ruining the flow of the short comic strip. Lastly, hyperbole is used when Calvin says, “People always assume you’re some kind of altruist” (Watterson 4). Calvin takes the commonly known scenario of being asked to take a message and compares it to a humanitarian deed, largely exaggerating the scale by which he is helping the caller. Relatedly, Calvin claims that everyone “always” (Watterson 4) asks him for a favor, further satirizing the scale of this ordinary exchange via the use of a hyperbole. Watterson intended to make his audience laugh by having Calvin refuse to do a simple task that only poses a minor inconvenience; with the help of several rhetorical devices that contribute emotion and context, Watterson produced a humorous comic strip that contrasts the different scale of duties in childhood and adulthood.

Works Cited

Editors, Biography.com. "Bill Watterson Biography." The Biography.com Website. A&E Networks Television, 2 Jan. 2015. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Watterson, Bill. "Calvin and Hobbes." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

TOW #1 - James Garfield’s Inaugural Address

James A. Garfield was elected president in 1881, less than 20 years after the Civil War in the United States (Editors and McPherson). In his inaugural address, Garfield recognized the importance of addressing the segregation that remained in society. Because there was still great tension between the North and the South, due in part to the abolition of slavery and also due to the growth of a strong central government (McPherson), Garfield had to find a balance between emphasizing both local and central rights. Though both parts of the country still held different beliefs, Garfield remained optimistic while also encouraging equality and a strong central government via the use of several rhetorical devices. Garfield used an allusion to a quote by Abraham Lincoln to emphasize the value of equality: “The elevation of the negro race from slavery to the full rights of citizenship is the most important political change we have known since the adoption of the Constitution of 1787. […] The influence of this force will grow greater and bear richer fruit with the coming years” (James). As Lincoln’s original use of the expression was, “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice” (Lincoln), Garfield extended it to deliver the message that people should be more compassionate and stop continuing prejudice. Additionally, Garfield addressed his duties in the executive position using synecdoche: “And now, fellow-citizens, I am about to assume the great trust which you have committed to my hands” (James). While Garfield is formally accepting the position of President of the United States, he states “my hands” to detach his own bias from the position, further emphasizing that he stands only as an elected national representative to serve others. Garfield, a firm believer in equality, had unfortunately limited time in office; in July of 1881, he was shot and killed (Editors). This does not, however, affect the value of Garfield’s inaugural address, as he purposefully and tactically brought attention to several of the largest issues existing in the country at the time with encouraging words to proactively fix them.

Works Cited

Editors, Biography.com. "James Garfield Biography." The Biography.com Website. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

James A. Garfield: "Inaugural Address," March 4, 1881. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25823.

Lincoln, Abraham. "Abraham Lincoln Quotes." BrainyQuote. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

McPherson, James, Dr. "A Brief Overview of the American Civil War." Civilwar.com. History.com, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

IRB Intro Post #1

During the first quarter of school, I will be reading Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. I have a particular interest in reading this book due to my curiosity in politics and history, and I also recently began researching Andrew Johnson, who was Vice President with Lincoln and later became president following Lincoln’s assassination. I understand that John Wilkes Booth is the murderer of Lincoln, but I do not currently know the specific policies that he disagreed with. I know that this will be an emotional description of the events that took place leading up to and after Lincoln’s assassination, and I hope to gain more knowledge about one of America’s most famous presidents.