It's interesting to me to read how each of my classmates interpret the meaning of each article written and then respond to the writing afterward based on their own opinion. For me, being someone who I would classify as a progressive or liberal, my opinion or interpretation could be much different than someone who would call themselves a conservative. Here is what I read and what I thought about each article afterward:
The first article I read was an article by Arianna Huffington discussing a conversation she had with columnist Joe Klein about how out of touch the Washington media is with the rest of the country. She writes about Klein's trip around the country and talks about issues that should be the big stories in the Washington media cycle, like how 1 in 5 children live in poverty and 1 in 5 people are unemployed or underemployed. She uses pathos with great effect while she is discussing the issues at hand, as well as the "non" issues, like if Hillary Clinton will run as President Obama's Vice Presidential running mate in 2012, when there was no story there to begin with, just a couple of people bouncing ideas off a wall and nothing else. She also uses logos very well when closing her argument, using the statement "Maybe if the Washington press corps focused more on the casualties of the economic devastation in their own country, they'd care less about the horse race -- and a very different kind of story would "win the morning"" as a logical conclusion after her arguments she previously made.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/joe-klein-and-diane-sawye_b_752674.html
The second article I read is entitled "Facebook, I Just Can't Quit You" by Meghan Daum. It discusses how facebook is time wasting and for lack of a better adjective, addictive, but how it has become a necessity to be a member or feel like you've been left behind by the world. The author talks about how she was a skeptic of facebook and didn't want to join, but how she became hooked when she tried it and now how it is impossible to leave because of it's value to the current social world. The overall use of pathos is probably the strongest of the three here, but I also see a lot of logos as well, since the author uses the shear size of facebook to make an argument of how you have to join and can't leave.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum-facebook-20101007,0,2696276.column?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29
The third article I chose to read is entitled "Obama's a Lock in 2012" by Peter Beinart. Overall, I liked the argument made by the author when he stated that Obama will win election in 2012 because he has no serious primary challenger from his own party, and only 3 sitting presidents didn't win re-election in the last 75 years, and all had serious competition within their own political party. He also uses an argument made by GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in that if the GOP takes the House of Representatives this fall, it will only help Obama and history shows that if the economy shows that it has improved from what a president inherited, then he almost always gets re-elected. This article focuses heavily on logos, using logical conclusions based on what has happened in the past.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-06/why-obama-will-win-a-second-term/?cid=bs:archive7
No comments:
Post a Comment