Rhetorical Activities 1, 2, and 6

1.) It seems that these authors are in a sense automatically writing under the assumed ethos of whatever publication they are working for (oh! a liberal newspaper? sure we're for Barack Obama). It seems that to establish good ethos, a writer uses both sides of an argument so that the reader can get the full scope of the issue (how can you argue your point if you are not informed of your opponent's stance on a subject?). It also seems like, if they want to be taken seriously, they quote main sources and not second-hand accounts of things that happened (for example talking to Coach Steward about the football game instead of some freshman who was probably inebriated and not paying attention anyway). To establish good character, it seems that a writer does not take a side, persay. Instead of "I'm right and you are wrong", they include "neutral" information for both sides, never focusing in one more than the other or relaying positive information about one and negative about the other. These writers established goodwill toward readers by going towards that whole notion of "I'm telling you this because I'm looking out for you - I have this information and I want you to know it so that when the time comes, you will make an informed decision."

For an ethos that was not successful, I wanted to showcase an email I received earlier today bashing Barack Obama (granted, it was not written in a "professional" manner, but it is being circulated to this person's coworkers and acquaintences as propaganda, so I would consider it to be professional writing. It was entitled "A pilot's perspective on Obama" (yet it never made any reference to the air or planes or...anything of that nature, really...so why title it this way?) and focused on many negative and slanderous things, most of which were untrue and some of which may be true but were cast in such a light to make them absolutely ridiculously "terrible" when in reality this was not the case whatsoever. This writer's ethos was not successful in the least bit - even if I had been undecided and still wondering who I was going to vote for, the typos and ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO DENOTE AMAZEMENT among a host of other things first and foremost cast off this email as written by someone un-professional (yet it was being sent to co-workers through a company system?). The ethos comes off as uninformed and unintelligent and really plays to an overall idea that those against Barack Obama have less than must therefore then be stretched more.

2.) Some authors did assume they knew readers well (as in the case of a Daily Athenaeum article). Some (as in a New York Times article) used detached vocabulary with an "us and then them" attitude. The author of the email seemed to fall more towards the "I am one of you" category. The distance, however long or short it may be, is achieved. The more detached and unemotional a text, the less personal it becomes - the more detached a reader can and will be from it. These writers achieved whatever distance they were looking for with word choice and using or not using "I" when "speaking"- the DA said more basically "I am one of you, this is what I see and feel and think and what I know you are seeing and feeling and thinking and this is what we can do about it together" while larger-institution more formal newspapers would be more along the lines of "These are the facts, these are the factors involved, this is what is happening (not singularly to you but in general)".

6.) Hey Girl Hey!!

I'm like, so much better than you, because I'm hot. I have way more money than you. I'm way prettier. But it's cool we can be best friends! I only like people who are less pretty than me, but that's not hard to find because I'm hot.

-Paris