The three rhetoric appeals are very important in examining an article they tell many things about the writer or speaker and the subject. I will be using rhetoric to compare two articles that are on the retirement of Senator Jesse Helms. The first thing you need to know is the three appeals. First is the ethos. Ethos is our perception of the writers or speaker's character influences how believable or conceiving we find what the person has to say. Extrinsic ethos is a reputation, like a doctor, professor, or some master of the subject, because you wouldn't listen to a doctor talk about farming techniques. Intrinsic ethos is next. The actual text we hear or read the way it is written/spoken and what it says is intrinsic ethos. Pathos is second. It is believed to be the strongest of the appeals. Pathos is an appeal to an audience's sense of identity, their self-interest, their emotions.
Pathos is how we tell if articles happy sad, mad, bad, to us. Pathos is basically identity.
Last is Logos. Logos is the argument, or the explicit reasons the arguer provides to prove a point. These are quotes, stats and percentages. In this paper, I will use the rhetoric appeals to break down two similar articles about Senator Jesse Helms. The rhetorical of appeal will show a better understanding of the subject.
Ethos is first. In the first article, "Helms exit makes U.S. a better place"Ã¯Â¿Â½ by Cynthia Tucker. Tucker is against Helms and his actions towards America. The Intrinsic ethos is she's a famous political writer. She says that the"Ã¯Â¿Â½ North Carolina mossback Jesse Helms has finally announced his decision to retire in 2003."Ã¯Â¿Â½ She also says "his suffering was probably ameliorated by the pleasure he took in using his past to lambaste the United Nations."Ã¯Â¿Â½ It goes on even more. This is name-calling. It goes on like this throughout the article. That is considered high moral name calling. In the second article in the News Observer, the author (The Washington Times) supports Helms. It states, "he has staked out independent positions on issues such as the United States policy towards China, Russia and Cuba."Ã¯Â¿Â½ The author also said, "Helm's supported doubling United States aid to foreign countries as long as the money was disbursed by private and faith based charities rather than the public bureaucracy."Ã¯Â¿Â½ This shows sympathy from the reader and that Jesse Helm is a caring person. Therefore, this article is in favor of him. Overall, the second article is better because it does not slant the wordings and does not stoop to name-calling.
There is a lot of Pathos in the articles. In the first article, "Helms' exit makes the United States a better place."Ã¯Â¿Â½ The Pathos of the article is anger, madness and disappointment. In the fourth paragraph, she talks about a commercial that claims affirmative action isn't good for white Americans. This clearly tries to get the reader to disagree with Mr. Helms. Also the author states, "Not only in the South, but also in many other parts of the country, there are fringe extremist in positions of power and influence, railing against equal rights for women and people of color, denouncing gays and lesbians, and trying to halt immigration."Ã¯Â¿Â½ In the second article, the writer tries to make the reader favor Mr. Helms. Constantly the article talks about the good things Mr. Helms does and never mentions the bad things about the Senator. In the end the second article is good, but not the best. The second may create anger, but it tells the truth. The first article has more emotion.
Logos is very noticeable in the two articles. Again, logos is the argument. Both writers had a large amount of background data. This shows they were both trying to get their point across to the reader. In the first article, " Helms exit, makes U.S. a better place,"Ã¯Â¿Â½ Cynthia Tucker uses many analogies, data, and detailed descriptions. In the second article, it also has the same things. Even though the first article has good information, the second has more detailed information.
Both articles show really good writing skills. They made the same topic have two different meanings. For example, the first article clearly shows disgust towards the Senator Jesse Helms, while the second article shows favoritism towards him. The first article is making the senator look really bad. Even though the first article has obvious name-calling, distortion of the story, and hatred, it has good fact to support it. Most of the statements were very strong in pathos, creating a sense of hatred. There was a strong extrinsic ethos also. Cynthia Tucker is known all over Georgia for her political opinions. In the second article, the article is written by The Washington Times of a North Carolina Newspaper called The News & Observer. I'm not if they are recognized in North Carolina. This is probably why they favored the "beloved"Ã¯Â¿Â½ Senator. To me this article didn't arouse my emotions. I felt they weren't telling the whole truth. It was too clean. Even though the first article talked about the Senator, it had some slightly good points. This is why I feel that the first article is better. I have concluded that the first article has better information and it agrees with my beliefs and morals.