Arrogant Columnist Loses Audience Members

I believe that we all agree that one of the nation's most recognized columnists is highly qualified in all areas of rhetoric. As we have already mentioned, Steve Duin is successful in persuading his readers through use of kairos and language tools (as Blake has mentioned in two of his earlier posts). However, at times even the most widely recognized columnist can lose audience members due to his arrogance of opinion and his assumptions of their knowledge.

Duin emphasizes the importance of community especially in this era. He does an mediocre job of using supporting evidence that this is the case. Duin points out that now more than ever we are experiencing times of isolation created by technology (iPhones, texting, emailing etc.) This is undeniably the truth, however I feel that he could use more emotional emphasis (pathos) to fully enhance this point.

Another example of how Duin lacks logos is how he does not fully align his readers with his examples. He refers to Roosevelt High, I assume it's a local school in Portland. He says: "One reason I remain fixated on the efforts -- especially those of the congregation at SouthLake FourSquare -- to bring stability to Roosevelt High is that the adventures cross the racial, social and material lines that so frequently divide us" (par. 16). This is the entirety of background information he gives concerning the "communal effort Obama is promoting" (par. 18). From this, I can infer that Duin is seeing an improvement in stability within Portland's local high school. For me, I am still left with the question of specifics: how is this being done at Roosevelt High? What efforts towards "stability" are being made? In this way, Duin assumes his audience is local and already has background knowledge. Yet he is a nationally recognized columnist. Obviously people from differing areas are going to read his work.

Blake's comment is right - in many cases, Duin is brief in order to promote readers to develop their own opinion. This is clear in his use of language tools, especially with rhetorical questions such as, "A president who 'believes in community above individuals'? In the sacrificial giving that serves those who can not fathom your prosperity?" (par. 20). This begs readers to think and question. Duin is undoubtedly not a writer who hands an opinion to you, but prefers readers to formulate their own based on what they've read. Acknowledging this, I feel that with the reference to Roosevelt High there could be more background information seeing as he uses it as his main example. If readers cannot understand Duin's main example, they will hardly be able to understand the reality of his concept.

Finally, and most importantly, Duin can be a very offensive author for those who disagree with his political ideology. Within the introduction to his article, Duin refers to his opponents as a "right wing noise machine" (par. 3). Not only is this a slap in the face to any conservative reading his article, Duin completely obliterates any possibility of acknowledging "fence-sitters" of the issue. In a major way, Duin does not acknowledge the opposing side and doesn't seem to make any attempt to find common ground. Furthermore, Duin does not establish trust. As we know, the only way to debate an ethical argument is to be charitable about the opponents' intentions. In no way is Duin open-minded and accepting - he is blunt and "political correctness" is somewhat absent. Hence, Duin does not exemplify an admirable sense of audience awareness.

Overall, the lack of community he expresses has potential to be such a powerful argument that could convince many fence-sitters of his opinion. Steve Duin is very abrupt with his points and expects the audience to fully understand the issue and the examples he refers to. Duin's work could be an all-inclusive article addressing political unity, but within the first few lines of his article he makes it clear that he is in no search for common ground. He is relying too heavily on his rhetoric status or credibility (ethos) while his argument lacks presence of logos or audience awareness.

Sarcasm, Shmarcasm

Upon reading "Ending our Splintered Isolation," by Steve Duin, I was immediately struck by the way he manipulated the readers' emotions.

For instance, throughout the whole article, he uses a large amount of sarcasm. However, as an average innocent reader, it wasn't apparent until the end. Throughout most of the article, I'm thinking, "can this guy be for real?" until the end. I was quite impressed by his audacity to tackle such individual emotions.

The point is that his form of getting his argument across to the reader is by indirectly criticizing the values of the general public. For example, as he speaks of public skepticism: "That sullen anger is easier to hold on when we sport a grudge or the smoldering suspicion that some woebegone loser wants to steal off with our benefits..." (par. 15).

I think his favorite line was "our splendid isolation" (par. 4 & 14), a direct attack on those who spend more time in their own world rather than that of the World itself. Walking down the sidewalk, it's hard not to notice how frequently we as students do just that. Sometimes, you just need to remind your mind that hey, those mountains look incredible with snow! Or wow, people are very unique...

Think about it.

Changing the Views of Isolationism from Controversial to Irrational

For this analysis, I once again review Steven Duin's article about the scrutiny of community in the United States today. This time around, I'm focusing on his language and the way he uses his words to get the message across.

In short, Duin wrote a column for a Portland, Oregon newspaper, detailing his thoughts of some of the public's views on President Obama's actions when dealing with the community. He views their thoughts to be unreasonable for this particular time in our nation's history, and argues that focusing on the community rather than the individual is what is best for our country. When readers begin his article, they have their own take on whether the individual is more important than the community or vice versa. The way Steve Duin writes, however, makes you feel as if his view is the only view that can be deemed acceptable. This is accomplished through very intricate uses of language tools.

One such vastly apparent tool is Duin's use of imagery and figurative meanings. Statements like "this train of thought rumbles out of the right-wing noise machine" (par. 3) works to not only identify which group thinks that individualism is more important than community, but also discredits the source. Duin could have written that right-wing citizens hold this view, but he decides to include statements like these -- ones that Duin obviously deems "radical" or "irrational" -- happen all the time and that right-wing perspectives are always just seeking attention. A statement like this can, however, hurt his audience, especially those that have the views of Duin’s “right-wing noise machine” (Phoebe has already addressed that perception, if you want to read a more in-depth look).

Immediately following this segment, Duin continues to write things such as "Unions do the devil's work" (par. 5) to give samples to the readers of why right-wing views are drastic and excessive, and that his view on the argument is fairer. The usage of imagery runs rampant in this article.

Another language tool Duin uses lies near the end of his writing. Keeping with the same tone present throughout his paper, Duin's final message is to leave a few questions in the mind of his readers. Using rhetorical questions like, "[A president who believes] in the sacrificial giving that serves those who cannot fathom your prosperity? I would hope so" (Par. 18-19) Duin words the situation to be favorable to his argument. No one wants to admit to prioritizing greed over humanitarianism, especially in a president, so of course the reader will want to agree with Duin's statement. Ending articles with statements like these proves to make Steve Duin's argument all the more powerful.

"Ending our Splintering Isolation" uses numerous other language tools, such as allusions and definite tone, to get Duin's point across. The article -- in its entirety -- is an amazing representation of what shaping the words and context of an argument to your benefit can do.

A Slightly Heated Topic

I thought I might read about something that really interests me this time, so I decided to go for the topic of Global Warming. The article I read, written by James Lovelock, dwells on the argument that the best way to combat the threat of global warming is to alter our main energy sources to that of nuclear power. Though I may not agree that global warming is occurring (I think scientists have come to a consensus by now that it is not just warming, but more a general climate change), Mr. Lovelock establishes a notable sense of logos throughout the article.

For example, I find a relation between the second and third paragraphs. In the second paragraph, Lovelock argues that soon Greenland will have melted. Then in the third paragraph, he argues that the Arctic will melt, and thence increase the rate of Greenland's melting.

Lovelock continues to support the theory of Global Warming, until he feels he has proved it enough. Then he is able to take all of that proof and apply it to his principal argument: that we should switch to nuclear power.

One thing I notice is that many of his arguments have more of a pathos-driven foundation. Such things as Florida drowning, cities flooding (can somebody say "Millenium?" Just kidding. But who knows?), ice caps melting, etc. are not really supported much by evidence. Lovelock is trying to scare his readers into believing him. The facts may not be true, and most of the audience knows that, but what if they are? That's the question that he is attempting to implant into our thoughts. It didn't work for me, though.

9/11 -- Connecting the Cold to the Children

Peggy Noonan's article "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up" has a very strong emotional pull to its readers, as Phoebe analyzed previously. Almost as interesting as the emotional-side of this article is the audience that it addresses.

After Noonan's opening paragraph, she begins to both personalize her story and direct her audience away from just the general public. She starts off the body of her article with, "I've been thinking about..." (par. 2) in order to let her readers know that she is going to be telling her perspective on the effect 9/11 has had on college students that were children during this event. Noonan stays attached to the students emotionally and keeps the focus on them, but she separates her writing and views from the students. Her strategy is to make her story more appealing and applicable to people of her age -- those that have been through a great tragedy before.

Further on, Noonan states that "9/11 was for America's kids exactly what Nov. 22, 1963, was for their parents and uncles and aunts" (par. 6). Noonan doesn't bother to explain the date, because she expects the majority of her audience to know what that date stands for. For me, as a "child of 9/11" I had to look up the date to realize November 22nd, 1963 was the day when JFK was assassinated. Noonan used JFK as an excellent connection to bring more understanding of the situation to those that have grown cold to constant tragedy.

Those that aren't in Noonan's majority of readers aren't too distracted by this phrase because they just assume the date has a greater meaning to other people. A majority of those in this type of mindset are people that have felt overwhelmed by the events of 9/11. In order to keep this article attached to these readers, the imagery and emotion used by Noonan provides a bridge between her view and their memories. As Noonan interviews college students, those that have memories of 9/11 frequently connect their thoughts to the experience of the interviewees – including me.

"Children of 9/11 Grow Up" does a wonderful job to connect its older audience to the feelings of current college students, while also keeping those “children” interested in the article. This college connection might have been intentional, or Noonan might have been primarily focusing on her own generation. Either way, they are both great results of effective writing.

"A Man of God" - to some

I would like to continue the analysis of President Monson's priesthood talk in May of 2009 but touch on his expression of "ethos."

Lars was accurate by expressing how President Monson demonstrates his eternal knowledge and supreme intelligence. Lars also points out that all of the words given by President Monson are applicable to the times, and President Monson emphasizes how important it is to study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously especially in these latter days. In this way, President Monson accurately expresses kairos as a method of persuasion.

Another way President Monson in persuasive is not only through kairos but also, through his credibility. As Blake said in his post about a separate one of President Monson' addresses, the prophet of course is one of the most supreme human beings on all of the Earth - that is a given. But I think there aare some other methods that President Monson uses to lure in his audience.

Within the first minute of President Monson's address, he expresses deep love for the audience. Seeing as it is impossible for President Monson to personally know each and every member of his audience (which includes every member of the church - 13.5 million people) on a human level, it shows that he has been given a divine power. He has extensive credibility in the eyes of the members because of this fact. But to any ordinary person, he is expressing love. When listening to a speaker, it is hard to turn away from someone who speaks of their "sincere love, as well as... appreciation for your faith and your devotion" (par. 1). In everyone's mind, this man gains credibility for his unconditional love, no matter who you are - he recognizes the audience is important and he values your presence. Of course, President Monson isn't using this as a "method of persuasion" but it shows how he creates his own ethos. He doesn't have an extensive background of business success - he is a humble man. Because he establishes this sense of humility, people want to listen to this genuine man.

Other ways President Monson recognizes that his audience is important, is his comparison of the priesthood (held by the majority of male members of the church) to the power of God. By doing this, President Monson creates a feeling of worthiness that each member feels. Who does not want to listen to someone tell them how much they love and care about you?

Another way President Monson emphasizes ethos, is the way he provides guidance and advice to audience (which Lars spoke about). President Monson persuades us that his words can benefit our lives. Most people with a testimony can feel the Spirit to know he speaks the truth. In a way, the Spirit (a manifested feeling many members feel) is a way we can testify of President Monson's credibility. However, for audiences of other faiths may not agree with his advice. For example, members of other faiths may disagree that"living righteously" or morally is a way of staying out of harm's way. Overall, President Monson's credibility varies in strength between strong members of the church and non-members. For members of the church, they use the Spirit (or feeling they recieve when President Monson speaks) as a way to know that President Monson is the most credible human being on the Earth.

Finally, President Monson proves his knowledge of the scriptures, which contains difficult concepts, and interprets them to present day. He is able to make scripture messages applicable to our every day lives. He establishes his "ethos" by doing this because he recognizes things that we may sometimes skip over or not realize their significance. Overall, he demonstrates his divine intelligence, that makes the audience willing to listen. Other audiences may not recognize the scriptures as an important literary work and therefore would not find President Monson as credible as he is to the members of the church.

In a secular way, it can be interpreted that President Monson tries to persuade his audience to follow his teachings. For non-members, President Monson is less credible. They may not see the same power, love and intelligence that he emphasizes in his talks. In many ways, President Monson is trying to "persuade" the members, yet members are more likely to follow him solely because of his ethos, not his "power of persuasion." When it comes to religious guidance, members are not persuaded - they follow because they feel it is right based on the confirmations of the Spirit. It is controversial because the Spirit may be identified as another "persuasive device," but members testify of it being a credible source solely based on their faith.

Who could be more credible?

Continuing on President Monson's "Be Your Best Self," I'd like to set aside the fact that this is the Prophet speaking, since that is the most obvious sense of ethos we can observe in this article, and because there are more ways in which President Monson establishes credibility in his speech.

My favorite part about how President Monson speaks is the way he addresses his listeners. Specifically, how he uses "we" as often as he can instead of "you," which would distance himself from his listeners. For instance, in the end of paragraph 5, he says "As we do so, we provide the means by which our heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, can accomplish Their work here upon the earth. It is we who are their representatives here." I also like how he addresses us as his "brethren." Because in a spiritual sense, we really are. He realizes that, and speaks to us with that high of a regard.

Other reinforcements of his ethos come from the resources he uses: the use of quotes of previous Prophets of the latter days, and the use of Scriptures, which are the most credible sources there could be (as far as they are translated correctly, of course).

9/11 : A Reason for Unity and a Reason for Fear

As we pass the eighth year since 9/11, Peggy Noonan comments in the Wall Street Journal on its widespread emotional attachment to one particular age group. "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up" provides the commonly accepted opinion that 9/11 has an emotional connection that is taken very seriously by all Americans who were old enough to interpret the severity of the situation. When we all think back to the day of September 11th, there are common emotions felt by the general body of America - shock, remorse, pain and most importantly, fear. The author uses the emotional attachment to this particular historical event to convince us that there is a current undertone of fear among our communities in America that we are never completely safe.

In this way, the author utilizes emotional appeals to persuade us of this theory. She recognizes a serious event which is a very sensitive subject for many and persuades us that there is a constant fear present among the Amrican people. She uses interviews with young adults to enhance her argument. The age group Noonan focuses on the children who were old enough to understand the situation, but still children caught in their childhood. Noonan states, "Before they were carefree, after they were careful... the protected bubble of their childhood 'popped,'" (par. 5).

Noonan effectively applies the subject to a specific audience. Even her title begged curiosity - that is what drew me into open up the article. However, she also demonstrates that there is a broad appeal or an even larger audience because she connects this current day age group who experienced 9/11 to the generation of Pearl Harbor. She mentions that both audiences experienced the same set of emotions that should be acknowledged - they both have experienced "their first moment of historical consciousness" (par. 4). By tying both generations together, she suggests that these critical events in history significantly impact coming of age and maturing into adults. In other words, these historical events assist children in becoming American citizens and a part of a unifed body. "It completely destroyed our sense of invincibility... It showed the world could be a dangerous place for my generation that was never the case. My generation had no Soviet Union, no war against facism, we never had any threats" (par. 9).

It is clear that through Noonan's opinionated article, she uses the pathos or emotional appeal of 9/11 to connect to specific age groups and generations. She states that 9/11 is a way for that particular age group to achieve historical consciousness. She effectively persuades her readers that generations can be tied together through the historical tragedies they have experienced. Although there may be an undertone of fear, Noonan successfully creates a sense of unity because of her persuasion of tying generations together through their emotional experiences.

The Aura of President Monson

On September 15th, President Thomas S. Monson came to BYU to address the students in our weekly devotional. I've heard hundreds of talks from different leaders of the church, but his address was a very unique message, speaking on the prophets during President Monson's life, what they stood for, and what we can learn from them.

Before a word had even left his mouth, there was a high level of authority, or ethos, which came with the name "President Thomas S. Monson." His audience - members of the Church of Jesus Christ and possible investigators - know that Thomas S. Monson is the head of their church, and thus has a high level of credibility and believability. Quite frankly, he is the head of the organization that shapes the audience's lives. A lot of President Monson's message plays off of this fact: the audience believes what he is saying, they know he won't lead them astray, and they know what he stands for.

As if that wasn't enough, President Monson creates an even greater sense of ethos throughout his talk. He could have spoken on the lessons that he learned from all the prophets, but he chose to only speak on the prophets of his life. President Monson has an actual connection and personal experience with each and every one of the past prophets that he spoke on. By throwing in their favorite foods or funny stories that only someone that saw them on a constant basis would know, President Monson gives us reason to trust what he is saying as he connects past prophets to the current prophet – himself.

Social Networks, Communities, and the Government

I read an opinion editorial by Steve Duin, a newspaper columnist in Portland, Oregon. His story is titled "Ending our Splintering Isolation," and Duin touches on the current thought process surfacing saying that President Obama is turning the United States towards Socialism.

I've found two main points Duin focuses on when addressing this situation that creates a great sense of kairos: the view of the president, and the view of the community.

View of the President -- Right now, there are many citizen arguments made that Obama is trying to create a socialist country. The find socialist roots in his attempts to create a universal health care system, merging more companies/businesses into the government, etc. When President Obama gave his back-to-school speech, there were citizens saying that, "This is a President who believes in community above individuals and its [sic] clear in the talking points sent out to schools" (par. 2).

There are many on this conservative side, and Duin spends his time trying to reason with this viewpoint that turns "community into a shameful code name for socialism" (par. 13) His article works well to bring the opposing opinion into the argument, stating that what this country needs at this time is community support - we need to be cooperative and work with each other.

View of the Community -- Duin's article subtlety addresses another global situation in our communities: the lack of social networking. I read an article that summarized a book by Robert Putnam called "Bowling Alone," which addresses the issue that, due to a number of factors, people have stopped communicating in person, and social communities have fallen apart. People have gotten into the cyber-era of texting, emailing, and using other forms of digital communication to keep in touch with others.

This new form of "culture" is why Steve Duin is arguing for community unity in his article. Very few will deny that more and more people are shifting towards individualism because that is what they witness all around them every single day. Duin's strongest sense of kairos plays off this fact. Since people are drifting away into isolation, it is good that our president is finding ways to connect the public. Since people don't realize the importance of living, concrete communities in our country in the here and now, Duin shapes his article to bring people towards his view – America and its people need to support the communities, and not only is it good that President Obama is doing so, it is imperative that he does.

Time is of the Essence!

Is there ever a better message for the moment than a message from God? I realize this while reading a recent General Conference address from President Monson himself. It's called "Be Your Best Self," from the Priesthood Session of April 2009. Although this was initially intended for men with the priesthood, I believe that anyone, regardless of age, gender, or religious views, could benefit from reading these words of a Prophet of today.

The voice of our Prophet gives us three things to ponder and apply in our lives: study diligently, pray fervently, and live righteously. These principles have applied to every generation before, but they apply even more now. After all, many prophets have spoken of the Last Days being the most difficult and trying of times. Thus, we need all of the spiritual advantage that we can get. The Lord knows this and inspires his mouthpieces on this earth to remind us of these things.

The most interesting thing about General Conference talks is that there are so many stories of how a certain talk has changed someone's life in some way. The things they heard that day applied directly to their lives in some way or another. The reason this occurs is because God knows exactly what things will help the people of this world the most at this precise time. That's not to mention that it may not be only the speaker that the audience hears. In fact, it shouldn't. The Holy Ghost is also present in these circumstances, and teaches things beyond any speakers' knowledge to each individual.

Finally, President Monson reinforces his use of kairos when he proclaims, "To those within the sound of my voice who are struggling with challenges and difficulties large and small, prayer is the provider of spiritual strength it is the passport to peace" (par. 21)

A Presidential Inauguration or a Binding Contract of Reformation?

A presidential inauguration represents a crucial moment in time, a time of transition, and for some, it is an opportunity to change from bad to good. On the day of January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the first African-American president. From this point on, it will be recognized as a crucial time period in which racial segregation will be politically unacceptable. It is a time in which the conservative federal government will undergo radical changes to meet the standards of a Democratic president. For many, it is a moment of victory and relief and for the rest, there is a feeling of defeat and despair. Although there is this separation and disagreement of political beliefs, an inaugural address seeks to unify all divisions and in the end, inspire the nation.



Throughout his campaigning, Barack Obama's public speaking skills were widely recognized and admired. Even Republicans began to wonder if McCain was falling short merely because of the overall reaction and inspirational spirit Obama could build out of a crowd. He was moving; he stimulated his audience and he motivated his fans and was able to convert the swayers. The peak and final bang of President Obama's public speaking was his inaugural address that instilled confidence in the nation. At that point, citizens of America were relieved with their new president.



The reason for such success for President Obama's inaugural address, was because he used the power of "kairos." He recognizes the crucial moment of time we were living in. The fact that an African- American was elected president is a crucial moment in history within itself. But Obama also recognizes the fact that we are amidst economic devastation, in need of health care and education reformation, and facing terrorism on a universal level. Without a doubt, Obama addresses the right people, at the right time and in the right place. All the citizens of America are looking to be reassured - they want to know they will be taken care of. Certainly, the American people are reassured all of this as Obama states, "Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in short span of time. But know this America: They will be met" (par. 11). The reason for his success is because he points out that we need many changes due to the trivial time. He uses kairos to his advantage. Because of the truths he states, people do not recognize that they are being persuaded into an agreement.



This is the reason for Obama's success- he lures people in and soon enough, they are not conscience of the unwritten contract they are making. He promises that by unifying our nation we will choose "purpose over conflict and discord" (par. 12). Of course this is appealing to all, but what we don't realize is that there is work to be done on each citizen's behalf - in other words, the government, despite what some may think, is not going to fix it all for us. Obama manages to slip in that Americans need character change and we need to develop more integrity in terms of spending, developing better habits and conducting honest business. Of course these are all truths and each issue must be addressed - but what the audience must realize is that each citizen needs to agree to do these things for the betterment of our nation. Obama says, "For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies" (par. 58). When he reads this statement, Obama's audience is too caught up in the inspirational spirit to truly understand its meaning. In a sense, he is placing more responsibility on the individual saying that the government cannot function without citizen participation. Obviously, this is an acccurate statement - the government cannot work for a large body of inactive citizens. However, common knowledge is that if anything, Obama's policy will be strengthening the central government to the point where an individual's political responsibility is insignificant. The purpose of this statement is persuasion. It is enforcing the unwritten contract - the contract that John Locke once spoke about centuries ago. Each citizen has responsibility and in order to function as a unified body under government, individual wants or desires must be given up. These individual wants and desires are the bad habits Obama is talking about. Citizens must give up greediness and laziness - the individual freedoms that will not promote national unity.

In many cases, the audience does not recognize this "contract." Citizens do not recognize the persuasion in Obama's argument because he effectively works in motivation for a better day that hides the responsibilities that come with the future. Obama uses motivation from the past, a history that we all share, the sacrifices our Forefathers made for us, the battles they endured and the everlasting hope and virtue they first established. These are such powerful bonds that we all share, any contract would be hard to recognize or fully understand under such emotional ties. But citizens don't understand the importance, let alone the changes they will have to make in their lives. As citizens, we have agreed to "spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government" (par. 33). These are not bad things to change, the purpose is for a better tomorrow and to help our nation reform. But the persuasion is key under these circumstances.

It is obvious that a presidential inaugural address is an example of kairos - a critical point in time. But many do not see how in this case, Obama uses the kairos moment to his advantage by presenting an agreement among the people. Throughout his term as president, we will see if his persuasion through kairos was actually effective by watching the habits of our fellow citizens. We will see if his contract of reformation persuaded the American people. We will ask ourselves looking back, "Has there been a transformation in business transactions?" Overall, Obama uses the current times as a source of inspiration to present a contract of reformation. Initially, people do not think of an inaugural address as a piece of persuasion, but underlying the inspirational words and the motivational spirit of Obama, lies a contract that each citizen must abide by in order to experience success as a nation.