Wednesday, September 30, 2009

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.

1 comment:

  1. Well done analysis Phoebe. It's a very solid argument, but I'd just like to propose another idea, see if it is helpful.
    Duin's article does lack a strong base of logos, but maybe that's beneficial to the reader. Steve Duin is writing an opinion article, so yes he does have to make it very clear his thoughts on this issue of community. Once the bare minimum is established, though, it leaves room for the reader to think for themselves -- to fill in the blanks.
    People that read this type of article are those that like to think and see both sides of the argument. Setting up an opinion article with just enough logos makes an opinion clear and strong, while leaving room for questioning and analysis. Thus, a reader will further fortify their own view -- maybe incorporating a few of Duin's thoughts.

    Once again, this is just a thought process that has developed from reading this many times! Great job!

    ReplyDelete