http://www.nytimes.com/
Take a look and discuss. . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
LOGICAL FALLACIES are arguments that look rational but aren't. The following is a list of some common INFORMAL fallacies, and the only ...
-
Okay, here is a discussion that started in-class but which--for perhaps obvious reasons--we were not able to carry on in-class. CARM --the...
-
So, I found this over at patheos.com. It is a discussion of some of the flaws in the tendency to pathologize. I thought it would be an exc...
-
Check this out. . .here is someone who thinks BOTH candidates are wrong! What do you think? How does he make his arguments? http://blog.oreg...
-
I wanted everyone to notice how op-eds don't necessarily have to be about politics. Here are some selections from the op-eds you sent t...
-
Okay, I've been telling you that I would put some pictures of the old and new Captain Americas up here so that you could compare the vis... -
Today in class, I mentioned that opinion writing is at its best when it presents a tired old subject from a new, interesting, and unexpected...
-
Okay, over the last couple of semesters (few semesters? few years?), I have not been using my blog very much. But, because there is simply n...
-
Here is an example from the New York Times of "Op-Art;" I think the argument here is pretty obvious (Republican=Bad), but how is t...
-
I was singing that old song "Home On The Range" recently (don't ask!), and I was remembering that, when I was a little kid, I ...
6 comments:
a perfect example of why the Liberal media is still politically successful--a whole pageful of easy-to-remember, bumper-sticker slogans deriding the opposition.
I wish I had that job...
It seems to me as though they are trying to make it seem that everyone in the Republican party is an absolute joke. One thing after another, everything that is shown has some inside meaning; but also lets the reader know that there is absolutely nothing redeeming about the party as a whole. Not only does it target our presidential candidates now, but it also targets any who affiliate with or support them. However, what it fails to do (from what I can tell) is address anything at all having to do with the opposing viewpoint. The liberal left is not even mentioned at all, while the more conservative right is played off as wishing they were as cool as the Democrats, but they are just too drunk to do it.
But bumper-sticker slogans are the backbone of political rhetoric--for the right AND the left. And rhetorically they are very effective. "Vini, Vidi, Vici" works because its short and memorable, same as "God Bless America", "I Like Ike", or Reagan's "Evil Empire" of Communist Russia.
Rhetorically, proverb-length slogans can be very persuasive.
I'm very interested in Ashley's comment: why do you think someone would choose to paint the other side of an argument as a joke? Do they really think that way? Why or why not?
This is obviously up for debate and I don't want to pretend that I know all that they are intending to get across to their readers, but as a reader I feel like they are trying to raise themselves up on a pedestal. They probably know that the entire thing isn't a joke, but anyway they can build themselves up in other people's subconscious will help them- and instead of running the risk of sounding conceited and turning people off from what they are trying to say, they simply don't even mention the opposing side of the argument. If they are capable of making the Republican party look like fool-hardy drunks, their audience will automatically ask "What is the other option then? What other groups are there? Is there a more responsible and driven platform that stands for my values and what I feel is important?". This automatically increases the Democratic credibility and draws people to look more into their side of things. At the same time, they know that if their rhetoric is good enough, and they are getting the attention of their readers they will have a much higher likelihood of perhaps changing their thinking on matters. They just have to be careful that once they get the interest that they keep those readers hooked on their ideas with careful rhetoric and more approachable subjects.
Exactly! It's almost like a print version of looking condescendingly down your nose at someone over reading glasses. . .
Post a Comment