Blog 6

The article I chose to analyze based on Lasch’s argument in his essay, "The lost art of argument" that we have lost the art of argument in our current society was published October 25th, 2008 on the front page of the New York Times. The article is called, “A puzzle over prisoners as Iraqis take control” and was written by Alissa J. Rubin. The topic of the article is the U.S. and Iraqi agreement to start releasing Iraqi prisoners from American detainment camps back into Iraq. The problem with this agreement is that some of these prisoners are very bad people, the Iraqis do not have enough prison space to hold them, the guilty prisoners will need hard evidence to prove they are guilty and releasing up to 17,000 detainees back into Iraq is going to make their already high unemployment rate skyrocket. Although Rubin states her argument as being in the form of a research question, she does not prove anything or, like Lasch believes with modern journalism, is not debating anything or giving out new ideas for the public to agree or disagree with. Her research question is easily found in the first paragraph as: what to do with the 5,000 Iraqi prisoners whom the United States military considers a threat to the hard-fought and still fragile calm in Iraq? Although she states this question, she never fully answers it nor gives her opinion on the subject. Rubin simply and objectively states the facts. She gives details about the American prisons in Iraq, numerous quotes from both Iraqis and Americans and facts about the Iraqi court system.
Although Lasch calls this type of journalism “modern journalism,” I believe this type of journalism actually is better suited to the title of “traditional journalism.” Traditional journalism is when a reporter simply writes about the who, what, why, where, and when, which is exactly what Rubin and many others journalists do today. When I think of modern journalism, no, I do not think about debates, but I do consider some parts of it being opinionated which leads to an argument and other times even investigative which could change our society.
As for the research part of Rubin’s article on the release of American-held Iraqi prisoners back into Iraq, I think she effectively answered the question she posed in the first paragraph at the best to her available sources. She answered what the Americans and Iraqi’s are planning to do with all of these detainee releases and the effects that American generals and some Iraqi locals believe will happen and are already occurring. If she wanted to get even better results, she could have added more sources to her research. For example, she could have interviewed imprisoned Iraqi detainees, newly released detainees or the views of the Iraqi police that are going to be in charge of some of the detainees and trying to keep the influx of the released detainees under control.
In conclusion, Rubin did not have much of an argument rather than a research question which she objectively answered with straight facts and quotes, but her research was effective and well gathered.

You can find this article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/world/middleeast/25detain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Blog 5

This rhetorical analysis is based on the performance by Senator Barack Obama during his appearance on the “Tonight Show” with Jay Leno. During this period of time, Obama was still running against Clinton for the Democratic candidate position. It was obvious from his entrance that his appearance on the “Tonight Show” was an informal and laid-back interview. He entered the stage smiling and waving while wearing a plain white dress shirt, unbuttoned black suit and no tie. Sitting on the couch, he was resting his back against the cushions and had his legs crossed. Obama immediately starting smiling and joking around with host, Jay Leno. All of these factors clue his audience in that this is a very informal appearance.
Although Obama was very loud and light-hearted during the show, as soon as a question that dealt with his campaign and his policies was asked he turned the interview into a very formal one. He immediately sat up in his chair, stopped smiling and changed his tone of voice. I thought he really answered the questions and was even glad they were asked so that he could talk about how he “wants to change Washington.” Although he went back to joking around after answering serious questions, all of his jokes in some way were relevant to his policies or the presidential race. He also stayed on focus by bringing the conversation back to his beliefs and his want to reform Washington.
Obama used very educated language but also put in everyday sayings and jokes once in a while to make his language a little less formal. This technique was done very well because he related to his audience through language but still seemed very educated and intelligent. I felt that Obama was very sincere on the “Tonight Show” and that he did not avoid any questions that Jay Leno asked, but relished in the opportunity to share his views. I also think he did a great job in the way he easily changed the interview from informal to formal when the questions that Jay Leno asked were serious. It was greatly apparent just from his body language when he was being serious and when he was being informal that his joking around with Leno did not take away from his credibility and the seriousness that usually comes with candidates running to be president. Through oral language and body language, I think Obama was very successful in relating to his audience.

Blog 4

Until recently, I have not paid much attention to the use of rhetoric and how I react to other people’s rhetorical strategies. After attending a lecture made by Gideon Yago, a former MTV news journalist brought to the Ohio University campus to talk about the upcoming election and the importance of young people voting, I left the auditorium unsatisfied because of a number of his rhetorical strategies used while presenting. During his lecture there were many moments when I felt offended by his language, unimpressed by his speaking skills and also stereotyped as a “typical” college student. I also felt that the actual content of his lecture was nothing ground-breaking and did not flow together in any way.
His use of offensive language during his lecture, in my opinion, greatly conflicted with what he was saying. For example, he was talking about some of the time he spent in the middle-east and how great of an impact it had on his life but he was also dropping F-bombs left and right. His use of offensive language took away his credibility on the subject and also made him seem unintelligible. His language also made him seem extremely unapproachable and as though he did not take the lecture seriously himself.
Another rhetorical strategy that offended me was his blatant stereotyping of the typical Ohio University student. He made more than enough knocks at the typical O.U. student who, in his opinion, drinks excessively, does drugs and sleeps around a lot while partying. It seems like his rhetorical strategy was to try to “relate” to the O.U. student by telling stories about drinking and sleeping around as well as how he knows that we do it too, but relating himself to such a negative image and relating his whole audience to being apart of that image was a very bad move on his part. While a few audience members reacted the way he wanted, many were offended by his stereotyping.
Overall, the image I received from Gideon Yago after listening to him speak and later talking with him after the lecture was that he is a very sarcastic guy that needs to mature himself before he starts lecturing students on college campuses. I understand that he was just trying to relate to his audience but he also needs to look professional and back-up what he is talking about with credibility and educated language.