ASSESSMENT 2- MDIA2002 (GIORDANO SCUGLIA)
Views Journalism; in my opinion, can be said to be a very successful
form of media production and distribution of news information, due to
its subjective style of writing and its underlying argumentative and
persuasive strategies. These strategies can help assist the news
being presented to read well with particular types of audiences, who
may agree or disagree with the central claim being offered. Each
style of views journalism can alter considering on the type of claim
being made, and each style uniquely addresses its conclusion with
their own particular viewpoint. However, having the freedom to talk
subjectively can raise the issue of the news being presented as
having informal fallacies, which can cause the article being presented
to loose certain credibility and truth, taking away from its validity.
As of late, the world as been in-undated with news of potential war
situations, especially in Europe and the Middle East. This is no new
information as the media has covered this aspect for decades, but
nothing as what we have seen lately. A new form extremist terrorism
that go under the name ISIS have taken center stage, and are and
already have caused worldwide and international scare. ISIS’ aim: to
build an Islamic state in the Middle East, to have full control and
power. The only problem. ISIS is literally ‘murdering’ ay opposition in
its way, and the situation has grown so grotesque, that the outside
world is being asked to step in, in an effort to prevent future
international problems.
I would like to present a comparison of two pieces of views journalism
I’ve un-covered in my research, one from mainstream American news
corporation CNN, and the other from an online American newspaper
titled the Baltimore Sun. CNN’ views-journalism piece has two
components to its structure, consisiting of the main written article, and
a short documentary video constructed by a different journalist at
CNN. The piece is titled: ISIS: why it must be stopped, and is written
by author Frida Ghitis. The short documentary falls under the same
title however is reported by another CNN journalist named Michael
Holmes. The article possess two focal argumentative strategies, each
different and for their own purposes. The written article is largely
factual and appeals to authority and emotion distinctively throughout
the piece. The video documentary similarly follows suit, however
takes a more recommendation argumentative structure, challenging
the audience to accept and feel empathy for the cause. Combined,
both the article and the video hand in hand provide a successful
persuasive strategy using the induction style of formal logic.
Throughout the piece, the premises’ to the central claim are
logistically sound due to the factual style of the piece. CNN’s central
conclusion can best be described in the following in the following
paragraph:
‘ISIS is not just a domestic problem for people confined in the Middle
East especially in Syria, but rather a larger epidemic extending
globally, in which must be addressed and solved as a warrant of
restoring humanity, safety, and preventing further acts of human
genocide for the hundreds of innocent civilians caught up in the
extremist regime.’
With this conclusion, the article encompasses an enthymeme, in
which this style of views journalism appeals to the human
understanding of ethics, and what it means to possess human traits.
In this sense, the audience automatically begins to feel empathy for
the people in the cause.
Throughout the first couple of paragraphs, Ghitis appeals to authority
(or lack of) for that matter, in an attempt to dramatically draw the
reader (hopefully Barrack Obama and the United States) into a state
of emotion, which would hopefully prompt some sort of response.
Ghitis writes: “There is an important role for world powers -- for the
United States -- in helping save the Middle East from one of the most
ruthless and dangerous organizations operating today in one of the
most important parts of the globe.”
The single quote “important role” has certain characterizing features
of the argument being made, including appeal to authority, appeal to
emotion, and lastly appeals to consequences (bad) if nothing is done
to stop the ISIS movement.
In this instance she is appealing to their strengths and global
responsibility as a large body of power, to try and prompt the United
States to continue the fight in Syria, to liberate the innocent people,
being slaughtered on the basis of an extremist political terrorist
organization hell bent on achieving its aims total imperialism and
control of the middle east.
“…one of the most important parts of the globe” hints that this region
if lost, may directly affect the interests of the United States, so in this
sense there is a sense of a slippery slope/domino effect theory, if the
US doesn’t intervene.
“…helping save,” stresses a sense of urgency that action must be
taken. Appeals to morals/ethics, in which the warrant to taking action
against the terrorist organization is justified because it is trying to be
achieved for the rights of innocent human beings, who are having
their basic rights and freedoms taken away from them.
The video documentary follows a short but heart-felt speech by a
member of the Yazidi religion, Vian Dhakhil. Through the implantation
of this speech, Holmes subtly implies a hidden syllogism in deduction,
when looking at the following quote: “an entire religion is being
exterminated from the face of the earth.” She called it “a campaign of
genocide.”
The premise being presented in a three part syllogism and can be
applied to the rules of formal logic, and is relatively sound with the
factual contextual background of the piece, however If analyzed
authentically, can be considered un-sound.
The Premise: An entire religion is being exterminated from the face of
the earth.
The Yazidi religion is being exterminated.
Dhakil will be exterminated.
However un-true, the syllogism makes logical sense, and does not
subtract from the validity and credibility of the piece. Rather it ad’s to
the sense of urgency and responsibility the audience feels, as they
feel a certain sense of obligation to help save the Yazidi’s at the
same time helping to stop the extremist movement. She adds
“Brothers lets put our political differences aside, and lets work as
human beings.”
“work as human beings” breaks the political barrier, and automatically
questions the morals of the audience to make the right decision, one
that is positive for humanity.
The documentary also appeals to a large string of factual data, and
its high extent provides some sort of emotional appeal. Provides
validity and ads more substance to the report.
“UNICEF announced that 40 Yazidi children already have died. ISIS
surrounds huge numbers of Yazidi’s, with no water and no food.
UNICEF estimates up to 25,000 of them are children in desperate
need of assistance.”
Facts like these are then supported by deplaced Yazidi witnesses in
the documentary, including Jameel Ahmed who states that:
“…children are dying and are being buried under the rocks.”
The article and video together form a quite revealing and strong piece
of views-journalism without many informal in-fallacies, due the factual
and appeal to ethics the piece sustains throughout.
The CNN article and documentary was published on the 9th of August
2014, and I wish to compare it to the next commentary article to see
the progression in events on the issue. Basically the reason for this is
to examine whether the central claim is similar or is different from the
first piece of views-journalism.
The article was written by Cal Thomas on the 23rd of August, and
makes an argument comprised of factual, evaluative and
recommendations. In this case, the commentary on the issue is kind
of like a response/answer to the question posed in the first article.
CNN’s headline was: “ISIS: why it must be stopped” and the second
article I will address, which was published in the Baltimoresun.com is
titled: “ISIS is a national security threat.” Rather then exploring the
reasons why ISIS is un-ethical and immoral which is seen in the first,
the second type of views-journalism tends to overtly state its claim
through-out its justifications and warrants using an appeal to political
authority. It follows a circular argument, which uses the formal logic of
induction at times through some examples, but mostly throughout
makes assertions based on what the majority of people around the
world find as acceptable or probable. In this sense it takes the
informal fallacy of the ‘ad-populum’ argument.
The article’s central claim is best described in this sentence: ISIS
should be stopped at the source with the intention of victory, not
merely prolonging their destruction (such as aerial bombings) etc.
This is a war. This is conveyed in the very closing line of the article:
“…longer, if we don’t fight to win…” which will make more sense later
in my analysis.
In this circular argument, the claim is mentioned in separate
examples throughout the piece as its support. It makes a claim
situation, a justification and a warrant in each.
“Just as Japan and Germany were once threats to free people, so are
Islamic fanatics by whatever label they wear.”
The claim in this example is that, ISIS is a threat not only externally,
but also internally to the people in Iraq. Its justification is as follows:
People living in Iraq have little choice but to either side with the group
or perish. And its warrant: The rights of the people are being abused
as a dictatorship is being undertaken, reminiscing similar scenes from
Nazi Germany, which is wrong.
Appeals to comparison and analogy of history, in which the author
states that the Islamic extremists will fill the shoes of the Nazi
Germans and Japanese, which went before them.
ISIS is a serious threat not just internally, but externally and which
may affect even a great world power like the United States if nothing
is done on the matter. Thomas compares the extremist regime to the
ones like the NAZI’S, which followed total extermination of the Jews.
In this Case it is also an attempted wipe out of all non-Islamic races
within the Middle East.
“While airstrikes, a new government in Baghdad that may, or may
not fulfill President Obama's call for "inclusiveness," and support for
Kurdish and other forces battling ISIS, are all helpful, something more
is needed. An international coalition of armies must be created to
fight
and defeat ISIS.”
This paragraph is filled with argumentative and persuasive features,
in which an appeal to authority (or lack of it) being the primary focus.
Its claim: An international coalition of armies must be created to fight
and defeat ISIS. It’s Justification: There is a good chance that if this
was to take place, the ISIS terrorist movements may come to a halt.
And the warrant: ISIS’ terrorist’s regimes are wrong and are against
the morals of the majority of international countries.
It somewhat consists of an informal fallicy of ‘either or argument’ in
which the author says that alternative measures are ‘ok’ the ONLY
way is to create an international coalition of armies. This subtracts
from the articles credibility, just shows authors frustration with the
current actions and shows his opinion in clear light.
Furthermore, Thomas goes on to say that: “President Obama needs
to say that victory is, in fact, the goal. Our enemies are certainly
fighting to win.”
He makes the claim that Barrack Obama should take the fight to a
level where ‘victory’ against ISIS is the only solution in ending the
regime. This operation must be thought through first before any
action is taken as it could not necessarily be in the US’s best interest.
However, adopting and adapting the mindset of total ‘victory’ against
ISIS is a-little extreme and far-fetched to say the least. Once again,
Thomas appeals to authority (lack of it), Either or argument, and
makes an evaluative presumption. The author assumes that ISIS (the
enemy) is fighting with the intention of victory. This with credible
sources and facts with out a doubt in my opinion remains true, but
cannot be 100% correctly true, without any source of input from ISIS
officials and what there real intentions are in their movement.
Throught-out the piece; Thomas continually refers to political
authority to help strengthen his article, by using direct quotes by
British Prime Minister David Cameron. As Mr. Cameron correctly
noted, "We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a
poisonous and extreme ideology, which I believe we will be fighting
for the rest of my political lifetime."
Here, we begin to notice that Thomas is using the Ad Populum
argument, with the use of Cameron’s authoritative speech. Thomas
sums up the views of most readers in Mr.Camerons assessment of
the situation. He is appealing to popular opinion, which is even more
evident in the closing lines of the article, which I touched on briefly at
the start.
“Longer, if we don't fight to win.”
This quote sums up the general point of claim of the entire article in
my opinion, as he sums up his entire piece, by saying that ‘we’ must
‘fight’ to ‘win’ not prolong not anything else.
He essentially sums that we are fighting a living war.