rhetoric is everywhere. . .

TORDA'S FALL 2025 TEACHING SITE

rhetoric is everywhere. . .

11/1/2023

I think you are getting that point. Another way to think about this, English majors, is that everything is a text to be interpreted. And authors of texts try very hard to develop texts that lead a reader to interpret in a particular way.

To be able, as a reader--and I use that term loosely--to consider the rhetorical moves a text--and I'm using that term loosely, too--is to have power over the effects of that text--on you, on your world, etc.

Thus, rhetorical action is a real thing. If you can understand who has power over you, you then have power to act against it.

TO START TODAY'S DISCUSSION: Please post 200 words (roughly) on this question: How is this "text" from the On the Media podcast a rhetorical analysis? How do we see the Aristotelian Triad (logos, pathos, ethos) being used to understand the analysis.

61 Comments

Nina Hamel

11/1/2023 11:05:41 am

This podcast serves as a rhetorical analysis trying to explain how the coverage of the current crisis in Israel and Palestine is not well done. This issue is very complex, so when reporters or public figures comment while having poor understanding of the issue, then the audience is left with ignorance, misinformation, and no clarity of the subject. The podcast shows this by focusing on pathos; appealing to the audience and their feelings. While listening to statements by both the podcast creators and other public figures, the audience gets to see how different people have covered this crisis. Most, if not all of these statements, are relatively opinionated and share very strong opinions of the speaker (at some points there were even speakers yelling and arguing with other people). I can personally say that this sparked an emotional response from me, whether that was feeling sympathetic for those who are living through this crisis, or angered by the ignorance of people who do not fully comprehend it. I think that this podcast was very effective in making audience members understand that the coverage of this war is not effective. Like I mentioned, this podcast did spark a response from me and I feel angered by the lack of effective coverage and ignorance towards this topic, which of course only makes things more controversial.

Anna

11/1/2023 11:11:15 am

I like how you discussed that the audience can see opinionated and argumentative points on both sides, allowing the audience to think about the situation as a whole. I agree that there was an immediate emotional response, I felt that too. It is angering that the news sources we are supposed to trust are spreading misinformation, knowingly or not. I think because so much is left up to the audience's interpretation, pathos and logos work hand-in-hand in this podcast.

Ashley Luise

11/1/2023 11:13:57 am

I completely agree with everything you said! I also found pathos to be the most important of the triad throughout this podcast. The opinions of journalists and people writing on these issues definitely have biases - and these biases can impact who gets to hear what information (depending on the news sites you keep up with). I love how you mentioned the emotional response of this, I hadn't thought of that before but it's so true! I felt the same strong emotions as I listened, and it definitely makes the situation more convoluted and controversial.

11/1/2023 11:14:03 am

Really appreciate your point on the effect of bad coverage on bad reporting on the wider audience. I touched on this--it destroys trust. And then how can you act if you don't know who to believe?

Emily

11/1/2023 11:19:27 am

Hi Nina! I like what you have here, especially your response towards how you personally felt connected via an emotional response. That is a great way of showcasing that the podcast did a successful job. I also agree that the podcast seemed effective in getting their argument across and that the lack of accurate coverage is frustrating.

Abby Tenters

11/1/2023 11:23:39 am

Hey Nina! I'm glad you made the point about how readers and listeners are left with misinformation and a lack of clarity on the subject of these violent attacks. The podcast definitely relies heavily on pathos, especially in the case of the decapitated infants and toddlers. I also noted that a lot of the speakers in the podcast are opinionated and do not give many facts about the actual attacks. The only time it comes close to this is at the end with the discussion of the weapons with the weapon specialists regarding what was used and what could not have been used. I, too, was incensed by the lack of coverage and was desperately looking for more clarity around the facts of the event.

Joe

11/1/2023 11:27:03 am

Hey Nina, I think your points on emotion are very important. With this podcast we kind of see the media from a fly-on-the-wall perspective, and I feel like that makes it easier to see through the emotion-heavy arguments of much of the news displayed in this podcast. However, people who are seeing the news first hand and not through this podcast are much more susceptible to buying into the emotional arguments. I think this podcast displays a good method of looking at the news objectively and analytically.

Chloe

11/1/2023 11:31:17 am

I agree with everything especially how bad coverage can effect people

Anna

11/1/2023 11:07:28 am

This is a rhetorical analysis because it analyzes discourse in terms of the various opinions, information, and emotions being presented. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding this subject, so the speakers are taking specific sources and dissecting them as well as contrasting them with each other. Logos is implemented in this podcast by leaving much of the interpretation up to the listener based on logical versus illogical sources. Additionally, the examples of how viewer count increases on pro-Israel news sources while it decreases on moderate or pro-Palestine sources allow the listener to think logically about the information they digest. Pathos is implemented a few times throughout the podcast but the most striking one is the poem. This gets the listener in a state of seriousness towards the subject and makes it more connected to their emotions and fears. Ethos is used in an interesting way here, where we get a variety of different speakers with varying levels of credibility, and the listener is meant, with some aid of Gladstone, to decide what is credible and what could be inaccurate.

Nina Hamel

11/1/2023 11:12:07 am

Hi Anna! I think that you have a great response and definitely went into more depth than I did. I think we both agree on what the rhetorical analysis of the podcast is. While I did not cover ethos or logos, I think you did a great job doing so. While its important for an audience to understand a certain subject and get all the correct information they need, the people running the podcast (like you said) definitely left the audience to their own devices to make that decision for themselves which is respectable. Either you put effort into comprehending this crisis, or you don't (and in that case those people probably shouldn't comment on it). Overall, great job!

Joe

11/1/2023 11:15:29 am

Hey Anna, I agree with your point on how there is a lot of interpretation for the audience to make when reading about this conflict. Because in a case like this where facts can change day to day, the speaker has a less clear message to deliver to the audience. Accordingly, the audience is given much more responsibility to look through the information and think analytically about it.

Ashley Luise

11/1/2023 11:18:36 am

Hi Anna! I love how you worded this response, you brought in great points I couldn't put into words, yet agree with. I love how you mentioned ethos and logos specifically, you put these into words a lot better than I could! I definitely agree that the reporters gave the information and left the viewer with the opportunity to make a decision for themselves - it was really admirable. The facts are there, now it's up for the audience of this podcast to comprehend the effects of the crisis on their own before making uneducated and surface level comments about it. Great job!

11/1/2023 11:18:40 am

I think that one of the most interesting and frankly daring things the podcast does is talk about the deficit of news coming directly out of Palestine and Gaza and the way the US news media coverage is being affected by concerns over audience--MSNBC is down because of coverage of Palestine; FOX news is up because of pro-Israel coverage.

Also the part about how listeners are left to decide who is a credible source--that's probably would good rhetorical analysis should do, lay bare the most important issues and allow the "reader" to decide.

Emily

11/1/2023 11:24:52 am

Hi Anna! I like your definition of rhetorical analysis here. You did a nice job with connecting that definition to the podcast as well. I also found the pathos to be the more important factor here, as all the emotional connections really touched listeners and made them see why the speakers needed to comment on this situation.

Emma Oakley

11/1/2023 11:25:55 am

Hi Anna, I agree with your point that this podcast brings light to the seriousness of what is happening causing the listeners to become more in touch with the emotions surrounding these events. I think despite the factor of having a lot of misinterpretation the podcast does bring some type of awareness to what is happening and does help the listener understand the impact and seriousness of these events that are happening.

Paul Sweeney

11/1/2023 11:29:56 am

Hi Anna, I think you bringing up the viewer count is extremely important. It shows how effective the rhetorical tactics used by those wishing to push a certain narrative have been. This isn't just about the rhetorical analysis employed by the podcast, it's also about the rhetorical devices used to spread this misinformation and drum up support for unnecessary violent action.

Tini Ibrahim

11/1/2023 11:31:59 am

Hi Anna!

As I did not notice that the podcast hosts uses Pro-Isreal and Pro-Palestine evidence, I feel like it is an important thing to see. It does help the viewer know if the news are biased or not as there are always two sides to every situation. I interpreted the hosts as being unbiased, which does help with giving logical facts.

Joe Dwyer

11/1/2023 11:08:24 am

One major aspect of the podcast that deals with rhetoric is the emphasis on who is giving the audience information. In the mass output of media due to this conflict, there is a lot of media that deals much more with drawing emotion out of the audience rather than sharing facts. Also, the podcast discusses a knowledge barrier in this conflict as not everyone is knowledgable about the history of this conflict, but almost everyone is affected by the media caused by it. Because of this, many people are going to form an opinion without doing research themselves, and will likely align with the speaker/viewpoint that seems the most legitimate for one reason of rhetoric or another.

Anna

11/1/2023 11:15:16 am

I really like your point about how the podcast acknowledges that there is a knowledge barrier yet many are being affected by it. An understanding of rhetoric is extremely important in this crisis; as you pointed out many are choosing to side with whatever rhetoric they find most compelling rather than doing more extensive research. It's a tragic but concrete example of how rhetoric can drastically impact the world.

11/1/2023 11:23:16 am

Two points I think are very valuable: so much of the coverage is about making audiences feel things (feelings lead to particular actions) versus trying to dig through to the facts (which can lead to the same or different actions). Also, the knowledge barrier thing: remember what I said about what Aristotle said about Rhetoric: in the absence of truth, using all available means of persuasion. We really see this in action here.

Alex Neff-Gatchell

11/1/2023 11:23:25 am

Hey Joe,
I definitely agree that the “knowledge barrier” was an important part of the podcast, and I liked that you started with the “emphasis on who is giving the audience information.” I think this was a huge part of the author’s ethos, as they reviewed sources critically instead of just accepting them all. Had they done a worse job of this (for example, not conceding that the 40 decapitated babies was a premature report), even this podcast would have been spreading this kind of misinformation, so I think this was a really important part of the work overall.

Abby Tenters

11/1/2023 11:31:49 am

Hey Joe! The mass output of media definitely attempts to gain people's attention using pathos and appealing to their emotions. Throughout the podcast, I wanted to know more about the facts of the explosions and the beheadings. Truthfully, I was left confused and angered by the lack of coverage. I think it is worth noting the message from the TikTokker who said that people were forming opinions based on situations they had no understanding of. You can't have a formed opinion if you don't have all the facts you need to form an opinion. It reminds me of first impressions. A person is hardly who they show you when you first meet them. There is more to uncover, and you need to have enough knowledge to form an opinion on something as drastic as this.

Emma Oakley

11/1/2023 11:39:56 am

Hey Joe!
I totally agree with your closing point that people are going to form an opinion w/o doing research and align with the speaker/viewpoint. Unfortunately I this happens too much, and I think in result of that sometimes it can make a situation worse.

11/1/2023 11:10:17 am

I think that when I heard this podcast for the first time, I was really struck by how we see all three anchors of the triangle at work here. Logos: What are the facts--the actual facts? The focus in on. the 40 dead babies (might be getting the number wrong) and who actually bombed the hospital in Gaza are instances where people were just trying to get the actual story straight, and we see here where people did *not* get the story straight--and then repeated that story in mainstream media over and over again. And this, then, connects to pathos. Dead babies and bombed hospitals bring up some of the most horrific images a person can possibly hold in ones head, and if you take the news stories at their words, then that emotional pull one way or the other will affect how you think about what should happen next. And I know that it can seem sort of far away and not connected to us personally (though it might be very close to home for some of us--and for that I am deeply sorry). Which brings me to ethos. When I think about this story in respect to Biden and to the NYT, I'm really struck at the complexity of this real time reporting, getting things wrong, and what it does to trust. I don't not trust Biden, but I would always assume integrity, but he said he saw the pictures of the dead babies--and he could not and did not. So as a citizen, what do I do with that. Even more troubling to me is the Times reporting. They actually had to apologize about the hospital bombing reporting. I seriously value the Times reporting. And it's not like I'll never trust them again, but it does make me read with a more critical eye. I've got other stuff to say, but that's where I'm at with this.

Kaitlynn Rego

11/1/2023 11:18:37 am

I agree, pathos was definitely seen when the dead babies were mentioned. These news articles knew this would be an emotional topic for their viewers that could change their opinions on who is "right" and "wrong" in this situation. I was also quite shocked to know Times had to revoke their statement because they got the information wrong the first time.

Paul Sweeney

11/1/2023 11:26:48 am

Hi LT, I think it's most noteworthy how the podcast employs logos. Primarily it serves as a form of quashing misinformation, and in this case misinformation which serves to justify the extreme Israeli response to Hamas's attacks. You could apply pathos to how this misinformation has been used to justify the harshest action possible. If you make your enemy seem as absolutely monstrous as you possibly could, it lays the foundation for retaliation which would otherwise be seen as extreme and unnecessary.

Joe

11/1/2023 11:32:24 am

Hi Professor, I thought the part about the bombing of the hospital was tragic, but at the same time something we as an audience should be aware of. In times of war, media is one of the biggest components. And many times false stories are deliberatly planted to swing public opinion one way or another.

Tini Ibrahim

11/1/2023 11:36:03 am

Hi LT,

I do agree on how even the sources are unreliable, especially with statements coming from the White House. While we are not 100% sure on what has been seen or not, it does question the Pathos of this podcast. Not everything in media is reliable so it is up to us to interpert it in our own ways.

Ashley Luise

11/1/2023 11:10:39 am

This podcast segment steps away from the “sides” of the events in Gaza to understand what is actually happening. I found the beginning, where a speaker was trying to compare these events to 9/11, really intriguing. From a Western perspective it might be the closest way to comprehend what’s happening. However, I don’t know if these two tragedies are comparable whatsoever. I find this to be a prime example of cultural rhetoric in action. Marginalized voices are trying to share what’s really happening, while Westerners are hearing a comparison that isn’t completely accurate. Political affiliations also play a role in who hears what information. When reporters’ goals are to get the information out as soon as possible, their points might not be fully developed. Additionally, depending on the publication outlet and the writer’s own biases, there might be a different story being told from group to group. This leaves the audience with a sense of uncertainty about what’s really going on - communication blackouts in Gaza are making it hard to get the truth out, while Western stations are taking what they know and running with it. These pieces of journalism are clearly impacted by one’s biases and (mis)information, and can lead to an audience hearing dangerous falsities that impact how they form their opinions. Without hard evidence and concrete facts, it can be hard to depict an accurate representation of what’s going on to an audience with varying levels of knowledge about the situation.

Nina Hamel

11/1/2023 11:17:34 am

Hi Ashley! I think relating this podcast to cultural rhetoric is a very good way of looking at this. Thinking back to the podcast, most, if not all, of the misinformation and ignorance regarding this crisis came from people Western people (UK, U.S, etc). Kind of like what we talked about in class, people in power like to talk louder than everyone in the room. People from the U.S can say all they want about this crisis, but I can venture to guess that many of them haven't fully grasped what is happening. This is a time where we need to listen. Rather than giving our own opinions and criticisms of this crisis, we need to listen to those being impacted first-hand, most of which being marginalized groups of people.

CHARLENE AMARELLO

11/1/2023 11:18:16 am

Hey Ashley,

I really like how you called attention to the inappropriate conflation between 9/11 and what's happening now. Cultural rhetoric definitely ties into the Aristotelian shenanigans happening in all the news coverage - when war has come into the picture, it's arguable that logos and accurate reporting is most important to facilitate good and nuanced discussion - yet it seems that logos and ethos have been shunted entirely for pathos. Pathos effectively tugs at the heartstrings of a person of any culture because tragedies involving babies is universally upsetting, but at the compromise of integrity, you have to wonder how effective it really is.

11/1/2023 11:25:40 am

This is smart Ashley. the 9/11 thing is like a kind of synechdoche, which Aristotle would say is one means of persuasion--the reduction of a massive idea to one that is simpler. Some folks might call it a metaphor--another rhetorical strategy. But, either way, the design is to get people in the west to understand it one particular way--we know who the bad guys were in 9/11. This makes a similar argument.

Nicole Birchler

11/1/2023 11:10:57 am

The On the Media podcast discusses how everything, not just written words, can be interpreted as a "text.“ In summary, the podcast uses the Aristotelian Triad to show that understanding and decoding rhetorical elements in texts empower readers, allowing them to resist undue influence.

Logos: Authors strategically shape texts to guide interpretation, emphasizing the interpretive nature of everything.
Pathos: Gaining power over a text's effects creates an emotional response, suggesting control and empowerment for the reader.
Ethos: Understanding rhetorical moves gives power over influencers, establishing credibility by being aware of author-reader dynamics.

Marie Gupton

11/1/2023 11:27:02 am

I like how you reiterate that using pathos can suggest control and empowerment for the reader, since emotion played a huge factor in this podcast episode. Also, how understanding rhetorical moves gives power over influencers, I never thought about it like that so its interesting that you said it!

Abby Tenters

11/1/2023 11:11:43 am

The “On the Media” podcasts segment “The Fog of War Shrouds a Devastating Conflict” uses multiple different speakers to deliver their thoughts on the attack carried out by Hamas. OTM also brings awareness to the fact that the story changes on a day-to-day basis. There is a substory that discusses the beheading of babies and toddlers that the speakers in the podcast seem to think became conflated. Brooke Gladstone states, “One case of what we did not know. The 40 decapitated babies. A lot of grizzly photos and footage has emerged from the slaughter, but no one has confirmed 40 decapitated babies. In fact, it looks like it's a conflation of several stories.” I was honestly a little lost here because they said there was no confirmation, but they had grotesque photographs of the aftermath. Whether it was 40 babies or 12, I think it is safe to say that we all agree that murdering infants is wrong. Gladstone also states that, “Few really know what's happening, but everyone has an opinion about it.” I think this segment highlights the divide between the different opinions people have on the situation and how a little bit of misinformation can lead people down rabbit holes that they may never escape. It is a rhetorical analysis because it grapples with the way in which language sways different people to believe or do certain things.

Kaitlynn Rego

11/1/2023 11:24:08 am

Hi Abby! I agree that there is a divide between the different opinions people have on the situation. What really got me was the Tik Tok star that told their followers they are not going to speak on their opinion because they do not know the whole facts and would not want to form an opinion on something they do not have a full comprehension on. I thought this was brave on Tariq's side, they knew that was not the response the followers were looking for but they weren't going to talk about something that is being unfolded day after day with new information and/or information that is being taken back because there is no proof it even happened.

11/1/2023 11:29:07 am

Kaitlyn you make a good point here. This is sort of what I was trying to get at talking about ratings--audience expectations are ALWAYS a part of the rhetorical act. These news outlets are thinking about that. It also connects to what Ashley was saying about the 9/11 comparison.

CHARLENE AMARELLO

11/1/2023 11:11:50 am

The podcast discusses the Fog of War in Palestine by drawing from multiple sources, ranging from reporters to TikTok users, but are deeply critical of the intentions and results of such sources. This analysis of ethos questions the credibility of certain sources. For example, of course the Israeli sources will want to paint themselves as victims with a necessary response to the Hamas. The unfounded report of “40 decapitated babies” incited pathos in readers and spread like wildfire with millions of people becoming sympathetic to the cause, but what of the ethos of this report? It is hardly logical either because there is no substantiation to these claims, yet even President Biden picked up on it and spoke of it, spreading it to many more people. News sources also grappled with the damage to the hospital, some sources claiming it as an Israeli attack on Palestine while others claim that the damage is inconsistent with past Israeli attacks and it must have been a failed Palestinian attempt to attack Israel. In terms of rhetoric, it seems that these different sources write with whatever their bias is - ignoring logos, and discrediting their own ethos - to incite pathos however it can.

Abby Tenters

11/1/2023 11:16:38 am

Hey Charlene! I was honestly super confused about what the argument was. I know that there was a deadly explosion and other violent acts that led to thousands of deaths but the opinions of other people found their way into the argument making it really difficult to understand the facts regarding the event. As far as the bombing near the hospital, weapon experts have no inclination as to who fired the weapons because the destruction caused did not match with the weapons the Hamas usually use.

11/1/2023 11:33:26 am

I touched on this in my response. Ethos is really interesting in this discussion. I feel like institutions and people that people on all sides have been used to trusting have been called into question because of the speed at which things are unfolding and the difficulty, as Joe has pointed out, of getting out enough historical information to make the current situation make sense.

Emily McDermott

11/1/2023 11:12:51 am

Looking at the podcast "On the Media", it talks a great deal about how the current situation going on in the Middle East is developing with a lot of false information. The podcast analyzes this situation through examples such as asking journalists who are or were reporting from Gaza questions about how they receive information and if they feel that they can trust their sources. This is an example of a rhetorical analysis as it is making an argument that media is not a reliable source for information, especially with the events going on today. We can see logos, pathos and ethos in a few different places. Logos is used when they mention statistics about how often the information provided is accurate. Pathos is seen when they choose to use the example of the babies and toddlers having their heads cut off. And ethos is seen when they bring in sources that witnessed the accounts first-hand.

CHARLENE AMARELLO

11/1/2023 11:22:09 am

Hey Emily,

I think it's perfect how you called attention to how ethos/logos/pathos was used here. The varying degrees of ethos throughout the sources is almost unsettling to me when we consider the extent of tragedy occurring. Like, if we can't even trust the reporters or weapons experts or politicians who lead our countries, then how are we meant to feel about the infrastructure that surrounds us, supports us? The first-hand eyewitness accounts are of course our most credible source, but they are just citizens, not the people in power who can easily share their stories.

Emma Oakley

11/1/2023 11:35:12 am

Hi Emily! I like how you pointed out that Logos is used when they mentioned the statistics, I didn't even think about that part! You also made great points in how this podcast is rhetorical analysis.

11/1/2023 11:35:54 am

Emily you bring up something I hoped we would get to: the fact that we could do a rhetorical analysis of this podcast that is doing a rhetorical analysis. One thing we haven't talked about is motive--what is the motivation of On The Media to do this podcast? How does it help or hurt the real life situation? Does On the Media have the necessary trust of it's audience to be valuable in this conflict? Super important questions to be thinking about.

Kaitlynn Rego

11/1/2023 11:13:57 am

The "text" "On the Media" podcast is a rhetorical analysis because it is trying to get us to think about the issues that are happening in today's world especially the Fog of War. The podcast is taking quotes and information from both sides of the war to get their audience to fully understand what is happening to and from both sides. We see logos appear in this segment by using logical arguments. Again there are many speakers throughout the podcast telling their opinion leaving the listener to decide and interpret the information on their own. Ethos is seen because the podcast is taking well known news channels, Tik Tok stars and even the president. Their sources are credible and well known to every generation. The information is being spread to everyone in hopes of getting information to everyone no matter their age. Pathos is seen when the news clips mention the tragic events that are happening to the babies and children in Israel and Palestine. The speaker knew this subject would get their audience to feel emotional in hopes of getting more people to choose a side.

Terrell Brister

11/1/2023 11:20:36 am

I agree with most of this, but I do think that some of the people/things you mentioned under Ethos actually take away credibility, such as Joe Biden who got caught in a lie and the news sources that were shown to have bias or to just jump on the first rumor in order to get a story out quickly. The Ethos for me came after the fact where they had clips of others talking that refuted the information which showed that they really did their research.

Joe

11/1/2023 11:21:26 am

Hi Kaitlynn, I liked your point on ethos and the various sources the podcast uses. Though someone like the TikTok creator may not be an expert on the subject, I think it is still important they included this as it displays a major aspect of public view on the topic. And conversely they have other sources such as Biden, diplomats, and reporters to make up for what the TikTok user may have missed.

Marie Gupton

11/1/2023 11:31:41 am

When listening I was realizing that they were using all sides of the argument which is pretty rare sometimes for American News but something that is necessary. But I agree with you on the points of certain speakers being used for ethos and pathos. Makes you wonder if they are trying to inform you or make you choose a side. or maybe both.

Terrell Brister

11/1/2023 11:16:24 am

This podcast is an example of rhetorical analysis because it analyzes the media reporting on the current war in Gaza. The podcast argues that the reporting on the conflict is of poor quality and rife with misinformation, generally favoring Israel. It does this by including audio clips of the inaccurate news reports, even one of Joe Biden falling for misinformation and seemingly lying about it, and clips of people talking about their inaccuracy after the fact, which is an example of Pathos as it makes the listener feel a certain way. I especially felt the Biden one, where he says he saw the photos of the dead babies but the White House walked it back, that seemed to be a clear lie. Logos is used when the podcast tries to get the actual facts correct, like the dead babies or the hospital bombing, it is also used when people explain what actually happened and why the reports were false or only half-truths. Ethos is shown in the amount of different clips used from different sources. It shows that the podcasters clearly did their research and also found clips of people who are seemingly knowledgeable on the topic.

Alex Neff-Gatchell

11/1/2023 11:32:02 am

Hi Terrell,
I agree that the sources the podcast included were effective uses of pathos, but I also thought that these were among the strongest support for the author’s ethos, and not simply because of the wide breadth of sources used. Showing these inaccurate clips, like Biden, makes the podcast a more complete and less one-sided affair (as opposed to the “generally pro-Israel” reporting you mentioned it talks about). The analysis of these other sources that is done in the podcast is extremely important; for example, the podcast calls out BBC’s decision to not call Hamas a terrorist organization. Doing so builds the podcast itself up as a more trustworthy source than BBC, and it’s a move the podcast pulled off several times (such as when discussing MSNBC’s declining ratings).

11/1/2023 11:38:22 am

I agree Alex and Terrell The careful investigation and dissection of the dead babies moment made me want to believe On the Media when they had other things to tell me. This is an example of how logos and ethos work together--one contributing to the other.

Alex Neff-Gatchell

11/1/2023 11:16:29 am

This podcast qualifies as a rhetorical analysis because of its use of the Aristotelian Triad. Particularly, the podcast does well constructing a reliable ethos. One way this was achieved was by acknowledging what the author does and does not know. Brooke Gladstone notes the reaction to the situation in Gaza has been “a horror mediated and filtered through blatantly unreliable or premature accounts.” Her inclusion of “unreliable or premature accounts” helps earn the reader’s trust, as it doesn’t attempt to sidestep the problem but rather faces it head-on. She offers an example of these “premature accounts” later when describing reports of 40 babies decapitated by Hamas. Gladstone is careful to reveal to the reader that these accounts are, while certainly horrific, unconfirmed. She is unwilling to compromise her ethos for, as an example, the shock value (and pathos) that would come with the revelation of 40 decapitated babies, and it makes the reader more certain that Gladstone is offering the most “fair” outlook on the situation.
There are also a few elements included where the podcast effectively uses pathos to guide opinions. It includes an excerpt from Tariq on TikTok, who himself refuses to pass judgment on the events of Gaza, saying “Why the hell would I use my platform to do the same shit I said I’m mad about?” referring to people speaking on topics they “have no cultural competency on.” The fiery language Tariq uses is definitely effective in compelling readers to have an emotional reaction to what he says, and to be up in arms with him against this problem (having opinions with “no cultural competency”).

Joe

11/1/2023 11:38:39 am

Hey Alex, very interesting point about the shock value and how our speaker in the podcast avoided that for credibility and the sake of the information. We need to remember that media is driven in most cases by money. Shock value is abused by many media outlets in order to captivate the audience and get more views and money. Even in this podcast where shock value is left behind for the sake of the truth, we still have an opening requesting donations to fund the media outlet.

Chloe

11/1/2023 11:18:15 am

The podcast talks about different sources covering the recent news. They talk about the effects on people. They talk about how some news channels like BBC got criticized for how they covered the topic. They talk about misinformation that has been spread. we hear how differently this news has been covered and how some journalists have put themselves in danger to cover the topic.They want the listeners to take this seriously and I think we should take this situation seriously and stop spreading misinformation.

Marie Gupton

11/1/2023 11:19:47 am

This podcast is an example of rhetorical analysis because of their use of the Aristolian triad. Using multiple news stations and week known scholars and sources gives the listeners podcast a sense that the podcast is caught up on their information or at least have “valuable or credible” information. Logos being a large part of this podcast but not the only way to display the message. But most importantly this podcast relies heavily on Pathos and emotion since this topic is very difficult to see happen in real time. The podcast uses this pathos by using audios from different sources of very horrific descriptions from news stations or even those who post about their feelings online from TikTok. For example, as they call him “Tariq from Tiktok” his message would be chilling for a listener to hear because you could hear his anger and emotions all with that single 13 second clip. Using pathos sometimes is the most effective way for those to get their messages across since as humans our emotions sometimes decide things for us throughout our lives. Overall the podcast uses all three from the Aristolian triad, maybe they did it on purpose to really pull at listeners heart strings or in all to have their message be stuck with their listener so things could change for the better.

Terrell Brister

11/1/2023 11:24:30 am

I agree, especially with that first part about how the volume of information adds to the podcasts credibility which I found to be an example of Logos. And I definitely agree that Pathos can be the most effective, as humans are emotional creatures. We even see an example of that in some of the misinformation that was shown on this podcast, like the bombing or the dead babies, those were created specifically to pray on peoples emotions for propaganda.

Emma Oakley

11/1/2023 11:20:14 am

This podcast "The Fog of War Shrouds" is a rhetorical analysis because it is attempting to explain what has been happening with Israel and Palestine by analyzing differing opinions and information given through different sources. Unfortunately there is a lot of false information about this topic. We see the Aristotelian Triad throughout this podcast. In the podcast they make an attempt to dissect the information that they have, but in result of that us as listeners can not be fully informed and make informed decisions because of the lack of trust in the sources that were given. Though there is a lot of misinformation this podcast brings listeners to be more aware of what is happening and brings seriousness to the topic and inflict emotion to what is happening, and in that we can see the aspect of Pathos. Ethos is reflected in us as listeners on the podcast to make judgements on the sources we hear and to decide whether or not what we are hearing is reliable or not.

Paul Sweeney

11/1/2023 11:23:34 am

The podcast is a rhetorical analysis in that it puts across a message through persuasive argument. In this case, it puts forth the message that the reporting on the conflict in Gaza has been rife with misinformation. Specifically it has spread misinformation which has, in some instances, exaggerated the brutality of Hamas's attacks. Although Hamas's actions have obviously been horrific, these sorts of stories being put out in the fashion that they have been have helped to facilitate the extreme response by the Israeli administration against the Palastinians. The podcast creates the subtextual message through the main message. The main message is that of the poor reporting on the Gaza conflict, and the subtextual message is how that reporting intentionally or otherwise justifies Israel's response. In this case, the podcast primarily employs logos to get its point across, bringing up these facts about the misinformed reporting to convince the audience of its message.

Tini Ibrahim

11/1/2023 11:26:21 am

This “text” is a rhetorical analysis as they are interpreting everyone’s thoughts on the tragic events that have been occuring. The podcast hosts use speeches given and audios from social media to show how real this war is. These pieces of evidence also show that the hosts have done extensive research on the topic and feel passionate about presenting it. It is clear in their tone as well that they know how tragic this war is. Their comments have also been able to show that they are reliable. They use hard facts and do not attempt to sugar coat anything. By doing so, everything is represented the way it should be and the way it has been shown on the news. This is a rhetorical analysis as the Aristotelian Triad is being used completely. At the same time, the podcast hosts attempt to understand and show to their audience that the war should be taken seriously as there are real people affected by it. They analyze what they are saying and make comments with facts related to it.

Xiaoqin Pan

11/1/2023 11:28:20 am

From my point of view, this listening material is kind of about political rhetorical analysis, while at the same time reflecting the complex relationship between logos, pathos, and ethos, three of which are components of the Aristotelian Triad. Grounded in a range of different opinions on what happened during the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, the only truth the reporters On the Media want to tell us is that there is no truth. Both warring parties are fabricating facts, in attempt to expose each other's crimes like the slaughter of 40 babies and thehorrific explosion at a hospital, and thus to convince the people of the world to believe in their innocence, which apparently is the embodiment of rhetorical devices.
On the other hand, what the media are doing also obscure the facts and mislead people's judgments about the truth. As the reporter says, “it's a horror mediated and filtered through blatantly unreliable or premature accounts, and irresistible bias spreading a greasy smear over every lens.” They have broken the balance of the Aristotelian Triad (logos, pathos, ethos), because they lied too much and lost their reason. That’s why I think there are an increasing number of people not trusting them anymore and I think they failed in the proper use of rhetoric. Only if do they deal with the subtle relationship between logos, pathos, and ethos, can they place everything in order.

Chinedu Nwadiugwu

11/1/2023 11:40:43 am

This podcast - "On The Media" - speaks on the current atrocities that have happened between Israel and Palestine. One terrific event, is the mentioning of the decapitation of 40 Israeli babies due to the Hamas attacks. Those claims however don't seem to be factual and invoke pathos from listeners who happen upon the information. This is an example of rhetorical analysis as it follows the trend of media news not being trustworthy and making up stories or not telling the whole truth. Even our President was quick to speak on the story without assurance that the information spoken on was factual. Obviously that piece of news was meant to stir hearts and have people sympathize with Israel. But with supposed propaganda being exposed, it could make it hard - even impossible - for some people to support them. However, if not, it is very effective. Many people have biases on certain topics, so if given news that supports their beliefs, it'll become easier for them to want to act on it. We see this with the supposed claims of some people in America being attacked or even killed for being Israeli or Palestinian.

rhetoric is everywhere. . .

Leave a Reply.

ENGL 226

Archives

Categories