The article, "Texas Police Officer Roy Oliver Charged With Murder for Killing 15-Year-Old Jordan Edwards", published by Reuters, describes how a police officer was charged with murder for shooting a fifteen year old black male while in a van with other people.
Reuter's used a curt and informal diction in his article because he didn't use an scholarly words and explained the story briefly. Reuter seemed to not have an emotional attachment to the story which serves as a "non-bias article". The words that he used created a very neutral tone since he didn't seem to have an emotional attachment to the story, which also help make it seem less opinionated. Reuter appeals to both logos and pathos in order to describe and explain the story of the office and black male. For logos, Reuter uses facts like using specific details of the story like the neighborhood and crime scene. For appealing to pathos, he states the family feelings and actions toward the crime and charges, as well as funeral plans. This appeals to emotions because the family lost their child that is possibly due to racial discrimination as well as the sheer fact of loosing a loved one. The author's tone for this tragic story came off as objective, as well as apathetic. Reuter used words like "ordered it to stop, but it pulled away" or "was struck by a bullet to the head and died". Reuter doesn't show any concern or energy to the traumatic story, but also does not detail his opinion through his article. Reuter's purpose in publishing this story consist of describing an event of a young male loosing his life. The story explains the issue of the black male being shot and killed by a white police man in a minority neighborhood. It elaborates on the continuing issue with white police officers supposedly discriminating and killing black males. It appeals to the readers emotions dealing with a popular topic as well as a tragic event. The overall goal is to describe this event and spread the issue on police killing people in possible ways that are unconstitutional. I think Reuter's argument through appeals isn't over all that strong. His organization seemed very weird in my own opinion and his main thoughts seemed to be spaced around his short article. Even though his organization is not well, he uses strong evidence and facts to support what happened for the event. I don't think the argument is completely solid because he does use reliable resources and it seems more like him telling just what he heard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorBaileigh Krause Archives
May 2017
Categories |