The most recent election has shown how 24/7 news coverage can affect our political elections. News articles and coverage on the election have dominated the American media for the last 12 months with headlines supporting and slamming candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. The New Yorker published a piece by staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert titled “How Can Americans Trust Donald Trump” on November 3rd, a few days before the general election. The New Yorker is known for it’s left leaning bias with the majority of it’s readership residing in highly populated metropolitan areas. Readers of The New Yorker are expected to be educated and up to date on current events, particularly regarding recent political affairs. This article was written
…show more content…
The author states “Clinton is, without doubt, more “honest and trustworthy” than Trump. This is understood by virtually everyone whose job it is to inquire into such matters—journalists, political scientists, and historians.” With this quote and individually quoting eight separate sources all calling Trump dishonest, the reader may feel inclined to believe Donald Trump is untrustworthy. Especially, when none of Kolbert’s sources comment on Hillary Clinton’s trustworthy. This can be seen as a more logical appeal to the reader because showing only a negative viewpoint of Donald Trump may make readers feel the need to conform to the opinion. If readers hadn’t taken a viewpoint before reading the article, they may start feeling a subconscious drive to agree with the viewpoint. The reader can either disagree with every source presented in the article, or they can join the multiple authors and agree with the argument. Disagreeing would mean everyone is wrong except for the reader, which logically doesn’t add up. The bandwagon fallacy is commonly found in politics and despite the questionable ethics of convincing readers with a fallacy, it’s effectiveness is …show more content…
A flurry of insults and slander such as “Donald Trump is the kind of jerk who authentically, genuinely, unabashedly inhabits his own jerkiness” are thrown out in the article. Strangely enough, the author admits Donald Trump doesn’t lie about who he really is. Kolbert reasons that Trump’s public displays of narcissism and petulance are available for everyone to see, which makes him more real compared to Clinton’s more presidential persona. While this opinion may seem to weaken Kolbert’'s argument, in reality she uses this point to make an emotional appeal to the reader. The author attempts to paint the picture of Trump being an ill-tempered child while Clinton, on the other hand has been taking the moral high-road this election cycle. Even if these descriptions have nothing to do with trust, readers often associate the qualities of the president with the countries example of good morals and beliefs. When faced with the descriptions of both candidates, readers are most likely to see Clinton as more presidential and by extension more trustworthy. This is entirely an appeal to pathos with no evidence being cited.
In a final gesture at ethos, Kolbert relays the opinion of staunch republicans by citing the San Diego Union-Tribune’s endorsement of Clinton over Trump. The San Diego Union-Tribune had not backed a democratic candidate in its entire one
The author states “Clinton is, without doubt, more “honest and trustworthy” than Trump. This is understood by virtually everyone whose job it is to inquire into such matters—journalists, political scientists, and historians.” With this quote and individually quoting eight separate sources all calling Trump dishonest, the reader may feel inclined to believe Donald Trump is untrustworthy. Especially, when none of Kolbert’s sources comment on Hillary Clinton’s trustworthy. This can be seen as a more logical appeal to the reader because showing only a negative viewpoint of Donald Trump may make readers feel the need to conform to the opinion. If readers hadn’t taken a viewpoint before reading the article, they may start feeling a subconscious drive to agree with the viewpoint. The reader can either disagree with every source presented in the article, or they can join the multiple authors and agree with the argument. Disagreeing would mean everyone is wrong except for the reader, which logically doesn’t add up. The bandwagon fallacy is commonly found in politics and despite the questionable ethics of convincing readers with a fallacy, it’s effectiveness is …show more content…
A flurry of insults and slander such as “Donald Trump is the kind of jerk who authentically, genuinely, unabashedly inhabits his own jerkiness” are thrown out in the article. Strangely enough, the author admits Donald Trump doesn’t lie about who he really is. Kolbert reasons that Trump’s public displays of narcissism and petulance are available for everyone to see, which makes him more real compared to Clinton’s more presidential persona. While this opinion may seem to weaken Kolbert’'s argument, in reality she uses this point to make an emotional appeal to the reader. The author attempts to paint the picture of Trump being an ill-tempered child while Clinton, on the other hand has been taking the moral high-road this election cycle. Even if these descriptions have nothing to do with trust, readers often associate the qualities of the president with the countries example of good morals and beliefs. When faced with the descriptions of both candidates, readers are most likely to see Clinton as more presidential and by extension more trustworthy. This is entirely an appeal to pathos with no evidence being cited.
In a final gesture at ethos, Kolbert relays the opinion of staunch republicans by citing the San Diego Union-Tribune’s endorsement of Clinton over Trump. The San Diego Union-Tribune had not backed a democratic candidate in its entire one