Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Occupy Wall Street'

In 2010, the movement ‘Occupy Wall Street’ (OWS) appeared as a show of force for those affected by the 2008 ‘Great Recession’. One of the main purposes of the movement was to show the ‘American 1%’, that the average Joe was struggling, and to highlight the exorbitant income gained by the big business elite. In the article “Occupy Wall Street Has Already Won” by Eliot Spitzer, he claims that OWS’s goal has already been achieved. That the discussion of the cause has brought to light, clarity has been gained on the status-quo, and the knowledge that many Americans are living in poverty has been brought to public view. In almost an antithesis to Mr. Spitzer’s article, Morgan Housel, in the article “Attention Protestors, You’re Probably Part of the 1% and you probably don’t know it.”, talks of the fact that citizens of the United States almost automatically would fall into the top 1% of income earners in …show more content…
Most of his argument is not backed by reliable data, or factual evidence, but instead relies on a personable style. Which would be an effective style, as he writes about the actual feelings of the protestors. The demographic he is attempting to persuade could be more prone to his believable and charged writings. Unfortunately, his argument falls flat due to his lack of professional sources, and not giving enough reasons as to why OWS has made an impact. In a similar fashion, writing for the people reading, Housel, a writer for the motley fool, a website for investors, uses statistical evidence and professional sources to back his findings. Something that an investor would be looking for, numbers… similar to the information they would be looking at on an investing website. This provides a more effective style and tone, when compared to Spitzer’s writing, by knowing what his kind of evidence and reasons that his readers look