I believe Jon Ronson effectively uses rhetorical strategies in his interview, however, there are flaws as well. In the podcast, “The Spokesperson”, a London reporter, Jon Ronson, uses rhetorical strategies to report a story told by Rachel North. North was a victim of a train bombing that happened in London in 2005. She decided to share what became a controversial story on her blog page about her experiences on the train that day. In his report, Ronson uses rhetorical strategies to sway listeners to believe North’s side of the story. On the other hand, conspiracy theorists presented ideas to prove Ronsons beliefs were false. To inform listeners of North’s story, Ronson uses logos, pathos, and ethos, the three different rhetorical strategies.
…show more content…
Ronson demonstrates this strategy when saying, “There had been three simultaneous bomb explosions on London Underground trains around 9:00 AM …show more content…
While making his logos argument, I heard Ronson associated more factual information toward the side of Rachel and used theory toward the side of the conspirators. For example, he uses factual information about the bombs in London for evidence to argue Rachel’s case. He states the time, the place, and even the number of people killed on the day the bombs went off. He even goes as far as calling the people who disagree with him and Rachel, “conspiracy theorists”, which shows that Ronson thinks everything those people said is made up, or untrue. This shows a bias argument by a reporter where, in this occupation, he is expected to have a balanced one. I also hear a biased argument when Ronson uses the pathos strategy. He only states the hateful comments said by the conspiracy theorist. There could have been other comments left to Rachel on her blog page that were not harsh but by reading his listeners the harsh comments only, he stereotypes all the other people who do not agree with the things Rachel has to say and implies they are hateful people, just as the others. Moreover, Jon Ronson has an overall bias argument and is unbalanced in his journalism in the
Ronson demonstrates this strategy when saying, “There had been three simultaneous bomb explosions on London Underground trains around 9:00 AM …show more content…
While making his logos argument, I heard Ronson associated more factual information toward the side of Rachel and used theory toward the side of the conspirators. For example, he uses factual information about the bombs in London for evidence to argue Rachel’s case. He states the time, the place, and even the number of people killed on the day the bombs went off. He even goes as far as calling the people who disagree with him and Rachel, “conspiracy theorists”, which shows that Ronson thinks everything those people said is made up, or untrue. This shows a bias argument by a reporter where, in this occupation, he is expected to have a balanced one. I also hear a biased argument when Ronson uses the pathos strategy. He only states the hateful comments said by the conspiracy theorist. There could have been other comments left to Rachel on her blog page that were not harsh but by reading his listeners the harsh comments only, he stereotypes all the other people who do not agree with the things Rachel has to say and implies they are hateful people, just as the others. Moreover, Jon Ronson has an overall bias argument and is unbalanced in his journalism in the